The ultimate black hole theory

[AndyL]

in the center of the universe, there is now the shell of the big bang. It is now the largest black hole in the universe.

With the contrast between the flowering universe that is expanding endlessly; this shell retracts into itself, becoming the largest black hole at the center of the universe. It is necessary because it scales in with the growth of the universe and keeps things from "flying apart" too much.

Now my question is: is this theory new and sound? I welcome questions or ways to go deeper into this.

[Itoero]

How is that possible since the universe is expanding at an accelerating speed?

Edited August 6, 2017 by Itoero

[AndyL]

The black hole grows stronger (So dense that it is literally a negative)

When the big bang occurred it created other smaller black holes.

These are outer forces that are far away. These forces make sure the universe (or part of it) is moving towards balance.

 

This is now added to the Ultimate black hole theory

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, AndyL said:

in the center of the universe, there is now the shell of the big bang. It is now the largest black hole in the universe.

 

The center of the universe is everywhere and since everywhere isn't a black hole, you're wrong.

[AndyL]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The center of the universe is everywhere and since everywhere isn't a black hole, you're wrong.

What? How does that make sense? Perhaps we are using different methods. Is yours proven to be the absolute fact, if so please post a link.

 

Perhaps this ultimate black hole is not in the center, however it is where the big bang occurred.

It basically early on put the brakes on and slowed the expansion rate.

Edited August 6, 2017 by AndyL

[Strange]

1 hour ago, AndyL said:

Now my question is: is this theory new and sound? I welcome questions or ways to go deeper into this.

1. It is not a theory because it has no evidence supporting it. 

2. It contradicts much of current cosmology (e.g. there is no reason to think there is a centre of the universe)

3. You don't say where the mass comes from that allows this black hole to be so large

4. You say it "retracts" but also gets bigger. How does that work. 

So, sound? No. Not at all. 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, AndyL said:

Perhaps this ultimate black hole is not in the center, however it is where the big bang occurred.

The Big Bang occurred everywhere(if there was any such event, something for which there is no real evidence). Anyway, it isn't an explosion with everything flying away from a central point.  Rather, all of space was once much closer together.

The easiest way to visualise this might be to "run the clock backwards". All the galaxies that are currently billions of light years apart gradually get closer and closer. Eventually, they are all the same place. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, AndyL said:

What? How does that make sense? Perhaps we are using different methods. Is yours proven to be the absolute fact, if so please post a link.

1

Quote

According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion.

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, AndyL said:

What? How does that make sense? Perhaps we are using different methods. Is yours proven to be the absolute fact, if so please post a link.

 

Perhaps this ultimate black hole is not in the center, however it is where the big bang occurred.

It basically early on put the brakes on and slowed the expansion rate.

Actually what doesn't make sense is the OP and your own continuation posts defending that same nonsense. Firstly as others have told you, the universe has no center to speak of, except the center of our observable universe, and the centers of any other species' observable universe no matter where they be. The BB occurred everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed within the Singularity from whence the BB arose. Singularity in this case means the level of spacetime [the quantum/Planck level] at which as yet we do not have a meaningful description.

Your apparent definition of a BH also appears somewhat askew. A BH is simply a result of where a mass is squeezed to beyond its Schwarzchild limit. Also the BB was a "Singularity"  of spacetime, while a BH is a Singularity in spacetime.

At this time the universe has been observed to be accelerating in its expansion rate, simply because it has reached a stage where the large scale gravitational attraction due to the constant mass/energy density, is gradually and continually being overcome by a  vacuum energy component that we call DE and whose effects has been felt for  around 5 billion years.  Note at this time, that isolated regions of the universe/spacetime, in which mass/energy density is still relatively high, [like our local group of galaxies and other isolated groups of galaxies] are decoupled from this overall expansion rate due to gravity. We can go further down the scale then to isolated bodies within the galaxies, like stars, planets etc...These are held together by the other forces as well as gravity, like the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces.

While certainly at this time, other explanations are sometimes offered, the above "Lambda CDM model"  appears to fit the evidence best and is generally the one accepted and best fits within the framework of GR.

8 hours ago, AndyL said:

Now my question is: is this theory new and sound? I welcome questions or ways to go deeper into this.

You do not have a theory in any scientific sense...You have an unsupported hypothesis that you seemed to have dreamed up, based on some misunderstandings.

Edited August 6, 2017 by beecee

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Speculation requires that you have a model, or some way of making predictions to compare to evidence

 

[AndyL]

I admit: I made this and my other thread in order to attempt spurring someone of higher intellect than myself to complete my thoughts, that's all.

[Mordred]

Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

 

these articles are fairly low level on math, of particular importance to this thread is the cosmological principle. This describes a uniform overall mass density, with no center, where expansion is roughly uniform.  The two key terms to understand is

homogeneous = no preferred location

isotropic= no preferred direction.

a BH is a central center of mass system so it is anistropic and inhomogeneous. It has a preferred location and direction. (the center of mass).

Universe expansion is the opposite via the cosmological principle.  The balloon analogy link above describes this.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, AndyL said:

I admit: I made this and my other thread in order to attempt spurring someone of higher intellect than myself to complete my thoughts, that's all.

It might be more productive to ask questions about things you don't understand. Rather than posting nonsense and hoping to extract something useful from the responses.