🤓 Hello Cosmo-Folk !

All three of the subjects in the Thread Title are interrelated ; the binding element now appears to be Cosmological-Coupling .

The essence of C-C is that incredibly extreme compression of matter-energy seems to result in the generation of Dark-Energy . If we accept that D-E itself may have mass (as energy tends to) , then we apparently have a primal source for both Dark-Energy and Dark-Matter , particularly if we consider the initial"Cosmic-Egg" to have been a super-compression well beyond any black-hole .

The issue of the Hubble Tension does resolve itself IF one accepts that... as the Universe aged , it also accrued ever more Dark-Energy . However , it did this at varying rates , depending upon how much black-hole formation and feeding was going on at any particular time . Additionally , the quantity and distribution of B-Hs was also a major factor , this contributing to an uneven universal expansion within different regions.

1 hour ago, Professor-M said:

🤓 Hello Cosmo-Folk !

All three of the subjects in the Thread Title are interrelated ; the binding element now appears to be Cosmological-Coupling .

The essence of C-C is that incredibly extreme compression of matter-energy seems to result in the generation of Dark-Energy . If we accept that D-E itself may have mass (as energy tends to) , then we apparently have a primal source for both Dark-Energy and Dark-Matter , particularly if we consider the initial"Cosmic-Egg" to have been a super-compression well beyond any black-hole .

The issue of the Hubble Tension does resolve itself IF one accepts that... as the Universe aged , it also accrued ever more Dark-Energy . However , it did this at varying rates , depending upon how much black-hole formation and feeding was going on at any particular time . Additionally , the quantity and distribution of B-Hs was also a major factor , this contributing to an uneven universal expansion within different regions.

The moderator note applies to everyone who would contribute. Support with evidence, post it here. I especially want to see the peer-reviewed evidence of uneven expansion from BH formation.

I don't even know WHAT we are discussing.
The link has been removed, as per our rules.

Doesn't anyone read the rules before posting on the forum ?
I bet these guys don't get invited over very often; they seem to think they can do whatever they want in other people's homes.

Alright gentlemen , some support coming . Cosmological-Coupling is so far a THEORY , one still amenable to interpretation and logic .

The concept of gravity slowing down the Universe’s expansion is now well established , even the relatively new paradigm of "Inflation" acknowledging this effect .

C-C Theory fundamentally links black-holes and the expansion of the Universe's space , with the subject B-Hs disproportionately growing by utilizing some of the energy driving this expansion .

Logically then , black-holes reduce the expansion of space on a regional basis , this because locally , gravity travels at much greater speed than the expansion of space . However , at great distance the opposite is true .

The logical consequence of the above is that black-hole concentrations retard the local expansion of space significantly more than absence of them does . Varying masses of black-holes in different regions of space must then , slow said expansion in direct proportion to their overall masses .

**Addendum - Over the last 13.8by. , the rate of cosmic-expansion has varied . If C-C is valid , this would have reduced and/or increased the growth-rate of the subject black-holes .

*Reference Articles below :

Scientists find first observational evidence linking black holes to dark energy | University of Michigan News : //share.google/WDqMBhHgsW8dSlFhe

*Also : //www.science.org/content/article/mystery-force-behind-universe-s-accelerating-expansion-may-not-be-so-constant-after-all

Edited July 30Jul 30 by Professor-M
Link placement .

20 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

black-holes reduce the expansion of space on a regional basis , this because locally , gravity travels at much greater speed than the expansion of space . However , at great distance the opposite is true

What ?

The 'source' of gravity is energy and momentum.
For systems that have trivial momentum, their energy is the main contributor to their gravity, and since energy is conserved ( even when a star collapses to a Black Hole ), their gravity does not 'travel'.
If the system is re-arranged, by introducing momentum, then the 'changes in gravity' would travel outwards at the SoL, and if the 'changes in gravity' are asymmetrical, then gravitational waves would be produced.

IOW, Black Holes retain the relic gravitational field of the mass-energy that collapsed to form the BH, and would have little, effect on a regional basis.

I hope that wasn't supposed to be the supporting evidence, Professor ...

Mr. MigL ,

Yes , but... Cosmological-Coupling propounds a process whereby some of the mass-energy introduced to the Universe by Cosmic-Expansion is infused into it's black-holes , this greatly increasing their mass over time .

18 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

this greatly increasing their mass over time

The central BHs in most all galaxies were actively ingesting mass-energy billions of years ago, as evidenced by far quasars.
All nearby galaxies are rather stable, with no active central BH, as they went dormant long ago.
That suggests BHs are not significantly growing in mass-energy.
What evidence do you have that Cosmological Coupling is increasing their mass ?
And please define Cosmological coupling as I've not heard of the term.

3 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Scientists find first observational evidence linking black holes to dark energy | University of Michigan News

A shared document? Really? You can’t link to the source, so we can see where we’re going?

https://news.umich.edu/scientists-find-first-observational-evidence-linking-black-holes-to-dark-energy/

3 hours ago, Professor-M said:

Cosmological-Coupling is so far a THEORY

Not anything close to a theory. I don’t see any math, just some hand-waving.

The concept of gravity slowing down the Universe’s expansion is now well established , even the relatively new paradigm of "Inflation" acknowledging this effect .

Expansion is speeding up.

C-C Theory fundamentally links black-holes and the expansion of the Universe's space , with the subject B-Hs disproportionately growing by utilizing some of the energy driving this expansion .

Logically then , black-holes reduce the expansion of space on a regional basis , this because locally , gravity travels at much greater speed than the expansion of space . However , at great distance the opposite is true .

The logical consequence of the above is that black-hole concentrations retard the local expansion of space significantly more than absence of them does . Varying masses of black-holes in different regions of space must then , slow said expansion in direct proportion to their overall masses .

A black hole’s gravity is the same as a non-BH as long as you are outside the latter’s radius of the mass distribution, and expansion doesn’t happen in gravitationally bound systems, so I don’t see the “logic” here

And I don’t see the connection to the UMich link, other than you appropriated the name

Mr. Swansont , I personally partake in these discussions only to put forth my take on various concepts I find interesting , and to see what other people think about said ideas .

I am not a big numbers guy , but if you want I will let you interpret for me . The below link involves a more formulaic approach than I have so far taken . I chose it because it does address the issue of regional versus global effects .

Also , as regards black-hole gravitational effects , the gist of what I was saying was that cosmological-coupling changes the gravitational effects induced by B-Hs quite a bit , but only the parts of the Universe close to those will ever feel said changes .

Finally , I grant you theat Inflation Theory explains that the Universe is expanding ever faster , but... whatever the rate of expansion is , it would be more if there were no extant gravity to oppose it .

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/11/1/81

*Regarding regional variations in D-E :

^ Dynamical Dark-Energy Models :

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30u4003T/abstract

**BTW - Dr. Swansont , I believe your explanation below , but like many am left wondering "What the heck IS Dark-Energy , and why does it behave so ?" .

Edited July 31Jul 31 by Professor-M
Referencing .

19 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

Mr. Swansont , I personally partake in these discussions only to put forth my take on various concepts I find interesting , and to see what other people think about said ideas .

I don’t insist on formality but if you’re going to use a title, it’s Dr.

19 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

I am not a big numbers guy , but if you want I will let you interpret for me . The below link involves a more formulaic approach than I have so far taken . I chose it because it does address the issue of regional versus global effects .

Also , as regards black-hole gravitational effects , the gist of what I was saying was that cosmological-coupling changes the gravitational effects induced by B-Hs quite a bit , but only the parts of the Universe close to those will ever feel said changes .

Gravity is gravity. Gravity from a non-BH is the same as from a non-BH, and expansion doesn’t happen where you have a gravitationally bound system. Any part of the universe close to a BH isn’t experiencing expansion anyway, so how can there be a change to experience?

IOW, the supermassive BH at the center of the Milky Way has no effect on nearby expansion, because there is none. The expansion happens far away in intergalactic space where gravity is very weak, seen with distant galaxies not bound to our local group.

I am just seeing a Debate and Q&A.
First post what are you saying and evidences,mathematics etc.