Cosmological Model of The Universe

[pywakit]

"It's all or nuthin with me ..."

From "Oklahoma". Lol. Well, again I must plead insufficient knowledge to construct a viable alternative should my 'theory' be falsified. I have considered small variations of this model, of course.

In the beginning I thought it was possible a collision (inertia) of the final black holes could be the mechanism for the bang, but the general uniformity of the universe we observe today seemed to preclude such a mechanism. Still, I felt strongly that whatever the bang was, it had to conform to the laws we know to be the same throughout the observable universe, despite mainstream's penchant for invoking imaginary constructs.

A spinning black hole seemed the only remaining (logical) possibility. No gods, magic, 26 dimensions ...

Well, somewhere along the way you asked me to let you know if there was anything new. Ok. Here's something. First a little refresher. If you have read my model, you know that I argue against mainstream's (in my view) arbitrary limits to the mass of black holes. Over the last 15 years or so, they have (in keeping with the theorized hierarchical evolution of galaxies/black holes, theorized state of matter immediately following the BB, etc) set limits on how big they can get, and further, how big they could have gotten by now. First it was 10 million sols, then 50 million, 100 million, 1 billion. Their arguments/evidence/math have always been quite convincing. Yet every limit they have set has been shown to be incorrect.

From 2008 ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080909095133.htm

Upper Mass Limit For Black Holes?

Sep. 10, 2008 — There appears to be an upper limit to how big the Universe's most massive black holes can get, according to new research led by a Yale University astrophysicist and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the Universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centres of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun.

That was another convincing argument.

From Dec. 18, 2012

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121218143000.htm

From Super to Ultra: Just How Big Can Black Holes Get?

Some of the biggest black holes in the Universe may actually be even bigger than previously thought, according to a study using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Astronomers have long known about the class of the largest black holes, which they call "supermassive" black holes.

Long known? Don't think so.

Typically, these black holes have masses ranging between a few million and a few billion times that of our sun.

This new analysis of the brightest galaxies in a sample of 18 galaxy clusters suggests that the masses of at least ten of the supermassive black holes in these galaxies are ultramassive, in that they weigh between 10 and 40 billion times the mass of the sun. Astronomers refer to black holes of this size as "ultramassive" black holes and only know of a few confirmed examples.

"Our results show that there may be many more ultramassive black holes in the universe than previously thought," said study leader Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo of Stanford University and formerly of Cambridge University in the UK.

That's such bullshit. They didn't think these things existed at all.

"Our next step is to measure the mass of these monster black holes in a similar way to M87, and confirm their existence. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up finding the biggest black holes in the Universe," said Hlavacek-Larrondo. "If our results are confirmed, they will have important ramifications for understanding the formation and evolution of black holes across cosmic time."

Yep. Still can't get off the hierarchical theory. I asked Nicholas Suntzeff (you remember, High-z Supernova Team, an expert on black holes, and who argued with me against the possibility of such ultramassives existing ... "James, if they existed, we would have found them by now.") if black holes couldn't be both products of the bang (my centrifugal release) and hierarchical. He couldn't disagree.

So now we appear to have evidence of black holes that should not exist. And once again, we have scientist's ignoring the possibility that the BB was something else. And that there might be much much larger black holes already in existence.

In any case, this potential discovery (as usual) is predicted by my model. And NOT by the standard model. Or any string model.

 

[pywakit]

One of the problems (there are many) with both the assumption of the existence of the BB singularity and black hole singularities ... and by extension the presumed evolution of matter ... and by further extension the hierarchical theory of galaxy/black hole evolution ... is that astronomers generally look for things (such as black holes) where they expect to find them. In this case, since they believe that black holes evolve in tandem with, and therefore are a product of the host galaxy, that is where they look for them. Of course, I must assume it is far more difficult to find a black hole that is not currently feeding and/or lacks an accretion disc ... or stars whipping around the core ... and clearly, searching for black holes is quite time-consuming (and expensive) at best.

As I just stated in the previous post, Dr. Suntzeff said if (ultramassive black holes) existed, we would have found them by now. And I disagreed. Not if we have assumed they can't exist ... and not if we haven't looked in the right places.

Not long ago, a young researcher apparently discovered a supermassive black hole in a dwarf galaxy. In my email exchanges with Dr. Suntzeff I asked him about this (and other discoveries) and his view was that the discovery was "most probably" in error, and the central black hole was likely much smaller than claimed. Again, he is somewhat of an expert on black holes, and (like so many others in mainstream) convinced black holes evolve in the hierarchical manner. He believes (or believed ... he may think differently by now) that the underlying theories were sound, and that there was more than sufficient observational evidence to peg the mass of a black hole to not only the size of the host galaxy but the age of the universe.

Wonder how he feels about this discovery ...

http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/news/releases/2012/1128.html

Texas Astronomers Measure Most Massive, Most Unusual Black Hole Using Hobby-Eberly Telescope

28 November 2012

Fort Davis, Texas — Astronomers have used the Hobby-Eberly Telescope at The University of Texas at Austin's McDonald Observatory to measure the mass of what may be the most massive black hole yet — 17 billion Suns — in galaxy NGC 1277. The unusual black hole makes up 14 percent of its galaxy's mass, rather than the usual 0.1 percent. This galaxy and several more in the same study could change theories of how black holes and galaxies form and evolve. The work will appear in the journal Nature on Nov. 29.

NGC 1277 lies 220 million light-years away in the constellation Perseus. The galaxy is only ten percent the size and mass of our own Milky Way. Despite NGC 1277's diminutive size, the black hole at its heart is more than 11 times as wide as Neptune's orbit around the Sun.

Wasn't long ago that the most massive black hole was pegged at 6.6 billion sols.

http://blackholes.stardate.org/resources/faqs/faq.php?p=biggest-black-hole

And as recently as last August, the largest was said to be 9.7 billion sols.

http://www.space.com/15941-strangest-black-holes-universe-countdown.html

The Biggest Black Holes

Nearly all galaxies are thought to harbor at their cores supermassive black holes millions to billions of times the mass of our sun. Scientists recently discovered the largest black holes known in two nearby galaxies.

One of these galaxies, known as NGC 3842 — the brightest galaxy in the Leo cluster nearly 320 million light years away — has a central black hole containing 9.7 billion solar masses. The other, NGC 4889, the brightest galaxy in the Coma cluster more than 335 million light years away, has a black hole of comparable or larger mass.

The gravitational range, or "event horizon," of these black holes is about five times the distance from the sun to Pluto. For comparison, these black holes are 2,500 times as massive as the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, whose event horizon is one-fifth the orbit of Mercury.

This is fascinating ...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/29/monster-black-hole-biggest-ever-found/

NGC 1277's black hole could be many times more massive than its largest known competitor, which is estimated but not confirmed to be between 6 billion and 37 billion solar masses in size. It makes up about 59 percent of its host galaxy's central mass - the bulge of stars at the core. The object's closest competitor is in the galaxy NGC 4486B, whose black hole takes up 11 percent of that galaxy's central bulge mass.

"As predicted." One researcher made this comment regarding the monster black holes recently discovered. Of course, in theory, there is no limit to how massive a black hole can get. Yet, these same scientists have spent the last decade or two downplaying black holes in general (first thought to be rare and exotic) and setting limits to their growth through any number of mechanisms. To say these new discoveries are 'predicted' is disingenuous at best. To not make it clear that these discoveries are in conflict with virtually all mainstream theories illustrates the 'supermassive' egos of scientists. They just don't like to admit they were wrong, do they?

But there is good news for mainstream. It appears black holes can't get any bigger than 50 billion sols.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14653-how-big-can-a-black-hole-grow.html

Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit.

Previous studies have also suggested this, and it may be due to the way radiation from infalling matter blasts the black hole's neighbourhood free of additional sustenance. "They self-regulate," says Natarajan. "They never grow beyond a certain mass in any epoch."

Knowing this growth rate allowed them to work out the modern-day size of the biggest known black holes that existed in the early universe. Back then, they are estimated to have had the mass of about a billion suns. According to Natarajan and Treister, a few black holes of this size may have bloated to "ultramassive" size by now, with between 5 and 50 billion times the sun's mass, at the most. Even a black hole at the lower end of this range would be gargantuan - more than 3 times as wide as our solar system.

Just couldn't (and clearly most still can't) accept that black holes may have existed since the BB. If the standard model is generally correct, then black holes couldn't have existed then, given the (theorized) state of matter. I'm thinking science shouldn't have put all their theoretical "eggs" in one basket.

All of these recent discoveries are consistent with my model. And all are inconsistent with mainstream theories based on the standard model ... the 'singularity' and the subsequent evolution of matter, the emergence of gravity, e/m, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, and of course stars, galaxies and black holes.

Science continues to be baffled by these discoveries, and seeks solutions that will somehow 'fit' within the theoretical parameters they have set ... rather than considering the possibility that they have the whole thing wrong from the BB on. As Suntzeff said ... the entire foundation of mainstream theory could collapse from one astronomical observation.

The evidence appears to be mounting. I think they need to start looking for ultramassives (and bigger) where they least expect them:

At the beginning.

 

[pywakit]

You are all familiar with the following ...

The microwave WMAP image at http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/evolving-universe/posters/4.0.1.pdf shows the universe at just 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

The observable universe is at that time 100 million light years across. About 1,000 times the current diameter of the Milky Way.

Although the temperature differences are not vast in this image, it is clear there is a lack of uniformity. It is also impossible to discern any real detail from this image.

It is described by NASA as "before the first stars and galaxies were formed."

But what about black holes?

Again, from this image, encompassing such a large area, impossible to tell if they are hidden within.

Can they be ruled out?

Only if we assume the universe began from a zero-dimension 'singularity'. And only if we assume mainstream theories regarding the evolution of matter are correct.

It would be interesting to see what a computer simulation of the universe at 300,000 years would look like if the 'bang' was a sudden centrifugal release of matter/energy from a 'giga-massive' black hole. Of course, until science has accumulated much more evidence of black holes existing in the very early years ... in other words ... until the evidence is overwhelming ... it is unlikely anyone will take the time to program and run such a simulation.

No doubt doing so would not be easy.

Yet I can't help but wonder how close it would come to the WMAP image ...

 

[AlexG]

It would be interesting to see what a computer simulation of the universe at 300,000 years would look like if the 'bang' was a sudden centrifugal release of matter/energy from a 'giga-massive' black hole.

In that case, there should be a center to the universe, and an expanding front.

That turns out to be not the case. There is no matter/energy moving 'outward', and there is no center from which it comes.

 

[pywakit]

"It would be interesting to see what a computer simulation of the universe at 300,000 years would look like if the 'bang' was a sudden centrifugal release of matter/energy from a 'giga-massive' black hole."

In that case, there should be a center to the universe, and an expanding front.

That turns out to be not the case. There is no matter/energy moving 'outward', and there is no center from which it comes.

I understand the cosmological principle is consistent with observations. Still, we do not know what happened at the Big Bang. We don't know what happened immediately following the Big Bang. We have made guesses. Lots of them. Yes, the universe is generally homogeneous and isotropic. Yes, the universe appears to be expanding from 'all' points. But there could be other equally valid theories for observed phenomena. We just haven't thought of them yet.

Science does not yet have all the critical answers, and as I'm sure you know, mainstream theories relating to the origins and evolution of the universe are under constant attack from new observations and experiments.

Does the cosmological principle falsify the model? Does it preclude the existence of a gigamassive black hole at the beginning of the expansion, or a centrifugal release of mass? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong on this. But if my model was falsified so simply, you would think at least one of the cosmologists/astrophysicists who responded over the last 4 years would have done so, rather than argue about things like mass limits and spin. None of them did.

Curious. Isn't Guth's theory predicated upon the existence of the singularity? Yes. I think it is.

Does he describe a likely or plausible cause and/or physical mechanism for this sudden inflation? Not to my knowledge.

What does it do to his theory if it turns out nature doesn't allow infinitely small, infinitely dense?

Sorry Alex. Not ready to throw in the towel just yet. The next 15 years are going to be incredible ones for astrophysics ... and cosmology. We have a lot to observe still.

 

[AlexG]

Isn't Guth's theory predicated upon the existence of the singularity? Yes. I think it is.

No, Inflation theory does not require a singularity. A couple of ounces of mass/energy occupying a volume aproximately the same as a proton is all that's required .

Does he describe a likely or plausible cause and/or physical mechanism for this sudden inflation? Not to my knowledge.

Yes. The mechanism is a scalar field called the Inflaton field. It has a non-zero energy density when the field is at it's zero point.

 

[pywakit]

No, Inflation theory does not require a singularity. A couple of ounces of mass/energy occupying a volume aproximately the same as a proton is all that's required .

My error. I will take your word for it.

Yes. The mechanism is a scalar field called the Inflaton field. It has a non-zero energy density when the field is at it's zero point.

Forgive me, but is there observational and/or experimental evidence for this?

Do we know for certain that the inflation began with a "few ounces" of m/e?

Are Steinhardt and Penrose idiots? I suppose it's possible.

In any case, does any of this falsify the model? Do we now have incontrovertible evidence that the initial expansion was not due to a black hole's centrifugal release of matter?

I don't think so. But, again, time will tell.

 

[AlexG]

Do we now have incontrovertible evidence that the initial expansion was not due to a black hole's centrifugal release of matter?

You know that's not how it's done. You are making the claim, you supply the evidence for it. You don't say, 'prove me wrong'. Your idea that somehow centrifugal force can be sufficient to accelerate matter faster than light contradicts both Special and General Relativity. I would call that evidence that your idea is wrong.

The onus is on you to support your idea.

 

[pywakit]

"Do we now have incontrovertible evidence that the initial expansion was not due to a black hole's centrifugal release of matter?"

You know that's not how it's done. You are making the claim, you supply the evidence for it. You don't say, 'prove me wrong'. Your idea that somehow centrifugal force can be sufficient to accelerate matter faster than light contradicts both Special and General Relativity. I would call that evidence that your idea is wrong.

The onus is on you to support your idea.

In this case, I am not going to take your word for it. As good as they are in 'normal' space, neither SR nor GR can accurately (and fully) describe the physical properties of a black hole beyond the event horizon. We currently have no way to observe the interior. While I fully admit my understanding of physics is very limited, if I am not mistaken, QM, also well supported, says all matter occupies volume. This appears to conflict with GR which states matter can occupy zero volume.

It's certainly true that nothing can 'catch up' to a photon traveling in normal space. But what is space inside the event horizon? What happens to the laws of space when it is warped and stretched to extremes? Science doesn't know. You don't know.

We have yet to observe a Schwarzschild non-rotating, static black hole. Doubt we ever will. All appear to rotate, and there is at least some evidence that black hole rotation could surpass set theoretical limits.

If space is 'broken' inside the event horizon, and if the 'center' of black holes has volume, and if they do spin, then the equatorial surface could easily surpass c, as I describe in my model.

I'm not asking you to disprove my model. I merely asked if you had.

In fact, I include many supporting papers and articles. Further, I make several predictions of previously unobserved phenomena, not already predicted (directly or inherently) by the standard model. True, they are rather simple predictions, and not up to academia's standards (by a long shot), but they are easy to understand. I don't think I need to supply the mathematical description for you or anyone else to get it. Not that I could, in any case.

But no, I don't think you can claim with any certainty that my model violates SR and GR.

On the other hand, any new observation could collapse my model. If I am wrong, it will be very disappointing. Still, I remain content just having tried. Hope you understand.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It's certainly true that nothing can 'catch up' to a photon traveling in normal space. But what is space inside the event horizon? What happens to the laws of space when it is warped and stretched to extremes? Science doesn't know. You don't know.

It's a common misconception that GR isn't valid or able to say anything about the inside of an event horizon. GR doesn't break down at the event horizon, it breaks down when you're within a few Planck lengths of the singularity in the middle. Yes, it isn't confirmed what GR says about the inside of an event horizon is right but there's nothing within GR which says there's an issue or a break down.

Due to some specific details the larger the black hole the weaker the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon. This is because the radius grows with mass linearly, $$R_{s} = \frac{2GM}{c^{2}}$$ so if you double the mass you double the radius. But, in an arm waving way which can be formalised, we know gravity drops off like $$F \propto \frac{M}{r^{2}}$$, which becomes $$F \propto \frac{M}{R_{s}^{2}} = \frac{M}{M^{2}} = \frac{1}{M}$$.

If the entire galaxy was collapsed into a black hole it would have the average density equal to water and the gravitational strength at the event horizon would be lower than the gravity you experience right now on Earth. The event horizon is determined by space-time curvature, while the acceleration is, in an arm waving way, related to the change in curvature. Hence how you can have lots of curvature with minimal gravitational acceleration.

 

[pywakit]

It's a common misconception that GR isn't valid or able to say anything about the inside of an event horizon. GR doesn't break down at the event horizon, it breaks down when you're within a few Planck lengths of the singularity in the middle. Yes, it isn't confirmed what GR says about the inside of an event horizon is right but there's nothing within GR which says there's an issue or a break down.

Due to some specific details the larger the black hole the weaker the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon. This is because the radius grows with mass linearly, $$R_{s} = \frac{2GM}{c^{2}}$$ so if you double the mass you double the radius. But, in an arm waving way which can be formalised, we know gravity drops off like $$F \propto \frac{M}{r^{2}}$$, which becomes $$F \propto \frac{M}{R_{s}^{2}} = \frac{M}{M^{2}} = \frac{1}{M}$$.

If the entire galaxy was collapsed into a black hole it would have the average density equal to water and the gravitational strength at the event horizon would be lower than the gravity you experience right now on Earth. The event horizon is determined by space-time curvature, while the acceleration is, in an arm waving way, related to the change in curvature. Hence how you can have lots of curvature with minimal gravitational acceleration.

Thanks Alpha. Astonishingly, I have a minimal grasp of this. But I think you miss the point. As you said, the average density would be equal to water. Hence, the density nearest the horizon itself is far less. Closer to the center, far more.

I can't argue with the mathematics. However, you have zero evidence singularities exist. No observations. No experiments. Therefore, it is somewhat premature to assume that GR is valid "down to a few Planck lengths of the singularity".

Yes, GR is observationally and experimentally valid on macro scales. But I repeat, we have no way to observe inside the horizon. If the entire mass of the observable universe is (was) contained within a black hole, the density at the event horizon would be far less than space itself (correct me if I am wrong) and the curvature of space would be virtually imperceptible. Near the center? Quite a different story, don't you think?

My statements (and model) stand.

While I appreciate your input, may I suggest we simply wait until we have more data?

I scour the science articles for new discoveries/observations all the time. If I find one that blows my 'ideas' out of the water, I will post it. For now, as each new discovery appears to lend further support for my model, I will keep holding (foolishly) onto hope.

I have said this numerous times: Perhaps I am completely wrong. Time will tell.

 

[quantum_wave]

This link is to an experiment that you may already be familiar with, and probably not pertinent, but you might be interested: http://www.esa.int/About_Us/GSP/Towards_a_new_test_of_general_relativity

Here is a snip-it: "Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart)."

 

[pywakit]

This link is to an experiment that you may already be familiar with, and probably not pertinent, but you might be interested: http://www.esa.int/About_Us/GSP/Towards_a_new_test_of_general_relativity

Here is a snip-it: "Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. Superconductors are special materials that lose all electrical resistance at a certain temperature. Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment. The new experiment tests a conjecture that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart)."

No, I was not already aware of it.

I suppose it could be relevant to my model in the sense it might pertain to my assertion of all matter/energy arising from the Big Bang remaining in gravitational communication, despite mainstream theories which hold gravity did not exist until some time after the Big Bang.

Of course, if the genesis of our current observable universe was a spinning gigamassive black hole, then we could reasonably presume gravity was already in place before the Big Bang.

I tried to find more research confirming this observation, to no avail, other than a couple of unintelligible (not to say incomprehensible) lectures given by Martin Tajmar at AAG (American Antigravity).

http://www.americanantigravity.com/...r-on-gravitomagnetism-in-superconductors.html

I am always interested when observations appear to show 'chinks' in the armor of GR, although my model really only seems to conflict with GR at the singularity, and the assumption of space/time preceding the Big Bang. Otherwise, there is conformity with GR on the large scale. To my understanding, anyway.

 

[origin]

I can't argue with the mathematics. However, you have zero evidence singularities exist. No observations.

Don't you ever tire of being wrong.

Evidence of a super massive black hole in the center of the Milkyway.

 

[pywakit]

Don't you ever tire of being wrong.

Evidence of a super massive black hole in the center of the Milkyway.

Of course being wrong can be distressing, even embarrassing. Still, in searching for answers we learn from being wrong.

That said, what are you talking about? :bugeye:

Did I say there's no evidence for black holes? Have you even bothered to read the model?

Obviously not.

I will try to be more clear: We have conclusive evidence of black holes.

WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT SINGULARITIES EXIST.

Sorry for shouting. Lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities.[3] Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities).[4] According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.[1] Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang,[5] but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[6] Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating).[7] This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

 

[origin]

Of course being wrong can be distressing, even embarrassing. Still, in searching for answers we learn from being wrong.

That said, what are you talking about? :bugeye:

Did I say there's no evidence for black holes? Have you even bothered to read the model?

Read your model? First of all it is not a model it is a series of conjectures. Secondly, of course I have not read it! I skimmed it a bit and with all of the glaring errors I shelved it.

I will try to be more clear: We have conclusive evidence of black holes.

WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT SINGULARITIES EXIST.

I made a mistake and did infact read singularity as black hole. I still like the star movement movie anyway...

 

[OnlyMe]

Of course being wrong can be distressing, even embarrassing. Still, in searching for answers we learn from being wrong.

That said, what are you talking about? :bugeye:

Did I say there's no evidence for black holes? Have you even bothered to read the model?

Obviously not.

I will try to be more clear: We have conclusive evidence of black holes.

WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT SINGULARITIES EXIST.

Sorry for shouting. Lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities.[3] Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities).[4] According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.[1] Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang,[5] but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[6] Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating).[7] This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

Your own quoted reference above disproves your position. The problem is that the exact character of what a singularity is, is poorly defined, both in the quote and your post.

If you were to specifically define a singularity as a point mass or point singularity you might have some basis for your argument.

However, your reference does not go to that extreme, at least within that portion quoted.

There is no direct evidence of exactly what lies within the event horizon, of a black hole. There are theoretical models... That said, what ever the physical characteristics of the black hole itself may be, the existence of an event horizon alone is sufficient evidene to support the existence of a gravitational singularity, as described.

Based on the definition supplied, a singularity could be anything from a point mass to a mass whose physical dimensions are just less than its associated event horizon. Both of these are likely extremes, with the true character and description residing somewhere in between. Still in either case, any credible description of a black hole, would also represent a description of a gravitational singularity, consistent with our current understanding and observations.

 

[pywakit]

Read your model? First of all it is not a model it is a series of conjectures. Secondly, of course I have not read it! I skimmed it a bit and with all of the glaring errors I shelved it.

And who could blame you?

I made a mistake and did in fact read singularity as black hole. I still like the star movement movie anyway...

It kept me on the edge of my chair.

 

[pywakit]

Your own quoted reference above disproves your position. The problem is that the exact character of what a singularity is, is poorly defined, both in the quote and your post.

My apologies.

If you were to specifically define a singularity as a point mass or point singularity you might have some basis for your argument.

Perhaps I think too simplistically. To my understanding, GR describes a point in space/time where matter occupies zero volume ... infinitely small, infinitely dense. While GR works extremely well in macro space, we still have no observational evidence that matter can occupy zero volume. Further, QM says such an artifact is not possible. Again, to my understanding. Maybe I am wrong on this. But I don't think so.

However, your reference does not go to that extreme, at least within that portion quoted.

There is no direct evidence of exactly what lies within the event horizon, of a black hole. There are theoretical models... That said, what ever the physical characteristics of the black hole itself may be, the existence of an event horizon alone is sufficient evidence to support the existence of a gravitational singularity, as described.

I don't think it is sufficient evidence of infinitely small, infinitely dense. Not to be redundant, QM says matter cannot occupy zero volume. The existence of an event horizon is evidence of extremely compact objects ... not singularities. Despite the math, nature may not allow them to exist.

My "series of conjectures" ... as origin characterizes my model ... describes a universe that is reliant upon the non-existence of infinitely small, infinitely dense. I think black holes have volume. That there is a limit to how compact an object can get. I think this is supported by QM. Which, if I am not mistaken, is itself supported by recent experiments at CERN. Once again, I could be wrong on this. Most of what I read is over my head.

Based on the definition supplied, a singularity could be anything from a point mass to a mass whose physical dimensions are just less than its associated event horizon. Both of these are likely extremes, with the true character and description residing somewhere in between. Still in either case, any credible description of a black hole, would also represent a description of a gravitational singularity, consistent with our current understanding and observations.

I don't think that is consistent with QM. And forgive my impertinence, but aren't (theoretical) singularities dimensionless? If so, then any object that occupies volume is not a singularity by definition.

 

[quantum_wave]

I thought of this thread when I read the linked thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133836-Black-Hole-Spins-At-Almost-The-Speed-Of-Light