This explanation does not even use the Open Universe laws of Thermodynamics.


However;

Making the claim that GRB's could be Naked Singularities that are making galaxies is absolutely a VALID hypothesis.

Then showing the 'evidence' for that becomes the issue.

So, when I say that all you have to do is...shrink a galaxy down to a point to find the naked singularity that spewed the radiation, that once cooled makes the electrons and protons, that makes the hydrogen and helium. That is a valid hypothesis!

So, since the first black holes that we ever found evidence of were created by stars, the progenitor of said black holes being outside the event horizon. Which means that the world lines for the singularity inside the event horizon started at the progenitor outside the event horizon and go into the black hole and down to the singularity inside.

When a type II supernova implodes/expodes, the progenitor makes an event horizon (First), by a gravitation collapse of space/time and swirls inward and down to R=0 if it is considered a Scwartzchild non-rotating black hole. If a Massive Black hole, then it is considered a Kerr Black Hole and has a ring singularity inside.

Then when I suggest that all Massive Black Holes are created by Naked Singularities, you and all GR experts say NO, naked singularities are of the BB type and create whole universes, but this latter is the one that can't be true!

First of all, just logically speaking, MBH's are WAYYYYYYYY bigger than stellar black holes, so the 'progenitor' stuff that surrounds those MBH's should be wayyy more than stars planetary nebula, and be around the MBH's just like the galaxies are, which makes the lookback of shrinking the galaxy down to a point even more valid. And since there is NO evidence for any stars that could ever, even remotely have the posibility of being millions to billions of stellar masses, the progenitors of MBH's must have been, just like the stars, outside the event horizon to begin with.

Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, and Preskill, were trying to figure out if the singularity that is already in the black hole could ever become naked!!!

So when I told you way earlier in this thread, that Penrose, if he was not using a star as the progenitor, for the gravitational collapse, that he was using the very thing he was looking for, the Naked Singualrity as the Progenitor, that was absolutely correct!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
The biggest point you wanted me to look at concerned looking at what happens when you shrink down a galaxy. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the Schwartzchild radius applies to galaxies, as well as stars. Once you get the mass of a galaxy inside the Schwartzchild radius, you have a black hole with the mass collapsing to a singularity, just like a star. Once that happens, you can no more do anything with anything that happens inside the Schartzchild radius.

So when you told me this, I again knew something was wrong.

It is space/time that collapses to the black hole and just like the star stuff (Planetary Nebula) that exolodes out of a SN II, doesn't collapse back into the bh, neither does the electrons and protons that the Gamma Radiation (once cooled enough) makes!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
As far as naked singularities go, the reason the singularity at the BB is naked, is simply because we are inside that singularity. (please note, do not think of us being inside as you would normally think of it. I'm trying to explain mathematical results using English, it is far from perfect and I am simply trying to explain it). All other singularities, except under extremely unusual, and pretty much hypothetical conditions, form inside a horizon. As a matter of fact, the horizon forms before the singularity. We can never see the singularity form.

And then when you said this, at first I 'partially' disagreed, but now just have a clarification, because it is basically the same definition a mine.

We are 'inside' the Naked Singularity that intitaited the Milky Way, if you are using the Scwartzchild radius part as you said...we are in the galaxy that the singularity created

[We can never see the singularity form.]

The clarification is here, because here you are talking about the singularity inside the bh, once the event horizon forms and spirals down to the singularity, then yes, it can never be seen, which is the 'real' Cosmic Censorship!

This entire explanation is a "VALID" defense of the RussT Hypothesis, and would stand up in any court of law in the U.S. of A.. Any maths that show this to be viable, will be just be confirming what has already been correlated and verbalized in a very coherent and self-consistent way!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!