Ah, this is better, actually. Bringing up specific points in the paper that you think might be problematical, and stating why you think so, is indeed a good way to discuss a paper, rather than simply dismissing the conclusion as wrong because the paper is "trying too hard".

So, they are assuming that the area of a black hole will increase as matter is added. Of course, if you look at the equations of general relativity, you'll see that the surface area of a black hole does indeed increase as mass falls in. So for your idea to work, you'll have to make a different assumption, that the mass that falls into a black hole does not actually increase the area, as general relativity would predict. Now, black holes are ceratainly extreme situations, and so maybe general relativity isn't sufficient for describing them. But if you're going that route, you're probably going to need to descirbe the changes you're making to general relativity. As it is, it sounds like you're assuming that the matter doesn't become part of the black hole, but instead ends up in "the universe below ours", ultimately resulting in the expansion of that universe. Have I got that right?

If it has mass, then it has energy. Besides, this eventually becomes the normal matter of a galaxy. If you start with some enclosed region of space with no matter, and end up with a galaxy at some later time, you've violated conservation of energy on a large scale.

Yes. If you just looked at the universe at just this instant, it would not really be possible to determine it's past. Certainly that's why the assumption of the earliest astronomers was just that the universe had always been the same, and it's only been relatively recently that we've begun to think that the universe has changed significantly over time.

Fortunately, however, since light has a finite travel time, we don't just see the current state of the universe. Looking at the most distant objects is also giving us a view of what the universe was like in the past, and that gives us a way to construct the history of the universe. Moreover, in doing that, we can gain information that also allows us turn the clock back still further. For example, unless you dispute that observed redshifts are recessional, then without violating conservation of energy, a necessary consequence of the observations is that the universe used to be hotter and denser than it is now. That's a conclusion that is supported well by further observations, too, actually, which suggests that we're on the right track. It is true that we cannot directly observe anything earlier than the CMB, but if we make predictions based on the assumption that, earlier than that it was hotter and denser still (using information from quantum theory and particle collision experiments to tell us what things are like when very hot and dense), we find that many of those predictions are supported by observation as well. Of course, it's tricky to do, and I don't think anyone would claim tha twe know exactly what the early universe was like; just that we have a decent broad description.

But you haven't really answered the question. Why should it be so surprising or problematic that, given a collapsed object, that we cannot determine exactly what it was like before it collapsed? We certainly can't do that precisely with even nearby astronomical objects. Can you do a "time reversal" of the formation of the Earth or the solar system and show what the "progenitor" of these was? No, of course not. Does that mean that we cannot create reasonable models of what that formation might have been like, that are consistent with our observations today? Again, of course not.

Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you were alking about the context of your own theory. Sorry, that was my misreading.

If you agree that conservation of angular momentum is an important issue, why won't you address the problem? I've brought it up several times now, but you keep sidestepping the question. You're doing it now, in fact. Yes, the Nuker team found a strong correlation between rotational speed and central black hole mass that was surprising (I don't think anyone thought that this "should definitely NOT be the case", just that there wasn't any reason to expect it; certainly they already have some ideas on the matter that don't require your model). But that has nothing to do with the fact that a galactic mass of hydrogen and helium expanding from a central point cannot have enough angular momentum to account for what we observe in a typical spiral galaxy without moving so fast that it is no longer gravitationally bound, and so won't form a galaxy at all.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You've agreed that the mass isn't present beforehand, and we end up with a galaxy worth of matter afterward. That's a violation of conservation of energy. Now, if you postulate another universe that the energy is coming from, I suppose that technically avoids the energy conservation violation, but I don't see how the "stars say" that.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.