Originally Posted by Grey

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?

Tony B.

If I may butt in here guys:
You are both right here.
The Black Hole (BH) area does increase and decrease at the same time. This is not so paradoxical as it may sound, because the decrease (leading to Hawking Radiation) occurs in a kind of dimensional enelope 1 dimension higher than the one in which the increase occurs.

This is truly Russ' point about the Randall paper. M-Theory works in 11D and the addition of the Joyce manifold of 7D to the 3-sphere of Poincare is identical to the addition of the Calabi-Yau manifold in 6D to the 3-sphere of Poincare (which is Riemann's Hypersphere) in 10-D.

So all BHs are 'wrapped' by a higher dimension in nested hierarchies.
In particular the Strominger 'wrapping' shrinks a 'Mother-BH' at a certain supercluster boundary from a maximum to a minimum.

This minimum is the Kerr-Torus, which is linearises as a tube of cross-secional Planck-Area and a magnified length, which is a transformed Planck-Length, namely the heterotic superstring class 64. It is kind of known byin the scientific literature as a Ng VanDam scale and the sensitivity thrshold for the gravitational wave detecors of so 10^-22 metres.

This is the miniumum Russ writes about and the proper seedling for all mass seedlings.

The maximum BH has a mass of so 2x10^51 kg and shrinks to 0 mass in 7.56 trillion years, which sort of coincides with the stellar generations running out of fuel. So Russ is corrct in saying that there will be no heat death because of this re-seedling cycle (we might term it the Fred Hoyle mass generating mechanism).


But the supercluster scale BH's are still present in the lower D universe. They actually define the growth limit for the lower hierarchies.
But hen this limit is reached the shrinking begins as stated.

So all observed superclusters shrink in the higher D, and form the growth limit in the lower D.

And uing this extension of Russ' model, aallows you to keep the Big Bang in a nodally oscillating universe (which so is thermodynamically closed) in the lower D, with an infinite expansion in the higher D. The higherD universe is open but topologically bounded in the 12th dimension which becomes the mirorspace of the 10th, mirrored in the 11th.
So the 12th dimension reverses the timearrow and the entropy in reflection.

Thanks for listening and for allowing me to interrupt.

Tony B.


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.