We believe there is a huge reason the Big Bang has been considered the "Most" correct cosmological model...it is the only Theory that says that the 'Matter' got here via a singularity!

However, we feel that we 'may' have come up with a slightly different version of how the universe might work.
We are not really looking for any one to stand up and yell 'Eureka', but if that
is truly how you feel, please don't hold back . What we are looking for ,
is confirmation that this does have potential and should be further investigated!!! Thanks for your consideration!

THE UNIVERSE

A NEW PERSPECTIVE

PLEASE DO NOT QUICK READ!!!
Look for the ways this could be possible!

This is definitely going to challenge some long held beliefs, and should be read with great care so that each concept is fully understood before proceeding to the next!!! If you do that, we believe you will agree that this
Should be taken seriously, researched and validated! This will show:

1.The basic relationship between Dark Matter (70% of Universe) and Baryonic Matter, or ‘If’ the Universe is “Static”, how the Matter gets here.
2.How the Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH) are created.
3.Galaxy Birth and evolution.
4.The CMBR will be explained easily.
5 The inhomogenity of galaxy distribution will become evident.
6.The Steven Hawking/Preskill-Thorne bet will be resolved.

For all of this to become comprehensible, only one thing needs to be
Understood. How the matter gets into our universe!!!

Now comes the challenge of dispelling a couple of those long held
Beliefs. Ever since the advent of the singularity creating the whole universe, All scientists have been taught specific laws governing singularities. We mean No disrespect from this in any way!!! This is no ones fault, it’s what has been taught and all stems from the ‘concept’ of the singularity making the whole universe at once. There has been no scientific proof of any properties or infinities of a singularity! So, as you will see below, the fight against the BB should not be against the ‘singularity’, but against what the BB says the singularity does!!! Read again please!

First, lets look at what is right. The math that leads to a singularity is right! The Einstein math, The Friedmann math (BB naked singularity), The String “M” theory math, are all exactly correct!!! So, what’s the problem? The problem is, that the math does not indicate the size or value of anything. For example, the Einstein+Friedmann and “M” Theory math clearly shows that a singularity should exist. From here it becomes a matter of perspective! Ever since Friedmann first came up with the ‘concept’ of a singularity creating the universe, the value of Singularity=Universe (the value of S is not U), but that’s not the only problem.
The much bigger problem is the ‘assumption’ that the "infinity" that is reached to create the singularity is the ‘universe’ or ‘infinite density!!! Read Again Please!
The infinity that is reached to cause a singularity has nothing what-so-ever to do with the universe as a whole, or the density of the whole universe or infinite Density!!!

String “M” Theory says that when the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so, the most likely place the infinity is reached is in the membranes.

We are going to pose 2 questions here. The 1st, you will feel totally comfortable answering (no matter what you believe) and when the 2nd question is posed, nearly every scientist will, make some kind of face, utter something “OUT LOUD”, and want to immediately click delete or worse.
Please, Please, don’t. Fight the urge and continue on!!!
Ready? Okay, 1st Question…”IF” the “Big Bang” “is” correct, how much “stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity? Easy, huh.
2nd Question…here we go…”IF” the “Big Bang” is “NOT” correct, how much “Stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity?…………OUCH.
This is absolutely a valid question!!! And you know the answer, you just don’t know you know it!!! This is not intended to be smart-***!!! You will see later Why we say you know it.
We think that most scientists will think this a preposterous question!!! Because of the constraints placed on the singularity by the ‘assumed’ infinities, scientists either believe the BB or the singularity simply can’t exist. No one has looked for other possibilities and when one was presented, it was just “assumed” to be impossible!!! You will see further on, when this took place.
The simple truth is that we have no idea what infinity is reached
To create a singularity! When you assign a value of S=U and assume that the infinity for S=U, it so constrains the singularity, that it can’t possibly be anything less than U.
String “M” Theory says that when the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so, the most likely place the infinity is reached is in the membranes. Yes, this is repeated. So, what does this mean? The Einstein+Friedmann math and “M” Theory math clearly shows that a singularity should exist (and it does) and once you understand that the infinity is not the universe or infinite density, it un-constrains the possibilities for what a singularity might be, and you can look at other possible candidates.

Over the years the friedmann singularity has been molded into something barely resembling a singularity, to ‘make it fit’ the S=U
‘assumption’. Now, in some explanations, the ‘explosion’ has even been taken out to fit the BB+I paradigm.
Let’s be clear…a singularity (just like it is supposed to be) is a
specific point in space (as you will see below), is definitely an explosion (it definitely breaks E=MC squared), and it definitely makes a black
hole (because it breaks E=MC squared). The things we have been asking for years!!!
The assumption that S=U…that the Friedmann naked singularity made the Whole universe…made the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy is the major reason that very little progress has been made in figuring them out. Since there are 3 parts of the universe, The “Dark Matter”, the Baryonic Matter, and the “Dark Energy”, why does everyone seem to think that ‘one’ process made the whole universe??? Wouldn’t it make more sense that there is one process for the Dark Matter, another for the Baryonic Matter, and a third for the Dark Energy?
As you will see below, the only thing that the naked singularity makes (you didn’t think black hole here, did you?), is the Baryonic Matter + one more very important thing that will be explained below!
String “M” Theory says that the Universe is a structure. That structure is expanding and ‘inside’ that structure are strings that become membranes.
That expanding stringed membrane structure is the “Dark Matter”!!! That is Our Universe, and was here FIRST!!! How that bubbled or expanded into existence is up to the String “M” Theorists to figure out, or maybe Steven Hawking already has, with his Vacuum Fluctuation Universe concept. As the Dark Matter Universe was expanding and ‘stretching the membranes’, an infinity was reached that caused the membranes to touch, and the 1st singularity exploded “inside” the “Dark Matter” structure that already existed…”into” our universe. The universe was much, much smaller here.
So, if the Dark Matter Universe (space) ‘already existed’ (or is “Static”) and a singularity exploded “inside” it (remember, the math does not show size), what would you expect to See? An explosion? Sure! From a specific point in space? Sure! Would this Singularity explosion make a black hole? Sure (it has to break E=MC squared).
What kind of “Rays” do you suspect this explosion would emit????????????????

That’s right…Gamma Rays.
Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB’S) over 5 seconds in duration are ‘singularities’, and they act exactly like singularities are supposed to. They are a specific point in space, they are an explosion that breaks E=MC squared, therefore they make a black hole. Martin Rees et al have already confirmed (on national TV) that GRB’s break E=MC squared, but because they think that is “impossible” (The BB already put all the matter here, and they believe in the infinities discussed above), Martin Rees came up with the “all the energy in a GRB must be “BEAMED” hypothesis. The “only” reason the “Beaming” hypothesis exists is because when GRB’s were first discovered to be at cosmological distances, they were ‘still’ breaking E=MC squared!!! Take the “beaming” out, and they ‘do’ break E=MC squared!!!
Another common perception needs to be clarified here. How is a black hole made? The first black holes scientists were able to confirm were stellar black holes, so the perception is, that black holes are made by the gravitational collapse of a ‘massive’ enough star. That is true on the surface, but it goes deeper than that! What is ‘in’ a black hole…a singularity, and what does it take to make a singularity??? An explosion that breaks E=MC squared. So, the reality is, that it takes an explosion with enough ‘energy’ to break E=MC squared to make a black hole!!! So what is really making the black hole? Not the mass, but enough energy to break E=MC squared!!! If there is not quite enough energy to break E=MC2, then you get a Neutron star.
So, What does this really mean?
First, it means that the reason they have not been able to figure out how super massive black holes are made is because the BB says everything got here at once (SMBH’s are created one at a time) and they are looking for something ‘massive’ enough; and as shown above, mass is not the key, energy breaking E=MC squared is!!! There is nothing ‘massive’ enough to make them!!!
Second, it means that GRB’s are singularities that make Super Massive Black Holes!!! If they are making SMBH’s what are they really making? That’s right…Galaxies. The after glows from 10, 20, and 30, second duration GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to start nucleosynthesis (just like how the BB says it happened in the Early universe, only one galaxy at a time), and become the smallest dwarf galaxies. The after glows from 375 and 500 second GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to become the giant elliptical galaxies. See, you do know how much “Stuff” is contained in the Friedmann naked singularity + “a lot more”, that you didn’t think you knew about singularities! Like the “duration time” of the GRB singularity explosions determine how much “stuff” explodes ‘into’ our universe, and ultimately the size of each galaxy, as stated above. Doesn’t this make more sense than the BB saying that trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” exploded, and a split second later “inflated” tremendously. How could trillions of galaxies worth of “stuff” explode in a split second??? We find this totally implausible.
Note: GRB’s less than 5 (or it may be 3 or 2) seconds are probably neutron star or stellar black hole related.
Now, to put this all in perspective we have to do some simple number Calculations. When you go to the web site “An Atlas of the Universe”
http://Anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html Richard Powell states that there
are 350 billion galaxies and 3.5 trillion dwarf galaxies in the Universe. We thought this was way to many…until we did the math! Since GRB’s occur approximately once a day, that means the galaxies get here one day at a time (although it probably takes 100’s of thousands of years before the after glows cool off and make enough stars to see the galaxy). So, doing the math, 1 billion years is 365 billion days/galaxies and 10 billion years is 3.65 trillion days/dwarf galaxies and we are up to 11 billion years worth of galaxies getting here one day at a time. We may have to add some galaxies to the numbers to account for our visible universe.
There are 10 times as many dwarf galaxies as galaxies, so the GRB burst times should be in the exact same ratio, and every time we’ve looked, they are!!! We’ve looked at 100’s and for every 30 GRB’s you look at you will find 27 in the 5 second to 100 second burst times (dwarfs) and 3 in the 120 to 500 second burst times (galaxies with their SMBH’s). 1 out of 10 GRB’s over 5 seconds makes a SMBH.

Every time we looked we found the same ratio.

So, The Black Holes the GRB singularities are making are absolutely essential for the formation of the galaxies. When the explosion occurs, it would send all the “stuff” that when it cools will become the Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium to start the star making process, flying off in space with no way to bring it back together. Since this is in the form of light gases, the black holes first job is to gather it all back to start star formation. It is very easy to see the SMBH’s influence on a spiral galaxy, just look at an above shot of a hurricane!!!

So, there it is:
How the matter gets here…via singularities.
How Super Massive Black Holes are created…via singularities
How Galaxies are borne and evolve…via singularities
How the CMBR was formed…4 trillion + mini bangs…via singularities
How “Naked Singularities” do exist…we know Steven Hawking was thinking
About cosmic censorship and the event horizons when he said naked singularities could not be seen, plus gamma rays can’t be seen in visible light, so he has 2 outs If he wants to use them, but we doubt he will.

Continued on next post

Also, if the universe is “Static”, this explains how the matter gets here and galaxies begin and grow. If this is true, it is exactly what Fred Hoyle was looking for, and the equilibrium of the matter being created is, all the black holes in the universe swallowing matter, probably close to a galaxy worth a day.
If the universe is expanding (We believe it had a beginning and must be), We have another paper showing how we came to the conclusion that the Dark Matter is the ‘universe’ and was here first, and another to show how The “Big
Crunch” is being prevented.

String “M” Theory ‘basics’ fit all of this very neatly as well.
String Theory says that the universe is a structure, that structure is the Dark Matter. String Theory says that when the membranes touch, it causes a singularity,
And they predict that happens billions of times (actually, as we now see, it is trillions). The membranes touching and causing singularities happens “inside”
Our universe, and the proof of that touching trillions of times is trillions of galaxies. What could be simpler! Singularities don’t create new universes outside our own!!! Singularities create Galaxies not Universe’s.

Singularities creating matter is not, creation ex nihilo, something being created from nothing. The membranes reaching some kind of infinity (pressure, or stretching, or?) that causes them to touch (how long they touch, how much of them touches or a combination determines the duration) and explode in a singularity, is a process in nature. The Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium are the by-products, just like Oxygen is the by-product of photosynthesis! We are not implying that the universe is alive!!! Just that the membranes do exist, the explosion is real, and therefore, it is a process in nature, not creation ex nihilo!

The often written verbiage in many press releases…GRB’s are the biggest Explosions in the Universe since the “BIG BANG”, obviously meant something more to us, so we continued researching it, until we figured out all the above.

We are going to need many allies to get this to a point where it can be taken seriously enough to be researched, tested, and verified. So, any comments, ideas, Or suggestions would be welcomed.

This has been registered, all rights reserved.
Indepenent Researcher
Russ Thompson
Russt51@aol.com
916-730-7879 after 2pm PT

Co-Author
Garrett Yates
garrettyates11@hotmail.com

Interesting post, RussT. Mind clarifying some (mostly semantic) things?

How is an infinity "reached"?
How is E=mc^2 "broken"?

So the singularities of each theory, by virtue of being undefined, are how the theories become unified?

I notice that you didn't mention what the process for Dark Energy is. If your cosmology has no inflationary period, is there even a need for it?

As Nereid likes to point out, we don't observe any 'jets' from SMBH or galaxy cores. In your GRB model, is all of the matter for each galaxy created all at once within the duration of the GRB (defining the 'initial conditions' of that galaxy)?

I think I won't be the only one who'd like some clarification here.

I'll let you respond before I ask anything else.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Multiple Bang Theory

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Hum,
Just a minor observation here.

Yes, the difficult thing about singularities is that our current mathematical tool, up to a certain point, are not adequate to describe it. The maths just gets weird.


But the even weirder thing is that all the ppl who know about these things, talk of `singularities`(I do it myself) yet what they describe isn’t a singularity at all.

A black holes `singularity` can be kilometres across!

Take Hawking or String theory for example, what they describe is has at least a Planck size of 10^-35 cm.
At that scale, space and time or other dimensions become smeared together.



But what is important is that it has a size, IMHO.

I'm not sure that is accurate. I think the singularity of a black hole is generally considered a point of zero size. The black hole's event horizon can be kilometers across, not the singularity within (giving rise to) the horizon.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I seem to remember a ring shaped singularity from rotating black holes.

Thanks for the interest and reponses! Good questions, and I will respond from the top down.

baka wrote;
[How is an infinity "reached"?]...The simple truth is that we have no idea what infinity is reached to create a singularity!

String “M” Theory says that when the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so, the most likely place the infinity is reached is in the membranes.

There has been no scientific proof of any properties or infinities of a singularity!

The 3 statements above are all directly from my paper, and what I am saying is simply this...The 'assumption' that the infinity that is reached to create a singularity is 'infinite density', the whole universe being locked up inside the Friedmann naked singularity is wrong. For proof of this just look at the singularity results...The GRB singularity is "a specific point in space" (like it is supposed to be), is an explosion (like it's supposed to be), and creates a black hole (like it is supposed to)...there have numerous things writen, saying that if a singularity made our universe, our universe should be in a black hole. I believe that is because the breaking of E=MC squared in an explosion is the definition of a singularity.? The Big Bang singularity has always been 'stretched' to try to meet the above qualifications of a singularity.

[How is E=mc^2 "broken"?] just answered, I believe

[So the singularities of each theory, by virtue of being undefined, are how the theories become unified?]... not exactly, The Big Bang and "M" Theory both say the singularity made the whole universe, I'm saying that singularities make Galaxies not Universe's.

[I notice that you didn't mention what the process for Dark Energy is. If your cosmology has no inflationary period, is there even a need for it?]...I can predict right here, that there is going to be a huge controversy about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy",the ether, the cosmological constant,repulsive force, because sometimes they are being interchanged incorrectly. There definitely needs to be a global scientific unification and precise defintions for these terms. For example, I have definitely seen where MACHO's have been included with Dark Matter when talking about the rotation of galaxies. MACHO's are Bayonic matter and shouldn't be included that way.
As for inflation, my model definitely does not need it, since there was a 1st galaxy in a very much smaller "Dark Matter" expanding universe and the galaxies get here one day at a time...the universe has expanded as it has added 365 billion galaxies each 1 billion years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
What is ‘in’ a black hole…a singularity, and what does it take to make a singularity??? An explosion that breaks E=MC squared. So, the reality is, that it takes an explosion with enough ‘energy’ to break E=MC squared to make a black hole!!! So what is really making the black hole? Not the mass, but enough energy to break E=MC squared!!!

[I think I won't be the only one who'd like some clarification here.]...

Probably not, This stems from being told (when I suggested that GRB's were making SMBH's) that the Hypernova's??? were not "massive" enough to make SMBH's, so when I suggested that the only thing that could make a SMBH was a singularity, I was told that singularity couldn't possible exist. So, once I investigated the whole singualarity issue, I was more convinced than ever that the long held 'assumptions' were incorrect.

The reason for this is actually pretty simple. Everyone who believe in the Big Bang was already convinced the singularity made the whole universe, and the rest thought that either singularities didn't exist or that the Big Bang was wrong but still believed in the begining definition of "Infinite Density"...so no one ever looked for any other singularity posssibilities.

Your answer to Blob was exactly correct!!!

Thanks for the questions Baka!

Hum,
Well that used to be the popular way of looking at it...

But by crossing the (fuzzy) event horizon you are instantly at the centre.

There is no distance between the `singularity` and the event horizon.
What we see is an unravelling of hidden curled up dimensions (or shrinking of our normal 3d+1 space time if you like) and we find ourselves in a 10 dimensional space-time.

Unfortunately this is where my knowledge ends.

<You may be wrong, mode on>
Of course this may be complete rubbish
</You may be wrong, mode off>

If you were to cross the event horizon of a black hole, common lore says that you wouldn't even notice. Everyone else would notice, because you would disappear, but you would still be receiving light (information) that is still falling into the horizon. You would only notice when you tried to turn around again, because it would be impossible.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, that there is no difference between the singularity and its event horizon. I don't know about 10 dimensions, but I agree that there shouldn't be a difference (that everything within the horizon is part of the singularity).

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Baka wrote;
As Nereid likes to point out, we don't observe any 'jets' from SMBH or galaxy cores. In your GRB model, is all of the matter for each galaxy created all at once within the duration of the GRB (defining the 'initial conditions' of that galaxy)?...

Sorry...I meant to respond to this above...But, yes...that is it exactly!!! When the GRB
singularity explosion occurs, all the "Stuff" in that explosion is the after glow they see.
So, the 10, 20, 30 second duration GRB's will become the smaller dwarf galaxies and the 375 and 500 second duration GRB's will become the giant ellipticals.

Now, keep in mind that most of what the Big Bang says about nucleosynthesis (or it may be that one of the plazma theories is more accurate here), does start applying right here. The "Stuff" of the explosion must cool enough to become the Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium and then be gathered back together by the black hole that was created to begin the star making process. I believe, it is somewhere in this process, where the Microwaves are created for the Cosmic Microwave Background, but not just one singularity created it...trillions of singularities created it one day at a time!

Thanks again

RussT

The event horizon, I believe, has a radius and a diameter. I have seen where they are plotting star movement and velocity around the SMBH's in the galaxy cores.

From a layman's perspective, WOW. I have to admit I don't have a clue about a few of the issues you addressed - I'm just a hobbyist with a love for numbers - but it (your concept) does have a certain "elegance" about it that makes it a fun read

I don't understand the use of the term "infinities", and that may only reflect my ignorance. Is there a scientific definition of it that is not in common use? Is there another term that may be more appropriate?

And the question of how E=mcc is "broken" bothers me also, not in "how did it get broken" but in "in what way is it broken". Is it broken by alteration of the speed of light? Or a significant departure in mass or energy values? The well educated here may have no problem with your description, so you needn't rush to answer, but when you have time, a layman's description of these terms would be helpful.

Would your theory allow some form of mapping of these membranes via galactic positions?

Would the CMB be stronger near younger galaxies than near old ones?

What mechanism would prevent a galaxy from forming on top of another? Or is such a mechanism even required? If matter/energy is constantly being added to the universe, should there be regions in which galactic density is dramatically higher than others? (That may already be a confirmed fact - if so, I apologize for my ignorance).

Do you have ideas as to the source of the "strings", or are they aspects of an earlier "bang" altogether?

Sincerely,
Derrick Baumer

__________________
If I'm wrong, you probably asked me the wrong question.

Hum,
Information tapped in BHs still has me breaking out in a sweat.


But yes,
I realise that it’s an unintuitive way of looking at the black hole.
One would assume that the inside was just the same as the outside.
After all, all that has changed is the geometry of space-time (it has become steeper so that light cannot climb out of the gravity well).

To an outside observer it would appear that time would have stopped etc.

However, if we remember that Hawking basically used our normal space-time in his `no-hair theorem` and worked out that the BH is a sphere; but we add extra dimensions to his theory (I assume that they even exist of course) then the topology of the BH changes.
The sphere could be `hollow`, have `holes` in it, it could even be `inside out`.
All that would be possible as you cross the event horizon (basically our mathematical tools fail us at this point, though).

So as you pass the horizon you may strangely find yourself at every point inside the sphere.


I would at this point stress that I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

Derrick...Thank you for the very nice compliment, especially about the 'fun to read' part!

Derrick wrote;
[I don't understand the use of the term "infinities", and that may only reflect my ignorance. Is there a scientific definition of it that is not in common use? Is there another term that may be more appropriate?]...

I understand nearly all of the concepts and most of the terms and how they may or may not apply, but I am definitely not a math guy, so I'm not going to try and answer this for fear of possibly leading you astray. If one of the math guy's wish to do this, I would have 0 objection.

[And the question of how E=mcc is "broken" bothers me also, not in "how did it get broken" but in "in what way is it broken".]

As far as I know, an explosion who's energy is higher than E=MC squared is a singularity by definition.


[Would your theory allow some form of mapping of these membranes via galactic positions?]

[should there be regions in which galactic density is dramatically higher than others?]

I have definitely thought in the past; it may be that the great wall (of galaxies) is a membrane? (the String "M" theorists should be able to answer this), and yes, there are definitely regions of higher galaxy density, and cluster and super cluster density. That is what the "Void Problem" for the Big Bang is all about.

[What mechanism would prevent a galaxy from forming on top of another?]

This will be the biggest rubicks cube problem ever invented! GRB singularities happen aproximately once a day from all directions and distances, so figuring out the pattern and trying to predict where the next one will occur, will most likely take super computers that haven't even been invented yet. If there even is a pattern...it could be totally random, but I doubt it.

[Do you have ideas as to the source of the "strings", or are they aspects of an earlier "bang" altogether?]

According to my model, they would have to come built into the "Dark Matter" universe that got here first. As stated in my paper, " How that bubble or expanded into exsistence, is up to the "M" Theorists to figure out".

Thanks again Derrick

S=G

Only if it is non spinning. A spinning black hole is not a sphere, the exact shape depends on how fast the hole is spinning. The no hair theorem has to include normal spacetime. After all, the no hair theorem describes what an observer outside of the event horizon sees.

That would depend on the size of the extra dimensions. If they are the size of dimensions postulated