OUR OPEN UNIVERSE
UNIFYING GR & QFT

Russ Thompson
Russt51@aol.com
916-730-7879
&
Garrett Yates
Garrettyates11@hotmail.com

: http://www.icreateditfirst.com/dyn/SealInfo.jsp

Published on the BAUT. Forum
Unifying GR & QFT
Unifying GR & QFT
Unifying GR & QFT


All citations should indicate where this is published,
Just as they would for any work, peer reviewed or not!


Abstract

Ever since Friedmann worked out his equations for General Relativity (GR) and Hubble found the Redshift relationship for galaxies expanding away in all directions, the Big Bang Theory has attempted to show how our universe ‘could’ ‘possibly’ be working from a shrunken to a point condition, to expanding in all directions. Because the Big Bang Theory says that from that condition, all of space/time and all of the baryonic matter that constitutes our universe is all that can exist, they have been considering how GR can ‘possibly’ work in a closed system according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
GR has been shown to work on many, many levels, but when it comes to applying any concepts to the universe as a whole, the ONE question that is the most fundamental is; are we working with an open or closed system?
This paper will simply show, using GR, how our universe ‘could’ ‘possibly’ be working, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics in an “OPEN” system.


NAKED SINGULARITIES

We are proposing that Naked Singularities do exist and that they make Galaxies NOT Universes.

So what we are really proposing is that a Naked Singularity should be able to be seen, and shown through GR, outside the event horizon (before it forms) of a Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH), if one were to do a look back (time reversal), and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, to find the Massive Black Hole’s progenitor.

We have been told that this is expressly forbidden according to the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics (mechanics).

Tensor wrote;
You also have another problem with the time reversal with all black hole singularities. According to the equations, once a horizon and singularity form, the equations can no longer be time reversed. To do so, they would have to violate the area increase theorem (Which is part of the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics).

The Laws of Physics do need to be followed to the letter and we commend all of mainstream for adhering to that so intently!
The Laws of Thermodynamics are very specific, and say exactly what kinds of processes can and cannot occur in closed and Open systems!

Since the Big Bang automatically makes the universe a closed system (space and time were spawned here, so it made everything that exists in our universe), you MUST adhere to those rules, and you have.

Here is a paper that ‘tries’ very hard to do that!
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html

When you have to work THIS HARD to try and show something to be true, this should be a huge clue that something is wrong!

So, here is why Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, John Preskill, Kip Thorne and all the others who have tried, have not been able to find Naked Singularities. They tried to find them in a Big Bang Universe, a closed system!

When a massive enough star ends its life in a Type II supernova, it creates a black hole, and GR has been used to model this event with a very high level of confidence, however in a Big Bang (BB) closed universe, the Laws of Black Hole Dynamics, expressly forbids the time reversal of this event, so currently, GR cannot even ‘see’ the progenitor (star), even though we know what it is. This is VERY strange! On the other hand, if you consider this, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then there is no Law of Black Hole Dynamics that forbids this, and it is perfectly legal to do a time reversal, and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, past its event horizon, and very easily and naturally ‘see’ its progenitor, the star. It is also important to mention here, that the progenitor material is spewed out (planetary nebula), while the black hole is separate, and defined by its event horizon, which begins accreting matter later.

So, what does this mean? If the universe is operating under the Laws Of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics does not apply, and when considering the creation of a SMBH, a Cosmic Black Hole, it is perfectly legal to do the time reversal I have shown to find the progenitor…the Naked Singularity (it’s not starting the universe) that makes a SMBH and ultimately its galaxy!
Which means that this is also showing, that according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, that Baryonic Matter can be/and is being created when the Naked Singularity is making the SMBH, it is spewing the Gamma Radiation, that once cooled enough, will become the Hydrogen and Helium. Trying to show this correlation (Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Hydrogen/Helium) has been part of the life work of four of our most renowned Astronomers, all listed above! They just never had any reason to try to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open system to a SMBH! In fact, in all the efforts to try to determine how SMBH’s are created, no one has thought to do this! If Fred Hoyle had just looked at what might be ‘right’ about GR, he could have got this!!! If anyone who was on the Big Bang side would have looked at how they could have applied GR to Fred’s Idea, they could have got this!!! But, not until 1997! See below.
Also, that SMBH will eventually start accreting Matter as the galaxy evolves through its life, and that Matter can then be ‘destroyed’ (stripped of all its baryonic qualities), and leave our universe, and be in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics of an Open system. So the area increase theorem wouldn’t apply either, because the Baryonic Matter entering the black hole will not cause the area to increase because the material can leave the system!
And for those who are insistent on the +’s and –‘s. If the Massive Black Holes are the –‘s, where are all the +’s?

And now for our Epiphany! Lest you doubt any of the above!
How do you find a Naked Singularity? Just like the concept of shrinking the universe to a point to find the Friedmann Naked Singularity, you shrink the Matter that comes from the Naked Singularity down to a point; so just do the ONE thing that no one has ever thought of…shrink a GALAXY (the Baryonic Matter, the stars and stuff) down to a point, at the core, and tell us what you find!!!

So, this is very simple and actually much more predictive than many might first think! For example, if Friedmann or Hubble, or anyone thinking of applying GR to any part of our universe, started thinking about the ‘Island Universes’, the galaxies, with the thought; those certainly look like they have been made individually (and oh, look, some of them actually collide), and then come to the very bright hypothesis, that if you shrink those down to a point, and use Einsteins General Relativity, the last 80 to 100 years would be a whole different ball game.
First of all, we would have figured out that there were SMBH’s, much earlier. We would have also easily figured out that the galaxies must get here individually and at different times because there are obviously some that are very fully developed and many others that look like they have different amounts of brightness and stars in them. That’s just for starters, because by now we would undoubtedly have come up with much better age constraints, all the way from the very youngest “Dark Matter Galaxies” to the BCD’s (Blue Compact Dwarfs), LSB’s (Low Surface Bright), the medium and older HSB’s (High Surface Bright), and the oldest Elliptical galaxies. We would know that space was expanding from the voids, but
it would probably still be a mystery of exactly how this was happening, what ‘space’ was made of and how it gets here.
But, in 1967, an amazing thing would have happened! We would finally be able to detect what we had been predicting all those years, Huge Bursts of Gamma Radiation, the Biggest Explosions In The Universe, and it most certainly would not have taken 30 + years just to figure out that they were cosmological in origin! But it did, so in 1997 we saw the first after glow of a (Long) Gamma Ray Burst (GRB), and it was shown that indeed, they were cosmological in origin.

GAMMA RADIATION BURSTS

Now, when they were finally found to be at huge distances, billions of light years, in fact, Gamma-ray burst (GRB) 050904 is the most distant X-ray source known, at z=6.295, comparable to the farthest AGNs and galaxies, there was a slight problem, well to be honest, a “HUGE” problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...tartrans.shtml
(notice Boydan’s plight here!)

We have great respect for Sir Martin Rees, and understand that for thirty years ‘everyone’ had thought that these GRB’s had to be star/bh related, and certainly had to be ‘in’ galaxies, however, it is our contention, that nearly everything that has been written on GRB’s since the “all the ENERGY must be beamed” Hypothesis (which there has been almost 0 contention to), has been constrained to fit the profiles of a “star in a galaxy” priori, they had already assumed.
Since it is already clearly understood that a Black hole is being created, it should also be obvious that a jet can form, BUT that does NOT mean that ‘all’ the energy must be beamed, or that a star is the progenitor! It is also well known that even the redshift distance of GRB’s is still very tenable, and line of sight issues still abound.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-
From the abstract;
[corresponding to an apparent luminosity >105 times larger than the brightest AGNs at these distances. More photons were acquired in a few minutes with Swift XRT than XMM-Newton and Chandra obtained in ~300 ks of pointed observations of z>5 AGNs.]

They are talking about Xray studies of the early IGM here, when they should definitely be ‘questioning’…how could a single star, at that distance, possibly do any of this!!!

This is even more compelling when taken seriously!
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406210
Directly from the paper;
[Although our analysis rules out all of the reported features, we do find some evidence, in four cases, for marginally significant spectral features at energies that do not suggest a clear interpretation. We cannot rule out the possibility that relatively weak line features are present in the X-ray spectra of some, if not all, GRB's. Given the diagnostic power of such detections, longer exposures of bright events are certainly warranted. Our work does, however, call into question the reality of all of the features detected to date, as well as the interpretation of these features as either iron, or specific low-Z elements.] Our Bold.

And finally, here is a paper saying that Helium is being created, just like in the early Primordial Big Bang. Like we say below though, this is from the perspective of a star exploding, so it is up to you how you want to interpret this.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0205093

So, what we are simply saying, is that the light from every Gamma Ray Burst (3 seconds to 500 seconds) Afterglow, is NOT from the IGM or ISM of any galaxy. It is its own light, with no element lines, accept for the ones that are in between it and us, and then the afterglow ‘appears’ to fade or absorb into that galaxy.
Also, a major obstacle is the absorption of gamma rays in the intergalactic space. GEV and TEV gamma rays interact with the infrared photons emitted by stars and dust and produce electrons and positrons pairs.
Also, there have only been two GRB’s (031203 and 980425) that have really been linked to supernovas, and they have both made the GRB’s look strange compared to all the rest, so again, it is our contention that they are line of sight issues.
Another situation we find very suspect is that the location of GRB’s in relation to galaxies has been changed at least 3 times, from the upper top quadrant of the discs in spirals (have seen that on the science channel twice), to the centers of galaxies, and now to very faint blue galaxies, so that if the afterglows fade into nothingness, that must mean that the galaxy was just to faint.
All it would take is for ONE to be robustly shown NOT to be in a galaxy, to show that GRB’s are Not Stars!

So what is really happening here? When Long GRB’s , which are 3 seconds to 500 seconds (short GRB’s are 2 seconds or less and are probably neutron star/stellar black hole related) (and we are saying that burst durations longer than 500 seconds, which there have been some 700, 900 seconds or longer, are AGN feeding incidents), So when 3 to 500 second bursts occur, they are making a galaxy and a black hole that is directly in relation to their burst times. .
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 of 100(LMC)/120(smallest spiral) seconds GRB’s to ~350 seconds, will become the spiral galaxies with their SMBH’s. The after glows from 375 and 500 second GRB’s will eventually cool off enough to become the giant elliptical galaxies.

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 waaaay 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 glow cools 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. Actually the number of galaxies winds up being trivially important, but the 10/1 ratio of Galaxies to Dwarf Galaxies is the important thing.

Now, this Hypothesis/Theory can be falsifiable with a ‘Very Robust’ analysis by NASA, SWIFT project computers, or any GRB data retrieval system (not T90 or T50 times), of the following. We are definitely saying, that any robust analysis should easily see the same 10/1 of the dwarf galaxies to galaxies that the burst times are in!

There are 10 times as many dwarf galaxies as galaxies, so if GRB’s
wind up being galaxies, their 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 3 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, is 120-500 seconds and makes a SMBH. The size/mass of the black hole is in direct proportion to the duration times, as well as the size of the eventual galaxy!

Every time we looked we found the same ratio. Here are the 1st 30 we looked at. s=seconds

GRB

10s 02 07 15 dwarfs
20s 02 07 14
150s 02 07 08 galaxy
20s 02 07 06
10s 02 06 04
25s 02 05 25
10s 02 04 13
40s 02 04 05
20s 02 03 31
80s 01 12 12
30s 01 10 19
12s 01 09 21
8s 01 07 28
10s 00 10 17
5s 00 10 05
150s 01 06 13 galaxy
30s 01 06 12
25s 01 03 26
40s 01 02 20
30s 01 02 13
10s 01 01 26
5s 01 01 15
8s 01 01 09
10s 01 01 03
8s 00 12 19
30s 00 11 05
15s 00 10 25
10s 00 10 19
375s 00 10 07 galaxy
7s 00 10 04

Now, since these have never been studied this way, there are not a lot of papers (very few), that I can draw on to show how this is working, and even the ones I could use will be discounted, as they are based on a star exploding, so as usual, with new science, this brings up far more questions than can be answered without a robust study with this concept in mind!

How is the Gamma Radiation cooling and becoming the electrons, protons, and neutrons?
This is the same basic concept as Big Bang baryogenesis/nucleosynthesis (H, He).
How long does it take for the Gamma Radiations afterglow to cool enough for the Hydrogen to form (the dark era)?
How long after the Hydrogen is re-ionized does it take to start making stars?
And how long does it take for the galaxy to make enough stars for us to be able to see? Just to list a few.

But here is what would be predicted for this exact scenario!

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2896

The “First Dark Matter Galaxy Found” is a galaxy of Hydrogen I spinning just like
a galaxy is supposed to because of the black hole at it’s center, and this stays dark (comparable to the dark era) for somewhere around 3 to 5 hundred thousand years
or longer, before the black hole has gathered it back enough to start the star making process. Then it may take several millions of years for it to start making enough stars
for us to see it. When we could see it, what would we expect to see? This is precisely what we would see.

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

The Ghost Galaxy is a perfect example for revealing how galaxies evolve from the
Dark Matter galaxy, to first starlight (we need to keep looking at fainter and fainter BCD’s to see ‘first starlight’, which is in the core). Notice that the Ghost galaxy is classified as a Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxy (BCD), but it is obviously going to evolve into a Spiral Galaxy. In fact, if you look at the picture again, you can even see where the “Bar” and the “Bulge” are going to be. It is also quite evident that the black hole has spun ‘space’ into its spiral formation, that the HI must follow the path of, and before stars have even been formed there.

So, quite simply, the Dark Matter Galaxies evolve into BCD’s (the cores have star formation first) and Low Surface Bright Galaxies (LSB’s), which evolve into the High Surface Bright Galaxies (HSB’s).

So, there we have it…The Light, the Baryonic Matter, The Galaxies!

And Now…To the Darkness!


MASSIVE BLACK HOLES, ARE COSMIC BLACK HOLES

As mentioned above, the predictive power of this argument, of Our Universe working
according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open system, extends very naturally
to the SMBH’s, the Cosmic Massive Black Holes, and had this been realized, would have saved Professor Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill, not to mention a whole slew of String/”M” Theorists, many decades of very hard and frustrating work.
So what happens to all of the baryonic matter that enters the event horizon of a massive
black hole? It simply gets stripped of all its baryonic qualities and when it gets to the
Planck size Ring Singularity (these are Kerr BH’s), it gets reduced to its base unit,
the base elementary particle, that gives electrons and protons their base mass. So it is simply Planck mass Inert Non-baryonic Dark Matter.


SPACE, & The Unification Of GR and QFT

Now that we “Know” that the darkness of space MUST be made of something
physical, the simple reality is, that something must create it, and as shown above,
Massive Black Holes, in an Open system, and in perfect harmony with the Laws of Thermodynamics, create and then release Planck size/mass DM and that makes up
our darkness, space…ALL OF IT.
Now, since this is coming from Massive Black Holes, it most definitely should be
traveling at the speed of light, ‘C’!
So, if all of space is made of Planck size/mass inert DM traveling at ‘C’, this would
make a Background Gravity Field (BGF), that does not interact with baryonic matter.
The Massive Black Hole, because of its extreme gravity, releases these as totally ‘inert’
base particles, with their tiny little mass (gravity) but with “ALL” their energy ‘locked’
(compressed) in, so they do not interact with each other as well, and have no preferred direction, and this ‘locked in’ energy can only be released by a TEV/high GEV energy event, that would then of course follow the E=MC^2 equation.
This would actually make the universe 100% gravity, but ZERO energy, until the TEV
events come to make the galaxies, and as the stars, planets and stuff start forming, they
are just ‘borrowing’ the dark matter (however much is determined to be ‘trapped’, supernova events also ‘freeze’ space so the heavier elements can be formed), with the rest of the mass of a body just flowing through it at any given moment, still equaling 100%!

Now, We are NOT quantum particle experts, so we are definitely going to let all the
different camps battle it out as to which one is the closest to being able to make their
own cases as to how the Electrons and Protons get their mass and what happens from there. However, we will say here, that as far as we can tell, Neutrinos (or it may even be sterile neutrinos), could possibly be the inert DM, and are the same thing as CDM and HDM and Strings…all of space, which is traveling through our bodies, at the speed of light, right now!

So, before we put any galaxies into this BGF, here is a thought. If a light bulb was
turned on in this BGF traveling at “C”, would the photons themselves have a speed of ‘C’ OR would the BGF be carrying them along with it at ‘C’? We are saying that the BGF carries the photons from the point where they are emitted, along with it, until they meet something they must react with. Which gives a mechanism for the speed of light in a vacuum and matches Einsteins premise perfectly. BTW, this also shows that gravity propagates at ‘C’ as well.

GALAXIES IN THE BGF

As we have shown, in an Open System, it is perfectly legal to do a time reversal
Of the singularity in the Massive Black hole, bring it up outside the event horizon
to find the black holes progenitor, the Naked Singularity, and that when you do a
look back (time reversal) of the galaxy, and shrink it down to a point, you can see
the Naked Singularity as well, and that the only thing that is locked up in the Naked
Singularity is the Baryonic Matter (actually the TEV Radiation that makes the
Electrons, Protons and Neutrons, and this probably isn’t the totally correct way of
depicting this).
But, this Naked Singularity Radiation event, is taking place in this BGF, ‘out in the
middle of nowhere’! We can model the singularity ‘in the black hole’, but we have
never been able to model the ‘naked singularity’!!!
Now, there could be many Nobel’s for the scientists that can show Robust results
for many of the relationships we are showing here, and this is definitely
one of them! We are definitely not a GR expert and can only guess at the some
of the complex relationships that are taking place here.
The most important one though, is this BGF, space is moving at ‘C’, so when
the Radiation Event takes place, it would seem that it is actually ‘freezing’ or
‘slowing’ space, for however long the ‘duration’ of the event is. At the same
time it is doing this, and creating the Massive Black Hole, this is causing a
Torque, that is spinning that “SPACE” into a ‘spiral shape’, and just like a
gravity well, all baryonic matter would have to follow the space it is in. This
‘freezing’ or ‘slowing’ may also make sense for another reason; since the
‘base’ Planck particles are moving at ‘C’, they have to be slowed or frozen in
time, so that the Electrons and Protons can obtain their base mass. So, just like
it shows in the Ghost Galaxy linked above, the HI is already in the spiral shape
and at the speed of the galaxy rotation, because the Electrons and Protons were
light enough to follow the space the Massive Black Hole has torqued into the
spiral. So, whenever anyone has said that the MBH cannot be responsible for
the galaxy rotation because the galaxy is way too massive for the MBH to spin
it this way, has been in err.
All the MBH had to do, is to spin the electrons and protons to this speed, and
then when the Hydrogen formed, all the gas clouds were at this speed and
following the DM space they were in, the spirals, just like in the Ghost Galaxy.
In Addition the MBH’s are currently rotating all of the DM spirals, to maintain
this shape of space, that the baryonic matter must follow the path of. How can
this be? The MBH is DM, a huge DM hole in the BGF, that is rotating and it is
not ‘hauling’ the stars and stuff around with it (the Baryonic Matter’s motion has
already been set, as above), it is just rotating the DM BGF in its vicinity, the galaxy.
But how is the Naked Singularity created, I hear you asking?
Well, since we can now see that ‘space’ is pure gravity, it is easy to understand how
3 million sol masses can be in the Massive Black Hole in the Milky Way, and much
more in bigger galaxies, and since we already know that space is expanding in ‘all’
directions, the voids, that must cause some kind of gravity (waves?), that when they
come together, probably at some kind of glancing angle, that imparts Torque, a
Radiation Event is created. OR, as String theory would say, when the membranes
touch, it causes a Gamma Radiation Event, and the Singularity goes away!

STRING/”M” THEORY

Lee Smolin has stated that String/”M” theories main drawback is that it is Background
Dependent. In an Open system with the Planck size singularities in the Massive Black
Holes being the Unification location of GR and QFT, rather than T=0 or T=10^-35, the
Strings, Planck size/mass base elements, are shown to be all of ‘space’ and
ARE THE BACKGROUND! The strings, ‘space’, accumulate to form the membranes
that are in ‘our’ Universe! The Eleventh dimension is all of the ‘space’, which is all the
String, which make up the membranes that makes up our universe! The ONLY reason
they think that our whole universe is One membrane that ‘might’ collide with another to
make a ‘whole universe’ is the concept that the Big Bang Naked Singularity
expanded everywhere at once!

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

THE VOIDS AND EXPANSION

It has been known for a long time that most, if not all, of the expansion of the
Universe is seen in the Voids, and that part is very true.
It is actually a very simple concept, that if ‘space’ is ‘physical’, which we now
Realize that it is, then ‘more’ of it HAS to be being added to it on a continual basis
For space to be expanding, since it is not Diluting. If it weren’t for preconceived
Ideas this would be readily accepted!
This is where the real ‘physical’ ‘space’ described above is being added,
continually, to the universe! Dark Matter ‘space’ is coming from all of the
Voids and is the expansion of the universe in all directions at the speed of light!

We are not sure on exactly how much authority one needs to find before this
can Be Taken Seriously, but here are three of the best authorities we could find
for precisely that purpose!

Here is a String Theory paper where just the introduction is pertinent.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205055
Introduction;

In string theory there is a problem which cannot be resolved inside of the
theory: Is there an inner structure of the string? If the string is some kind of
matter, then string theory cannot be a fundamental theory of Everything.
We need to have a theory for the string matter. If such matter has an elementary
Structure then we must have a theory for this structure and so on up to infinity.
In fact this is analogous to the well-known old problem of the inner structure
Of electron. Probably the most radical resolution of this problem was suggested
By Einstein. As usual his approach is very revolutionary: the electron does
Not have any material structure, it is a bridge between two asymptotically flat
Spaces (a wormhole in the modern language). One can say that this is Einstein’s
Paradigm for the fundamental structure of Matter.


http://physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.


Where did Big Bang happen?
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter", is
really, gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is
not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.


As we have enumerated, since there is little doubt that we see the expansion of
the universe in the huge Voids between the clusters of galaxies, that is where
‘Gravity’ is leaking to our universe, and this is happening in all the major Voids (and maybe the minor ones, if they exist). As shown in the paper, this ‘gravity’ is the DM ‘inert’ ‘base’ elements and makes up ‘all’ of our ‘space’, and is the BGF, traveling at ‘C’. As we have also shown, this is coming from the Massive Black Hole, Planck sized, Kerr Ringed Singularities.
Now, how would we know whether these ‘base’ Planck size/mass inert elements were coming from our universe Massive Black Holes OR as all the authorities above predict, ‘another universe’ outside our own?
The answer to that is actually much easier than anyone at first, may think, but of course will take a full expert GR examination to confirm.
It simply has to do with the “Correct’ time reversals of Massive Black Hole structure, including Einstein-Rosen Bridges.
Now that we have seen, that in an Open System, ‘seeing’ the Progenitor of a MBH is as simple as pulling the singularity up out of the black hole and outside the event horizon, this changes the dynamics of time reversals, and how to be able to see what is on the ‘other side’ of the Ringed Singularity in the MBH’s in our universe.
So, since time should stop, at the Ringed Singularities, for all the Matter that goes into the MBH’s of our universe, that should mean that going forward in time,
Through the Ringed Singularity is impossible. Therefore it would be impossible to see the Einstein-Rosen Bridge (worm hole/ white hole spewing DM) structure from this vantage point at all!
So, the only way we are seeing the Einstein-Rosen Bridge at all, is if we are time reversing it out of the MBH in the universe level ‘above ours’. It really is this simple.
Which simple means, that our MBH’s are releasing their DM Background Gravity
Field, ‘space’, to the universe level below our’s, and that the MBH’s in the universe level above our’s, are releasing their DM Background Gravity field, ‘space’, to us.

Now, there may be an independent way to verify this!
Since the narrative above said Lisa Randall…“ tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space”, She is talking about ‘our empty space’, and not our MBH’s, so of course this didn’t work, but when she says…
“What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from
that other universe? Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly.” This should be independent corroboration of what we are showing!

What this really means is VERY exciting, because it means that our universe is NOT going to expand away to a very bleak and cold nothingness or contract into
A Big Crunch, BUT with all the MBH’s (with all their new ones being created just as in ours) of the universe level above ours, releasing ‘space’ to us, and our new Galaxies being created about once a day, for the last however many billions of years, that the Multi-Verses are virtually, perpetual galaxy making machines!


CONCLUSION

Although shrinking the ‘whole universe’ down to a point and rebuilding it ‘seems’ like
a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and considering the above Open System evaluation, and the relative ease (Pun Intended!) with which the ‘other’ Planck size singularity can be shown to be where the Unification of GR and QFT take place, we would have to say, that it is only reasonable, if that is what really happened!
The main attribute of the above though, is that it makes everything ‘physical’! All of
‘space’ being the DM Planck size inert elementary element (the appropriate entity can
name it), the gravity that leaks to our universe, is physical, and eliminates the placeholders of DM/DE (Anti-gravity), CDM, False Vacuums, and the unreal ‘gravity makes gravity’, ‘space makes space’. Also, we see the Radiation bursting into our universe, so that makes that physical as well. As for the ring singularity in the Kerr Black Hole: We cannot see the event horizon of any black hole, or the black hole itself (but we are saying they are ‘real’ and have a physical effect), but with the astounding success of Einstein’s General Relativity, and the above showing the ‘physical’ Naked Singularity, and that ‘space’ is now physical, why wouldn’t we believe that Einstein’s math can be shown to be a ‘real’ and ‘physical’ representation of how our universe works!
Actually this is very simple and is just the Inverse of the Big Bang…Massive Black Hole
Singularities start the universe, all of the Darkness of ‘space’ (Gravity) leaking into all the Voids, expanding space, and GRB’s; Naked Singularities Make the Light, The Baryonic Matter, The Galaxies, (EM, Strong and Weak Forces).
We also have very little doubt, that once String/”M” Theory follows this model, it too will prove to be as powerful, if not more-so, than GR.
We think it is pretty darned incredible, that for all these years, the concept of
Baryonic Matter getting here via the Gamma Radiation from a naked singularity, through General Relativity, The Big Bang Theory…And the concept of Fred Hoyle et al, that there should be Trillions of Little Bangs, the Steady State Cosmology, were both in plain view.
It is really to bad that the Fight wound up being; an expanding universe VS a Static universe, rather than, was the Universe Open Or Closed according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, or maybe Fred Hoyle would have been able to realize this during his lifetime!

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

What is a diameter of the Naked Singularity ?
Is it like a Black Hole diameter ?

First, I hope you will notice that there is very little if any Big Bang bashing, anywhere in this paper.

Second, Please Bebunk what this showing, rather than asking for additional 'proof' or 'evidence'. The only way to fairly evaluate this, is to assume, that the BB didn't happen, and then see which one answers more of the comological questions we know to exist.

Third, only 2 things need to be different for this to be possible!

1. That the universe didn't begin at a point and then Inflate.
2. That the Gamma radiation that BURSTS throughout the sky at cosmological distances are NOT stars.

ALL Master Debunkers welcome!

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

As it shows in the paper, this is being caused by the gravity that is 'space', all the Planck size/mass 'base' elements that make up the BGF (Background Gravity Field).

So we can at least understand now, where 3 million+ sol/masses of gravity come from.

Also like it says, it is going to take many, many GR experts quite a while to work out exactly how this is happening.

String Theory says...When the membranes touch it causes a singularity, so I am assuming that there is some kind of flow that is happening in space as it comes in through the Voids.

SO as these membranes (waves?) come together at some kind of angle, they are causing a Torque, making the MBH and spewing Gamma radiation.

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

"Bebunk"?

Which of these three would you like to concentrate on first?

* internal inconsistency (e.g. "it seems that, in one place you say X is green, but in another place this same X is magenta; please explain")

* inconsistency with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlaps (e.g. "in this idea, gravity is proportional to the inverse cube of distance, even for 'solar system' type objects, yet Newtonian gravity is inverse square, in this domain; please explain")

* inconsistency with good observational or experimental results (e.g. "in this idea, the Lyman A line has a rest wavelength of 900nm; in the lab we observe it to be 121.6nm; please explain")

If you would care to define X, I would be happy to. Am I really supposed to know what you mean by this? Or is this just a dismissive and trivialization tactic???

I don't have any idea how you are coming to this conclusion!
Care to explain how you got this?

Same thing here...How did you come to this conclusion?

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

They are (three) examples of statements of each kind of (in)consistency; I made them up (they are not intended to have any relationship with the ATM ideas presented in this thread).

My questions stand, without the (to you, apparently, misleading) examples - which kind of 'consistency challenge' would you prefer to start with?

As far as I can see, there are no inconsistencies, and this is a coherent and selfconsistent examination of how the universe could work in an Open System,
according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Once a paradigm was set in place, that precluded examinations of any phenomena without examining it under both Open And Closed systems, (because obviously we can't know for sure yet, right?), then I would say that would be inconsistent.

But this has brought to light a very interesting Thing. All this time, the Big Bang has had 'space' expanding, and not diluting, which is 'space' making 'space', just making more of itself, and justified by saying, oh, that's okay, because the consevation laws don't have to be adhered to globally in GR. Sorry, but it would appear, that the expansion of the universe has been adhering to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN SYSTEM all along.

I will say this though. It is very probable that almost all of the conservation laws hold true, because according to the view in this paper, the openess of the universe is only at the MBH's, and it is probable that the only place the baryonic matter can be 'stripped' to its Planck 'base' element, is once it enters the event horizon and makes its way to the singularity therein. BUT, I am definitely not qualified to make that kind of determination.

OR, we could start with this...your choice.

[When a massive enough star ends its life in a Type II supernova, it creates a black hole, and GR has been used to model this event with a very high level of confidence, however in a Big Bang (BB) closed universe, the Laws of Black Hole Dynamics, expressly forbids the time reversal of this event, so currently, GR cannot even ‘see’ the progenitor (star), even though we know what it is. This is VERY strange! On the other hand, if you consider this, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then there is no Law of Black Hole Dynamics that forbids this, and it is perfectly legal to do a time reversal, and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, past its event horizon, and very easily and naturally ‘see’ its progenitor, the star. It is also important to mention here
That the progenitor material, is spewed out (planetary nebula), while the black hole is separate, and defined by its event horizon, which begins accreting matter later.

So, what does this mean? If the universe is operating under the Laws Of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics does not apply, and when considering the creation of a SMBH, a Cosmic Black Hole, it is perfectly legal to do the time reversal I have shown to find the progenitor…the Naked Singularity (it’s not starting the universe) that makes a SMBH and ultimately its galaxy!]

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

Here is what you told Bogie.

http://www.bautforum.com/report.php?p=824490
I prefer a different way of describing the GR/QM incompatibility - there is a regime (the Planck) within which application of both GR and QM produces wild inconsistencies ("a confusion of infinites", if you will). However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits).

Which is exactly what Posts 1, 2, and 3 are.

The Unification CANNOT take place at T=0, or T= 10^-35, or T= 10^-43, because it never existed.

The Unification MUST take place, just as you asked for, at the Planck regime, and that is just as this shows, in the Massive Black Holes! They make our 'space' (gravity) for the 3 forces we know (EM, Strong and Weak Nuclear) to be able to frolic in.

But after watching Hawking's Paradox this weekend, I now see what I am really up against!!!

I realize that Posts 1, 2, and 3 are LONG and cover so much territory that it is difficult for people to begin a conversation at any given point of it, but if can't be covered here, on this one thread, maybe I can begin individual issues, one at a time, in ATM, that can be covered that way.

Let's just start with the main one then.

The Laws Of Thermodynamics.

Please explain why this cannot be so.

So, what does this mean? If the universe is operating under the Laws Of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics does not apply, and when considering the creation of a SMBH, a Cosmic Black Hole, it is perfectly legal to do the time reversal I have shown to find the progenitor…the Naked Singularity (it’s not starting the universe) that makes a SMBH

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

The accounting of how the universe(s) are operating in an Open System has been added to post #3.

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

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!

This seems a very strange argument from you. First, it doesn't seem to me that the paper is making a great effort. Rather, it gives some pretty good arguments in a very short space that support the generalized second law. Are you seriously suggesting that you can refute this by ignoring all of the points they make and instead just say that since they had to work at it, it must be wrong? By that argument, all of modern physics is wrong, and we should go back to Aristotle! No, if you want to show that there's a problem with that paper, you'd actually have to show what the problem is.

No, we've discussed this before, and it's not actually strange at all. Can you give me a detailed description of the mass distribution of what eventually became the Earth, before its formation? No, of course not. In the case of a black hole, the event horizon makes things a bit trickier, but the general principle is the same. You cannot necessarily take the current state of an object and figure out what the previous state must have been.

You know, I'm not certain that you really understand the whole open/closed universe thing. Even if the universe is "open" thermodynamically (meaning that it can exchange energy with some other place), that does not mean that all the laws of thermodynamics are suddenly off. You'd still be able to apply them, taking into account the energy source or sink. If you want to show that you can analyze a black hole under such circumstances, assuming an energy influx, you'd actually have to show that you can do it, not just claim that you can do it.

This sounds as though you're claiming that the four astronomers you list above were working on something like your model, but not succeeding. I'm pretty confident that's not the case; can you provide a citation to show otherwise?

You find an excess of angular momentum. Note that this problem is a tricky one. In particular, you can postulate that there's some sort of energy source at the core that violates conservation of energy for a few moments, providing the matter that eventually makes up the galaxy. We break a conservation law at a single point in extreme conditions. Well, maybe. But then we break another conservation law over a period of time, spread throughout the forming galaxy.

I've got to go, but I'll try to respond to some of the rest of this later.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

From the paper;
[Although the ordinary second law will fail when matter is dropped into a black hole, such a process will tend to increase the area of the black hole, so there is a possibility that the GSL will hold.]

This is one of of the main problems I see with this. They just assume the Area Increase Theorum is 'proved'. Which they do with several other factors as well (Hawking Radiation) and then they 'infer' this and that. But mostly, this (as with numerous analysis of other phenomena) is only analyizing the whole scenario from ONE viewpoint, and never even consider that the Second Laws "MIGHT" not apply to this situation!

[taking into account the energy source or sink]

I have described, as mcuh as I have been able to surmise, in my paper, what happens to Baryonic Matter when it enters a MBH and then why what the MBH's in the Universe level "Above Ours" is realeasing from the Einstein-Rosen Bridges, which end with the White Holes releasing into OUR VOIDS, 'space', which is the Planck Mass "Inert" Dark Matter (all of our space). And since this is actually "INERT" collisionless Planck Dark Matter, the Gravity Backgroud Field (BGF), there really is NO Energy Conservation Law being broken here, because it is NOT really energy. The BGF is all INERT, its energy is all "locked In" (which is why gravity is not a force!), but it has the tiny Planck MASS, which makes up our gravity, ALL OF IT!!! Our Universe is 100% Gravity, with the baryonic matter just 'borrowing' the planck mass DM!

You mean, like the whole universe from 10^-43 forward?


[(Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Hydrogen/Helium)]

Isn't this the Big Bang Scenario? Well, yes, I should have included Electrons/Protons between Radiation and Hydrogen.

Yes, it is! So one would think that it would be very important NOT to make assumptions here. I am not even sure that energy conservation is being violated here. After all, the Nuker Team did find that the stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies have speeds that match the Mass of their respective MBH's, when it has always been thought that should definitely NOT be the case!

And yes, this "MAY" wind up being the case, but the stars say different.

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

Well, well well Russ you ARE describing the correct boundary conditions.
So please read the 4 posts of my reply to see the convergence of your ideas with the p[remises of Quantum Relativity.

In appreciation of a philosopher who has seen the gravitational light so to say.

Tony B.

Originally Posted by RussT
THE VOIDS AND EXPANSION

It has been known for a long time that most, if not all, of the expansion of the
Universe is seen in the Voids, and that part is very true.
It is actually a very simple concept, that if ‘space’ is ‘physical’, which we now
Realize that it is, then ‘more’ of it HAS to be being added to it on a continual basis
For space to be expanding, since it is not Diluting. If it weren’t for preconceived
Ideas this would be readily accepted!
This is where the real ‘physical’ ‘space’ described above is being added,
continually, to the universe! Dark Matter ‘space’ is coming from all of the
Voids and is the expansion of the universe in all directions at the speed of light!

We are not sure on exactly how much authority one needs to find before this
can Be Taken Seriously, but here are three of the best authorities we could find
for precisely that purpose!

Here is a String Theory paper where just the introduction is pertinent.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205055
Introduction;

In string theory there is a problem which cannot be resolved inside of the
theory: Is there an inner structure of the string? If the string is some kind of
matter, then string theory cannot be a fundamental theory of Everything.
We need to have a theory for the string matter. If such matter has an elementary
Structure then we must have a theory for this structure and so on up to infinity.
In fact this is analogous to the well-known old problem of the inner structure
Of electron. Probably the most radical resolution of this problem was suggested
By Einstein. As usual his approach is very revolutionary: the electron does
Not have any material structure, it is a bridge between two asymptotically flat
Spaces (a wormhole in the modern language). One can say that this is Einstein’s
Paradigm for the fundamental structure of Matter.


http://physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall.html

NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.


http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=66
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter", is
really, gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is
not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.


As we have enumerated, since there is little doubt that we see the expansion of
the universe in the huge Voids between the clusters of galaxies, that is where
‘Gravity’ is leaking to our universe, and this is happening in all the major Voids (and maybe the minor ones, if they exist). As shown in the paper, this ‘gravity’ is the DM ‘inert’ ‘base’ elements and makes up ‘all’ of our ‘space’, and is the BGF, traveling at ‘C’. As we have also shown, this is coming from the Massive Black Hole, Planck sized, Kerr Ringed Singularities.
Now, how would we know whether these ‘base’ Planck size/mass inert elements were coming from our universe Massive Black Holes OR as all the authorities above predict, ‘another universe’ outside our own?
The answer to that is actually much easier than anyone at first, may think, but of course will take a full expert GR examination to confirm.
It simply has to do with the “Correct’ time reversals of Massive Black Hole structure, including Einstein-Rosen Bridges.
Now that we have seen, that in an Open System, ‘seeing’ the Progenitor of a MBH is as simple as pulling the singularity up out of the black hole and outside the event horizon, this changes the dynamics of time reversals, and how to be able to see what is on the ‘other side’ of the Ringed Singularity in the MBH’s in our universe.
So, since time should stop, at the Ringed Singularities, for all the Matter that goes into the MBH’s of our universe, that should mean that going forward in time,
Through the Ringed Singularity is impossible. Therefore it would be impossible to see the Einstein-Rosen Bridge (worm hole/ white hole spewing DM) structure from this vantage point at all!
So, the only way we are seeing the Einstein-Rosen Bridge at all, is if we are time reversing it out of the MBH in the universe level ‘above ours’. It really is this simple.
Which simple means, that our MBH’s are releasing their DM Background Gravity
Field, ‘space’, to the universe level below our’s, and that the MBH’s in the universe level above our’s, are releasing their DM Background Gravity field, ‘space’, to us.

Now, there may be an independent way to verify this!
Since the narrative above said Lisa Randall…“ tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space”, She is talking about ‘our empty space’, and not our MBH’s, so of course this didn’t work, but when she says…
“What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from
that other universe? Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly.” This should be independent corroboration of what we are showing!

What this really means is VERY exciting, because it means that our universe is NOT going to expand away to a very bleak and cold nothingness or contract into
A Big Crunch, BUT with all the MBH’s (with all their new ones being created just as in ours) of the universe level above ours, releasing ‘space’ to us, and our new Galaxies being created about once a day, for the last however many billions of years, that the Multi-Verses are virtually, perpetual galaxy making machines!


CONCLUSION

Although shrinking the ‘whole universe’ down to a point and rebuilding it ‘seems’ like
a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and considering the above Open System evaluation, and the relative ease (Pun Intended!) with which the ‘other’ Planck size singularity can be shown to be where the Unification of GR and QFT take place, we would have to say, that it is only reasonable, if that is what really happened!
The main attribute of the above though, is that it makes everything ‘physical’! All of
‘space’ being the DM Planck size inert elementary element (the appropriate entity can
name it), the gravity that leaks to our universe, is physical, and eliminates the placeholders of DM/DE (Anti-gravity), CDM, False Vacuums, and the unreal ‘gravity makes gravity’, ‘space makes space’. Also, we see the Radiation bursting into our universe, so that makes that physical as well. As for the ring singularity in the Kerr Black Hole: We cannot see the event horizon of any black hole, or the black hole itself (but we are saying they are ‘real’ and have a physical effect), but with the astounding success of Einstein’s General Relativity, and the above showing the ‘physical’ Naked Singularity, and that ‘space’ is now physical, why wouldn’t we believe that Einstein’s math can be shown to be a ‘real’ and ‘physical’ representation of how our universe works!
Actually this is very simple and is just the Inverse of the Big Bang…Massive Black Hole
Singularities start the universe, all of the Darkness of ‘space’ (Gravity) leaking into all the Voids, expanding space, and GRB’s; Naked Singularities Make the Light, The Baryonic Matter, The Galaxies, (EM, Strong and Weak Forces).
We also have very little doubt, that once String/”M” Theory follows this model, it too will prove to be as powerful, if not more-so, than GR.
We think it is pretty darned incredible, that for all these years, the concept of
Baryonic Matter getting here via the Gamma Radiation from a naked singularity, through General Relativity, The Big Bang Theory…And the concept of Fred Hoyle et al, that there should be Trillions of Little Bangs, the Steady State Cosmology, were both in plain view.
It is really to bad that the Fight wound up being; an expanding universe VS a Static universe, rather than, was the Universe Open Or Closed according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, or maybe Fred Hoyle would have been able to realize this during his lifetime!
Well, well well Russ you ARE describing the correct boundary conditions.
So please read the 4 posts of my reply to see the convergence of your ideas with the p[remises of Quantum Relativity.

In appreciation of a philosopher who has seen the gravitational light so to say.

Tony B.

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.

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.

Practically all of the above is correct wrt the Cosmogony of Quantum Relativity.

Allow me to add to Russ's post in expalaini ng a litle detail about the High Energy Cosmic Rays and the GRBs.
They are direct descendents from the superstring classes.


For example, any physics dictionary will tell you, that the existence of such identities as magnetic monopoles would supersymmetrise Maxwell's equations in their magnetic and electric properties.

The Standard Model of Cosmology has what is known as the Monopole Problem.

The equations predict there to be as many magnetic monopoles (MM's) as there are protons. And guess, there are.

So Alan Guth invoked MM's to his inflation scenario in relegating them onto the expanding event horizon of the Hubble Sphere.

So it is believed, that they have been 'thinned out' and are not observable, except at the universe's boundary.

MM's are all the rage in Grand-Unification-Theories (GUTs).

They are the superlimit, where the three elementary interactions of the strong and weak nuclear force are unified with the electromagnetic interaction. The energy scale is well defined at the 10^16 GeV region rendering the 'mass' of a MM as about 4x10^-11 kg.

Many models relate those MM's to an evolution of the electromagnetic finestructure constant Alpha; which as you probably know determines the interaction probability between matter and light (photoelectric effect).

So Alpha is THE fundamental constant in physics and IS closely associated with the energy spectrum of the magnetic monopole.


GRB's and the Cosmic Rays are ALL derivatives from the monopole spectra and are well known (or proposed) to be as such.

Now the MM's are upper bounded by the GUTs and just above another unification scenario engaging so called X-Bosons at about 10^15 GeV.

Now QR is a modified form of M-theory, which by necessity encompasses all the GUTs in higher SU and SO unitary symmetries.

All five superstring classes are believed to 'work' on the Planck-Scale of about 10^19 GeV, unifying the GUTs with gravity, but QR has shown, that there is a hierarchy reducing all the way down to the GR-quasi-singularity (GR=General Relativity). his is Russ' Kerr-Torus, called Weyl Geodesic in QR, which conforms to Penrose's Weyl-Tensor Nullification hypothesis.

Now one of those classes (selfdual IIB) becomes the Magnetic Monopole at 2.7x10^16 GeV; another becomes the Cosmic Ray 'Knee' (IIA) at 6.3x10^9 GeV in modular duality to the Cosmic Ray 'ankle' at 1.2x10^7 GeV (as heterotic HE(8x8)).

So the trick with the MM's is that they are all duality coupled to the X-Boson, which is none other than heterotic superstring class HO(32) itself dual to the Planck-Boson at the uppermost energy bound.

But it is the X-Boson which directly transforms down to the Higgs-Bosonic RestmassInduction scale in then QR formalisms and derivations.

So there exists a nucleon prototypical mass of about 9.9x10^-28 kg, which today is measured as the proton/neutron base energy.

This base-nucleon-mass is the transformed X-Boson and thus also the manifestation of the MM in its transduced form, where 'magnetic monopoles' are unnecessary.

Russ is also correct about the particles of the stadard model. They all derive from the Higgs-Template, which is none other than the now magnified Kerr-Torus onto the classical electron radius of so 3 fermi, which asymptotically bounds the nuclear interaction.

The spacetime sublenum is a Higgs-Ocean, which manifested so 1/365 seconds from the beginning at an temperature of so 10^15 Kelvin and when the Higgs Boson was born from the electroweak decoupling.

The unitary transformations from the ALPHA finestructures of both the electromagnetic- and the gravitational symmetries are behind all of thi and practically all of Russ' posts are in excellent harmony with QR.


Tony B.

PS.: Russ' work should NOT however be termed ATM, as it beautifully extends both GR and QM via the Kerr-Torus singularity, which is also the Calabi-Yau manifold in 6D.

PS.:PS.: Russ should change his point #1 about the Big Bang however.

The universe is NODALLY oscillating and thermodynamically closed in the oscillation within 10D, but is infinite and open in 11D with the 10D spacetime mirrored in the 11th as the 12th in the reversal of the entropy- and time arrow.

The 12th dimension is known as the Vafa-Space in CMF-Theory.

The diameter is the diameter of the magnified heterotic superstring class 1 of the Planck-Lengthx2.

This is known as heterotic superstring class 8x8, where the Planck-Length has increased to 10^-22 metres.

The naked singularity is of dimension 0, implying that there is a curvature embodied in the so called Kerr-Torus.

The Kerr-Torus has a 'little' radius of the Planck-Length (Sqrt(hG/2Pi.c^3)) and a 'big' radius of 10^-22 metres.

The 0D can be constructed in the following way.

Imagine the Kerr-Torus to NOT have any 'hole' in the middle.

Then draw a circle of radius R and halve R to inscribe two smaller circles into the bigger one (of diameter 2R). Apply solid-of-revolution 'calculus' say to project the circles into 3D (to visualise).

The circle's centre now exhibits the two curvatures (negative and positive) simultaneously if one delocalises or doubles the observer frames.

Placed at the centre, the curvature is hyperbolic for an open universe and any point outside the big circle will show the curvature as closed (one simply looks at the sphere).

Now there are exactly 8 smaller sphere volumes 4Pi(R/2)^3 inside the big sphere of 4PiR^3/3.

But the geometrical construction also defines a Torus Volume Pi.r^2x2Pi.r=2Pi.r^3 as the lineintegral of the smaller circle around the enclosing sphere.

{Note that the construction above eliminates the hole in defining the inside 2D smaller circles as touching each other.
If there is a gap, then the lineintegral of 2PiR will NOT be 2Pir as in the above, but R>r.}

This differs in the ratio 3Pi/2=4.712... and as the upper bound for the Chaos Constant (or Feigenbaum delta 4.66..) and is simply the ratio of aTorus of radius R=r to the bigger sphere in 2Pi^2.R^3=(3Pi/2)x(4Pi.R^3/3).

As the lineintegral can be said to be 1-dimensional as the extension of a point; the curvature or curling of this 1st dimension about itself becomes the 0th dimension.

And this is just the definition of the Planck-Boson as class 1, having both openended and closed superstrings as vibration patterns; all other classes being exclusively closed.

Tony B.

Dear All!

The 'Death Star' conundrum of Russ' link above is solved in pretty much the manner Russ advocates, but it includes the Big bang and the first neutron (ylem=neutronmatter) decay mapped onto the cosmogenesis.


The 'first stars' were mass independent and very closely associated with the MBH scenario, mapped onto the Planck-Scenario.

And this Planck-Scale scenario developed into the monopole scenario developed into the GRB scenario, all as function of a scale mapping of the maximum onto the minimum.
That is why the GRB's are measured with such enourmous redshifts, they are monopolic currents (or Cosmic Rays) of string defined spectra and associated with the MBHs of the ylemic neutron stars described and derived below.
The actual redshift bound is 7.477 at the Sarkar BH of mass 1.8x10^51 kg and of Schwarzschild radius 236.5 Million lightyears, i.e. the supercluster and gravitational interaction boundary.
This manifests a quasar-white hole-wall, when the 'first protostars' contracted and formed from their BH precursors.




I had long been puzzled as to why the relatively simple derivation of the ylemic radius, underpinning all of star formation, had not been previously discovered by the scientific orthodoxy.

Perhaps my dictionaries are to 'blame'; but I have discovered that James Jeans had formulated the ylemic radius in the context of the collapse of hydrogen clouds in the universe in the 1940's.

This gives wonderful confirmation to my faith in that formulation, despite the many sceptics, wondering if I had simply borrowed scientific labellings and construed ad hoc connections between scientific disciplines.

So allow me to present the established literature in example, followed by a simple treatment of basic thermodynamics deriving it and then followed by QR's derivation of the same formula the way I thought that I had discovered a 'new formula'.

Well the QR version can be seen as the progenitor for the Jeans formula, the latter applying much larger radii for the subsequent star formations under gravitational collapse; whilst I use it to describe the parent and oldest generations of protostars as ther ylemic dineutron stars.

The first reference derives the Jeans formula as a function of nuclear density with respect to surface area and the second is identical to the QR one, but interpreted in a later context of the subsequent star formations (it is equation #16).

(4) http://astronomyonline.org/default.asp?Cate=Home

The most abundant material in the Universe is Hydrogen. Clumped together in cold clouds, hydrogen atoms can join together to form molecular hydrogen. This only occurs at extremely low temperatures.
These molecular clouds are very difficult to detect because no emission occurs. Much of the interstellar reddening (where a star or galaxy appears more red) occurs because of these molecular clouds. The image on the left is Barnard 68, a dark nebula. This is what a molecular cloud "looks" like. Notice the stars are barely visible behind this cloud. However, it is possible to view what's behind the cloud using an infrared filter.


A cloud has to be "just right" before it can host a future star system. For successful gravitational collapse of a cloud to form a proto-star (a star that has not yet initiated fusion), two criteria must be met:

Jeans Mass
Jeans Length
These two criteria, discovered by James Jean in the 1940's, places restrictions on a collapsing cloud:

Jeans length basically states that a molecular cloud of a particular size can become unstable and begin collapse.


The Radius in the above equation is Jeans Length, the minimum radius of the cloud before self-gravitation occurs.

The table on the left give some examples of the density of molecular clouds and the resulting size of the cloud. Within a molecular cloud, the distribution of debris is not always even. Fragmentation is suspected to occur in clouds exceeding

100 Solar masses. Smaller clouds within the large cloud can form stars. These molecular cloud fragments also fall under the Jeans criteria, and does affect the overall molecular clouds ability to continue self-gravitation, but that is an advanced topic.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
...

Hydrogen Shell Problems
As mentioned in the description of the derivation of (2) for the redshift of the black body emission of the hot hydrogen shell, the expression diverges to infinity for values of r near R and thus there is very little constraint on the temperature of the shell. This is particularly unsatisfying from an aesthetic standpoint, since it lends a measure of unfalsifiability to the theory; something which should be avoided in science. Thus, while we might expect emission lines from the hot hydrogen to show up in the spectrum (contrary to our observations of the CMBR), this redshift relation would allow the temperature to be low enough to prevent significant emission without changing the value of the shell's radius significantly.

More problematic, however is the question of the shell's stability, both against small and large scale collapse. Considering first the small scale, there are two requirements. First, the shell must be thin enough that the thickness of the shell not exceed the Jeans Length, Rj. If the shell were thicker than that, then it would begin to collapse radially (not towards the center of the universe, but rather the two sides of the shell towards each other) because the gravitational pull of the shell on itself would exceed the the pressure of the gas in the shell. This requires that the shell thickness be just less than

Rj = (kT/ (Gnm2)).5 (16)


where k is Boltzmann's Constant, T is the temperature, n is the number density of the hydrogen and m is the mass of a hydrogen atom. Second, the shell must be opaque enough that it radiate as a black body as required for the CMBR. This means that the optical depth () must be

= nRj » 1 (17)


where is the scattering cross-section for the hydrogen. In the likely temperature regimes for the shell, this should be the Thomson cross-section. Now that we have an expression for the number density of the gas in the shell as well as a thickness, we can calculate the minimum mass that the shell would need to radiate as a blackbody and be stable against self-gravitation. The the mass of the shell should be

Ms = 4/3(R s3 - R3)nm (18)


where Rs = R + Rj. Using the fact that Rj » R, we can re-write (18) as

Ms = 4R2Rjnm (19)


Substituting for Rj and n, we get

Ms » 4R2m/ (20)


which is independent of the temperature of the shell. For R = 4.365 Gpc, Ms » 2.9 × 1024 solar masses. Using Dr. Gentry's values for H and R, the mass of his shell is about 1.3 × 10 23 solar masses, thus missing the absolute lower limit of the mass of the shell by a factor of 20. In order to attempt to make up for this deficit, one could increase the values of either H or R. However R cannot be increased sufficiently beyond the value that Dr. Gentry cites without causing the redshift of the photons coming from the shell to increase to infinity and H cannot be increased enough if he wishes to stay within the error bars of the current measurements.

Lastly, we can readily see that the cooling time of the shell is far too rapid to account for the steady CMBR background that is observed. Basic thermodynamics tells us that the thermal energy of a hydrogen atom in the shell at temperature T is going to be 1.5kT (where k is Boltzmann's constant and we are assuming that the hydrogen exists only as single atoms due to the very low density). If we use the requirement that the shell radiate as a black body to give us an expression for the number of hydrogen atoms in the shell, then the total thermal energy of the shell is

E = 4R2Rjn(1.5kT) (24)
= 6R2 kT/T


where T is the Thomson scattering cross-section. Assuming thermal equilibrium on the inside of the shell, the luminosity (the amount of energy emitted in a given amount of time) of the shell is going to be given by the standard formula for radiation by a black body,

dE/dt = 4R2BT4 (25)


where B is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. Thus, the cooling time scale is going to be

= E/(dE/dt) = 3k/(2BTT3) (26)


For T = 5400 K, Tau is about 35 seconds. In order to still be radiating after a Hubble time, the temperature would have to be on order 10 mK. Indeed, if the temperature of the hydrogen shell were the 2.7 K observed for the CMBR today (ignoring redshift effects), the cooling time would be less than 9000 years.

Not only does this tell us that the initial thermal energy of the shell will be radiated away very quickly, it also means that any extra thermal energy that the shell would pick up as it dumped gravitational energy during the collapse would be radiated away almost immediately. Additionally, if the shell were to start with a combination of number density and shell thickness that was optically thick enough to radiate as a black body, the decrease in temperature would rapidly drive down the Jeans length, making the shell instable to the small scale collapse detailed in the first part of this section.



The Jeans Mass formula from the astronomy site is then:

MJ=3kTR/2Gm for a Jeans Length of:

RJ=Sqrt{15kT/(4prGm)} as indicated in the references.

Now the Ideal Gas Law of basic thermodynamics states that the internal pressure P and Volume of such an ideal gas are given by

PV=nRT=NkT

for n moles of substance being the Number N of molecules (say) divided by Avagadro's Constant L in n=N/L .
Since the Ideal Gas Constant R divided by Avagadro's Constant L and defines Boltzmann's Constant k=R/L we get the formulas above.

Now the statistical analysis of kinetic energy KE of particles in motion in a gas (say) gives a root-mean-square velocity (rms) and the familiar 2*KE=mv^2(rms) from the distribution of individual velocities v in such a system.

It is found that PV=(2/3)*N*KE as a total system dscribed by the v(rms).

Now set the KE equal to the Gravitational PE=GMm/R for a spherical gas cloud and you get the Jeans Mass.

(3/2N)*(NkT)=GMm/R with m the mass of a nucleon or Hydrogen atom and

M=MJ=3kTR/2Gm as stated.

The second reference gives the Jeans Length as:

Rj = (kT/ (Gnm2)).5
where n =number density of hydrogen, taken as 1 in my derivation.

which is the QR form, and I shall derive this formula from absolutely first principles, that is using superbrane parameters of the cosmogenesis and then show how the first reference evolves.


Quantum Relativity Analysis:

Let the thermal internal energy or ITE=H be the outward pressure in equilibrium with the gravitational potential energy of GPE=W.

The Nuclear Density in terms of the superbrane parameters is rcritical=mc/Vcritical with mc the base nucleon (ylemic neutron) mass.
Vcritical=4pRe^3/3 or the volume of the ylemic neutron as given by the classical electron radius as superbrane quantisation/magnification
Re=10^10.lps/360.

rcritical~1.1x10^16 kg/m^3.

H=(molarity)kT for molarity in volumes as N=(R/Re)^3.

dH=3kTR^2/Re^3........(1).


W(R)=-SGMdm/R=-3Gmc^2/Re^6S R^4dR, where S
means Integral and dm/dR=d(rV)/dR=4prR^2.
So dW=-16Gp^2r^2*R^4/3=-3mc^2R^4/Re^6....(2)

The derivation of the astronomy site uses the surface area/volume differential above in the dm=4prR^2.dR.

As the W integrates as -3Gmc^2R^5/5Re^6 carrying the density r, we can write W(R)=R.dW/5. This is the 5 factor in the first reference in r=5mc/(4prRe^3/3).

For equilibrium the condition is that dH=dW as the minimum condition dH+dW=0 and (1)+(2)=0 gives
3kTR^2=3Gmc^2*R^4/Re^3 or R^2=kT*Re^3/Gmc^2


Rylem = Sqrt{kTRe^3/Gmc^2} q.e.d.

The ylemic (Jeans) radii are all independent on the mass of the star as a function of its nuclear generated temperature.

Applied to the protostars of the neutron matter or ylem, the radii are all neutron star radii and define a very specific range of radii for the range of gravitational collapse.
This spans fropm the 'First three minutes' scenario of the cosmogenesis to 1.1 million seconds or about 13 days and encompasses the ordinary beta decay of the neutron (underpinning radioactivity).
The upper limit defines a trillion degree temperature and a radius ofover 40 km, the typical Schwarzschild solution defines a typical ylem radius of so 7.4 km and the lower limit defines the 'mysterious' planetesimal limit as 1.8 km.

For long a cosmic conundrum, it could not be modelled just how the molecular and electromagnetic forces applicable to conglomerate matter particles (say hydrogen gas as dust) on the quantum scale of molecules could become strong enough to form say 1km mass concentrations, required for 'ordinary' gravity to assume control.

The ylem radii's lower limit defined in this cosmology show, that it is the ylemic temperature of then 1.2 billion degrees K, which performs the trick under the Ylem-Jeans formula, which is then applied to the normal collapse of hydrogenic atoms in summation.

Tony B.

And of course those equations are based on the Laws that are chosen to apply to the situation, one of which is the second law, which says that matter cannot go "THROUGH" the black hole or the ring singularity, so of course the Matter is gong to make the black hole grow.

This is exactly what Nereid tries to do. NO I DON"T! Your statement is 'attempting' to force me to prove GR wrong in order for my idea to be right, and that is absolutely false!

GR is perfectly designed to be able to describe all Black Holes, and since it can also show ring singularities and Einstein-Rosen Bridges to be valid solutions, the only thing that has to be different for my idea to be consistent with how the universe is working, id for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be working differently (OPEN) than is currently being depicted.

Now, String/"M" theory will probably be necessary at whatever point you want to choose (Planck), BUT as far as I can see, they will never get there untilit can be seen that the Unification MUST take place at the Ring Singularity in the MBH's!

Yes, you have that exactly right and thanks, it is really good to see when someone is at least understanding what they are rebutting.

All of OUR MBH's release Non-Baryonic DM to the universe level below ours, and all of the MBH's in the universe level above ours, release their DM to us, in our Voids.

are you sure of this???

This is of course true of BARYONIC Matter...but are sure about Non-Baryonic Dark Matter? Let's see...this kind of 'matter' is collisionless with baryonic matter and even with itself, and goes right through the earth, you and me, the stars, everything, but about...how many times in BILLIONS, does it interact with the weak nuclear force? I wish I had 'saved' the times that I have seen the reference to it 'appearing' energyless. IMHO, if it had energy that manefested itself, it would interact with the weak force 'EVERY TIME'.

Also, I know you don't have to defend anything here, but if there is 4% baryonic matter, and 23% DM then..........since E=MC^2, please tell much "MASS" is in the 73% Dark Energy???

I didn't say there was NO Matter. I have actually explicitly said that there is matter there, but that it ('space') is full (BGF) of Non-Baryonic Planck Mass Dark Matter. And that it is INERT (for all the reasons given in the paper) so its energy is 'locked in' and can only be released via TeV Gamma Radiation Events via E=MC^2.

Now, if that doesn't violate conservation laws fine, if it does, then I am simply saying that the universe is working according to its own laws, and not the ones imposed on GR in the first place!

That's of course assuming that everything in the universe was contained in the {choose the smallest parameter you are willing to start from here] FLWR paradigm.

Just exactly what I said about my epiphany...How do you find a Naked Singularity? Just like the concept of shrinking the universe to a point to find the Friedmann Naked Singularity, you shrink the Matter that comes from the Naked Singularity down to a point; so just do the ONE thing that no one has ever thought of…shrink a GALAXY (the Baryonic Matter, the stars and stuff) down to a point, at the core, and tell us what you find!!!

They are simply being good mainstreamers!!! They started with the Primordial clouds of Hydrogen! Do you really expect them or any mainstreamers to think of the above???

Actually I have several times, you just don't like the answer, and keep assuming the problem YOU see, doesn't have a solution, it does, we just don't know enough yet to be able to answer it, because it has NEVER been studied this way. I have aid numerous times, to you and to others, that it will take many GR experts, years to actually do this in full! You just don't like that answer.

How fast is 'space' traveling where the GRB's are exploding (and they are NOT in a galaxy!)? Is it traveling at 'C' or is it slower? At what angle is the gravity of 'space' coming together (Membranes touching) to cause the Torque to create a MBH millions to billions of sol masses? How is 'space' being rotated by the making of said MBH to cause a spiral shape to take form? How far is the majority of the Gamma Radiation acyually traveling away from the newly created MBH and how fast does the spiral shape and gravity well retard its outward flow? Shall I go on?

Answered above. And the stars say that means...That since the Nuker Team determined that the stars speeds in the outer galaxy match the MBH mass, they also determined that that correlation MUST be there from the birth of the MBH, then it only stand to reason that the rotational momentum of the initial conditions (Electrons/Protons) that formed the stars eventually, must have an answer!

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

No. As I've already pointed out (over here; this is why it's confusing to hold essentially the same conversation in several different threads), general relativity and thermodynamics are entirely separate entities. General relativity does not incorporate the laws of thermodynamics.

Strangely, though, after saying above that you would need to modify general relativity (to remove it's dependence on the second law of thermodynamics, apparently), you now claim that it is not necessary to modify general relativity at all. The thing is, as I pointed out in the post I reference above, local conservation of energy is not something that's "tacked on" to general relativity as an afterthought, that you could easily decide to remove. The form the field equations take was guided by energy conservation, and as I pointed out, Einstein actually dismissed possible choices (that would otherwise have been viable options) because they did not support conservation of energy.

Whether you like it or not, or are willing to acknowledge it or not, if you remove conservation of energy from general relativity, you'll have to modify general relativity. Now, that's not necessarily as big of an issue as you seem to be making out. There are actually a number of slight variations of general relativity that various physicists have suggested over the years, that still use most of the same basic postulates and techniques, but differ in some of the details. Some of these are even consistent with all observations to date (Brans-Dicke or Rosen's bi-metric theory are just two examples of such alternatives). You might consider taking a look at these and see how they differ from general relativity. Perhaps an already existing alternate might suit your needs, but more likely, you might be able to see how it's possible to change a theory only slightly but still preserve most of its main theses.

Just trying to make sure I've got your idea straight. So, just remember when complaining about things that rival theories might postulate with what you consider insufficient evidence, that you're postulating infinitely many universes that are pushing matter into our universe, with no direct evidence of that matter (unless you'd care to cite a source showing observation of an apparent dark matter source in a void somewhere).

Just about as sure as I am of anything in physics. Let's be clear: the equivalence of mass and energy is an absolute cornerstone of relativity. You cannot seriously suggest that you are removing that equivalence and simultaneously claim that you are not modifying general relativity.

We don't know if it interacts with the weak force or not. Some candidates would, others may not, and we just don't have enough information to be sure.

You're joking, right? Neutrinos are particles that interact with the weak force, and they definitely have energy. Yet they, like other dark matter candidates, are largely collisionless, both with themselves, with photons, and with baryonic matter. It takes fabulously sensitive detectors looking for exactly the right thing to find any at all, and that only works because there are so darn many of them. The fact that they have energy (in some cases, a lot of energy) does not make them particularly likely to interact. In principle, we might someday be able to detect dark matter in a similar manner to detecting neutrinos (and there are researchers trying to do just that), but without knowing exactly what sorts of interactions it might participate in, like we did for neutrinos, it's really, really hard to design an experiment. You have to theorize what the particle might be, work out the interactions you might expect, and then look for those. And if you're wrong about the properties of the particle (or particles), your detector won't work. I have never seen an astronomer or physicist refer to dark matter as "appearing energyless", and I don't think you can provide a citation of such from any serious journal.

Since we were talking earlier about terms that are sometimes misunderstood, "dark energy" is probably right up there. We don't even know for sure if it is energy. It was named by analogy with dark matter. But I'll say this: if it's turns out to be, say, a vacuum energy density (one of the more popular suggestions among astronomers), then it would have a mass equivalent. And yes, that mass equivalent would be about three times as large as the total mass of the actuall matter, baryonic and dark, in the universe. By the way, it's usually E=mc². The m and c are lower case. Physicists have long since run out of enough letters for all quantities (which is why they've raided the Greek alphabet), so often the upper and lower case letters have specific meanings. I know it seems picky, but when trying to wade through equations, it's actually really helpful to be able to rely on a certain amount of consistency.

If there is matter as matter is defined in general relativity, then it will have a gravitational influence. The energy doesn't have to be "released" to interact via gravity. So we should be able to spot such galaxy sized collections of matter from gravitational lensing studies, for example. Yet there is no evidence of such. If you're proposing that there's a galaxy worth of matter that hs no such gravitational influence, then that's not matter as far as general relativity's rules are concerned. And those aren't laws that are "imposed on" general relativity, those are the rules of general relativity itself. That's what general relativity is all about: describing how matter has a gravitational influence. Again, whether you're willing to accept it or not, if you're proposing something that has mass but exerts no gravitational influence, then you are modifying general relativity, in this case quite drastically.

Not really. Sure, many of the details depend on the exact model used. But a lot of the broad characteristics (the early universe being hotter and denser, for example), don't really depend on the model. There is some limited dependence on interpretations of observations, such as redshifts being recessional, but as far as I can tell, you aren't disputing that the universe is expanding, so that shouldn't be an issue. And you know what, we can actually test some of those predictions nicely. For example, the big bang model predicts that the CMB should have been at a higher temperature in the past. When we actually measure the temperature at great distances, we actually find that it is higher, and by the right amount. Is it the only possible way things were? Well, probably not. Is it a description of the early universe that is both internally consistent and also consistent with our observations? Yes, absolutely.

And again, you're avoiding the question. Why should it be a problem that it's not always possible to do a time reversal on a current state and find out what things looked like beforehand? As we've discussed, sometimes there's enough information to do that realistically, sometimes there isnt, but it's not like there's some magical problem on those occasions when there isn't enough information. Sometimes there's just not enough information.

Actually, I don't think you've really replied this directly to it before; I apologize if you have and I've missed it. So you're saying that you don't actually know how to solve the problem of nonconservation of angular momentum as a galaxy expands from a central point to the galaxies that we see. Is that correct?

Or it could mean, as the Nuker team believe, that the formation of a galaxy and its central black hole happen together, and the dynamics of the galaxy affect the black hole.

The stars don't say otherwise. Your interpretation of what the stars are saying is otherwise.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

You seem to be saying two different things above.

The answer may be as simple as...All I am really doing though is making the Universe(s) Multi-verses, and so all the Conservation laws hold up throughout the whole system.
And then it will simply be a matter of Occams Razor, as to which theory better tells the story of how the Universe(s) are working as a whole! Which is pretty much what these two quotes are saying!


Thanks for these, I will when I get a chance.

NO, just the level above ours is giving us our space through its MBHs, with Einstein-Rosen Bridges coming down to our Voids, just as our MBH's give space just to the level below us.

Rob Oldershaw thinks that they are Infinite all the way up and down! But, I believe he thinks that that self-similarity is in "our" universe.

So, if that was the case, wouldn't the universe have collapsed in on itself? And then just calling it Anti-Gravity, or saying that it acts like Anti-gravity, how is that any different than what I am showing? Sure, Einsteins Greatest Blunder, wasn't one after all, etc...so it is okay for mainstream to use that kind of authority scenario, but then when I use Einstein-Rosen Bridges, I get... the likelyhood of those existing is Pink Fairies and Green Elves!

Thanks again.

No, you misread or misinterpreted this. I am saying that the Planck Mass Inert Dark Matter (PMIDM), has the Planck Mass...so it is gravity, all of it makes up 'space' and is the background Gravity Field (BGF)...BUT the ENERGY is 'Locked In'

I have read much of the material including where the early QSSC people predicted close to the same thing for the Temp of space, But I am not going to get into a big debate on that here and start posting links to argue it. If they really wanted to prove it though, in the interest of scientific correctness, they could measure JUST the Voids and see if they can show that the whole universe was HOT in the past!

But here's one I have been saving for the right moment, and this is as good as any other I suppose. Just watch for all the naysaying when I show this one!

There was an article (didn't save it and haven't found it yet) that talked about the CMBR and the "Shadows" that were very evident on some clusters of galaxies and Non-existent on others. Guess what, that fits my model to a tee!

The answer to this is undeniably the most OBVIOUS answer and yet I strongly suspect that it will be waved off as meaningless or worse.

According to my model the galaxies have been getting here one day at a time for the last 14+ billion years, right. So the answer is simply that the shadows aren't on those galaxies because they were not here yet!

And their current paradigm will simply not hold true for the Dark Matter galaxies or the Ghost galaxies.

Exactly, and I am building more evidence for my whole galaxy formation model as we speak. In fact It is exactly what they are talking about right now in the ARP thread, and yes galaxies do 'evolve' from Dark Matter galaxy to BCD's to LSB's to HSB"S!

Our galaxy did go through all these stages, they have just constrained the star formation rates based on incorrect parameters for so long, it just doesn't appear that way.

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

No, because, as I've pointed out, conservation of energy is used as a postulate for both thermodynamics and general relativity. It's not that thermodynamics implies conservation of energy and then we add that on to general relativity. You seem to continue to misunderstand that.

I was just trying to clarify. And, as I pointed out, that just gives us an energy source in our own universe. Include that energy source in your calculations, and both general relativity and thermodynamics work fine. You don't get to suddenly ignore thermodynamics because the system is no longer closed. But even if you did, that wouldn't change how a black hole works according to general relativity, and you are changing that. You're saying that the mass doesn't add to the black hole. But general relativity says that it does, and that's from general relativity itself, not from thermodynamics.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that, I'm assuming you think the universe "above" and "below" ours are largely similar to our own, so the universe above ours receives matter from the universe above it, and so forth. So you'd end up with an infinite chain of universes, even though we only have direct interaction with the nearest.

Oh, wait, Rob Oldershaw thinks this? Does that mean you don't think there are infinite universes? So the universe "above" us might still have massive black holes, but might be completely different, and might not have a universe "above" it? It doesn't much matter to me, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you think.

Oh, and I take it, then, that you do not have any direct observational evidence of large amounts of dark matter in the voids that you'd like to cite, correct?

If you take a look at the equations of general relativity, you'll see that the cosmological constant term works differently than the matter term, just as the matter term works differently from the radiation term (specifically, the equation of state relating pressure to density is different). The most general form of the equations could have infinitely many such terms, all with varying equations of state, but Einstein limited himself to terms that describe the things that we actually see in the universe, plus the cosmological constant that he needed for a static universe. A few researchers are looking to see if terms with other values of w might work to explain the observations, rather than a constant term ("quintessence" is one such possibility).

You will please note that I have never compared the existence of a wormhole to pink fairies or green elves, though I would also be quick to point out that there is no concrete evidence that Einstein-Rosen bridges actually do exist, and that the theoretical requirements are pretty serious (requiring a large negative energy density).

So if the dark matter is appearing in the voids, and it has gravitational influence, why don't we see gravitational lensing effects when looking through voids?

Of course, since the voids are, sort of by definition, largely devoid of matter, it's pretty hard to measure the temperature, because there isn't much to observe. The point I'm making is that the big bang model actually makes a whole host of consistent predictions which are consistent with observations, including observations made after those predictions were made.

I haven't heard you suggest before now that some galaxies should have "shadows". But really, we can't discuss an article and it's relevance to anything without being able to read the article, so I'm not sure why you brought it up as "evidence".

You keep claiming that, but just claiming it isn't worth anything. You'd actually need to show that their analysis fails when looking at these. Of course, to do that, you'd actually have to have some evidence that there are black holes (and measurements of their masses) in galaxies like VirgoHI21 and NGC 2915, and I see that you have not responded to my question about that over here. I'll ask yet again.

As I've pointed out several times, the mainstream model of galaxy formation could go either way with either of these cases. There might be a central black hole, but it's not required. But your model requires it, and there is no evidence of one in either of these cases. If and when we find such evidence, you can boldly say that you predicted it (though this would really only be especially impressive if you could predict the mass based on your model; since those should be linked in your idea, you should be able to determine that). Until then, these objects are actually evidence against your model. Following one of your links, I even found a paper on VirgoHI21A page that explicitly says "There is no evidence of a central mass concentration...".

I noticed that you did not respond to my comment about neutrinos. Can I take that as agreement that astronomers do not refer to dark matter as "appearing energyless" (or at least that you can't find a citation of such), and acknowledgement that even particles that are known to interact via the weak force that have quite a bit of energy (that is not "locked in", whatever that means) do not interact "EVERY TIME"?

You also neglected to respond to one of the questions in my post that I felt was important, because I want to make certain that I am not misconstruing your position. Let me ask again.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Yes, I realize that each level can only exist (according to how my model is designed), if the level above is 'releasing space to it'. I just have trouble with the Infinity all the way up and all the way down.

Uh, the only way (so far) to be able to 'see' DM is through its effect on baryonic matter in its vicinity. And since there is no baryonic matter (galaxies) in the Voids there is no way to detect it, but then you already knew that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey You will please note that I have never compared the existence of a wormhole to pink fairies or green elves,

Yes, I certainly had noticed and appreciated that you haven't and didn't. I know you realize that was not an accusation towards you.

Actually, I would say that the Einstein-Rosen Bridges are just as valid as GR solutions, if not even moreso. than DE.

Not only that, I am doing way more than just postulating that 'Space" is getting here from another universe! I am showing pretty precisely where in the other universe it is coming from, what makes it, why it makes it Planck size, and where it is entering our universe and by what mechanism(s).

This may be way ahead of its time, but I think that really quite remarkable.
(and back to Tim's quotes above!)

Whoaaaaaaaa, here. Why would we NOT be able to measure the Gamma radiation coming from the "Last Scattering" from "EVERYWHERE" 13.7 billion -380,000yrs, that should be coming through the Voids to us???

Here is the quote you provided, and just from that you can see why, but there are numerous other reasons as well. I will look, but they also used Quasar power to "Push" gases away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kormendy
What does this mean? The reason why the stars move so rapidly is that the galaxy collapsed to an unusually small size when it formed. Then stars are closer together, so their gravitational forces on each other are bigger, so they must move faster. But if black holes are unusually massive whenever galaxies are unusually collapsed, then black hole masses was probably fixed by the collapse process.]

There are no stars in the Dark Galaxy and No stars in the disc of the Ghost Galaxy, just HI.

I need more time on this one.


Just answer all these and we can begin.

How fast is 'space' traveling where the GRB's are exploding (and they are NOT in a galaxy!)? Is it traveling at 'C' or is it slower? At what angle is the gravity of 'space' coming together (Membranes touching) to cause the Torque to create a MBH millions to billions of sol masses? How is 'space' being rotated by the making of said MBH to cause a spiral shape to take form? How far is the majority of the Gamma Radiation acyually traveling away from the newly created MBH and how fast does the spiral shape and gravity well retard its outward flow? Shall I go on?

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

So do you have any thoughts on how you might resolve this, or are you resigned to having an infinite regress of universes? Or perhaps are you just hopeful that it might someday be resolved without knowing how that might be? I don't actually have much of a problem with this, actually. For example, I'd be happier with a finite but unbounded universe than with an infinite one, but I know that might not turn out to be the case.

Well, no, actually. You can detect dark matter gravitationally in a variety of ways. The one that springs to mind as the easiest possibility to observe is that if there were large amounts of dark matter in voids, we'd see gravitational lensing effects when looking through voids at galaxies beyond. As far as I know, there's no evidence at all of this.

Well, since it was in a direct response to one of my messages, I wasn't sure.

I'll give you "as valid" but not "moreso". The latter requires something with a negative pressure, the former requires something with a negative energy. And of course we've never seen any direct evidence of a wormhole of any type; even your idea has them silently emitting dark matter in the center of voids. Whereas we do see evidence of somethign that behaves quite a bit like a cosmological constant.

Yes you are, but since there's no direct evidence for any of these steps, it makes sense to reserve judgment on whether it's remarkable or not.

You're misunderstanding what I was referring to. Yes, we can directly see the light from the surface of last scattering everywhere, in every direction. However, all the light that reaches us directly from then has been redshifted up to today, so that tells us just the current temperature of the CMB. However, the fact that any random cloud of gas is heated externally by the CMB has measurable effects on that gas (like what energy states are excited, and so what spectral lines might be absorbed). By looking at spectra of objects beyond that gas and seeing what the absorption spectrum looks like, we can determine upper and lower limits for the temperature of the CMB in the past, back when the light was interacting with that gas cloud. Then you compare that temperature with your theoretical prediction, and see if it works. As it turns out, it does; the CMB was hotted in the past, by the amount (within experimental error) predicted by the concordance model.

As far as dynamic orbits go, HI gas and stars behave pretty much the same. So that argument isn't going to help you. And you also said that their methodology would fail when applied to LSB and BCD galaxies. To support a claim like that, you'd really have to write a paper of comparable length and complexity to the one from the Nuker team, but analyzing different galaxy types and showing how it fails.

Fair enough; let me know when you're ready to discuss it. Let me just give you this to think about in the mean time. Neutrinos actually make a great prototype for dark matter (and in fact, some portion of the dark matter may indeed be "hot" neutrinos). All we'd need for "cold" dark matter would be a particle or class of particles that behaves largely like a neutrino does, but is much more massive. It took us 25 years to experimentally verify the existence of neutrinos, and that's when we knew exactly what properties the particle had. I can't think of any reason why a heavy neutrino-like particle should be considered especially suspect.

You're still avoiding the question. This is your idea, not mine!

Well, even though you seem unwilling to come right out and say it, it's clear that your answer is no, that you do not know how to solve the angular momentum problem your idea possesses. From your comments here as well as earlier comments, it seems that you think it would take a group of general relativity experts some years to solve the problem, working with mathematics that are somewhat beyond you.

The natural next questions presents itself then. Given that you cannot solve the problem, why do you think that you can claim that the problem must certainly have a solution? Without such a solution in hand, you certainly have no evidence that the problem can actually be solved. It may seem that I keep pressing on this one issue, but there's a good reason for that. It's a really simple, clearly statable problem with your idea, but it's also one that, if not resolved, is pretty devastating. Conservation of angular momentum is a serious issue. Let me give you some reasons why.

First, conservation of angular momentum has never been observed to be violated in any experiment. Ever. The one case that I can think of where it looked like it might have been were certain types of beta decay, that eventually led to the proposal of the neutrino as a particle. Note both side of this. Physicists were so unwilling to consider that angular momentum might not be conserved that they instead proposed a completel hypothetical, nearly undetectable particle. And then it turned out that they were right to do so.

Both general relativity and quantum mechanics, and pretty much every variant that I'm aware of, include conservation of angular momentum. In fact, for quantum mechanics, it goes a step further. Using some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics, coupled with the assumption that the laws of physics do not change depending on which direction you're looking, you can actually derive conservation of angular momentum. (Conservation of linear momentum and conservation of energy can similarly be derived from the assumptions that the laws of physics don't change in different places or different times).

If galaxies had a way to acquire or dissipate massive amounts of angular momentum, they wouldn't remain stable. Any example of orbital dynamics shows clear evidence that angular momentum is conserved at all scales that we observe.

Moreover, we have a model of galaxy formation that does not require violations of energy conservation or angular momentum, that is internally consistent, and that matches our observations of galaxies quite well. To be considered a serious competitor, your idea would have to not just be adequate, it would have to be better. That means not leaving issues like conflicts with grounding principles of physics unaddressed.

I've also talked about the issue that your idea would seem to predict that the density of galaxies should be inversely proportional to distance (after correcting for the fact that you can't see fainter galaxies as far away), something that is not observed, adn you haven't really addressed that either. It may seem that I'm being harsh, but the standards I'm holding you to are significantly less than a peer reviewed journal would.

Take another look at those papers by the Nuker team that you referenced. That's a good example of the type of work that it would take. Note the detailed quantified discussion, the tables of specific galaxies where they've made calculations. Note that they point out places where they think they might be wrong (often pointing out reasons why they think those objections are not correct, but still pointing them out). Heck, they even have a section in one talking about alternatives to black holes that could account for the central compact objects. And they have dozens of those papers. Now, you're probably thinking that you can't put out the work of a whole team, and that's true. But any one of those papers was probably written primarily by one or two members of the team. It's that kind of quantitative analysis that's required.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Actually, when I said this, and now comparing that to what you are asking here, I find that this is MUCH more of an answer than we currently have.
For the same thing question holds true for the current paradigm, only that paradigm just starts off with Infinite Energy Density at 10^-43, and says we can't know anything before that, and we just have to accept that.

So, the answer is, that I would be much more content with a theory that could be contrained tightly enough, that it could show how our 'space' is made up of the unifying Planck Mass, and constrains exactly where it is coming from, but the leaves the "UNKNOWN" at Infinite universe levels up the ladder, so to speak.
You are joking, right? Uh, didn't Einstein say that Ponderable Matter "Distorts" space?

The Non-Baryonic Dark Matter "IS THERE"! IN all the Voids and everywhere else in the universe! Aand just as Tim suggested DM/DE are the same thing and make up 96% of the universe! And that is a Background Gravity Field, BUT, since it Planck size/mass and it is all traveling at "C", it is a bit "HIDDEN". And actually, it is the Gravity in all the Baryonic Matter as well! Which makes the universe 100% Gravity! This will all be "KNOWN" one day.

But, back to the subject at hand. It takes Baryonic Matter to distort space to see a gravitational lens.

GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZ, I just lost the ENTIRE additional answers to all of this! GRRR.

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

(my bold)

Maybe my comments will be (would have been?) addressed by the missing additional answers, but ....

I'd be surprise if Tim Thompson meant DE and DM "are the same thing", so perhaps you could clarify this statement please?

"that is a Background Gravity Field, BUT, since it Planck size/mass and it is all traveling at "C", it is a bit "HIDDEN"" - what do you intend to mean by this? I can make neither head nor tail of it, in terms of today's physics and cosmology.

Mass 'distorts space', and the conditions for 'gravitational lensing' include sight-lines details, and distribution of mass. In GR (and so for lensing), mass is mass is mass - the lensing produced by a particular distibution of DM is no different than the lensing produced by the same distribution of baryonic mass.