Unifying GR & QFT

[RussT]

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
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=849347&postcount=1
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=849349&postcount=2
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=849350&postcount=3


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/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-6&page=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/2001/deathstartrans.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.

[RussT]

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/public/images/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]

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.php?p=648294&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!

[czeslaw]

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

[RussT]

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]

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

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.

[Nereid]

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!"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")

[RussT]

* 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")

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???


"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")

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


"in this idea, the Lyman A line has a rest wavelength of 900nm; in the lab we observe it to be 121.6nm;

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

[Nereid]

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?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?

[RussT]

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]

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]

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

[RussT]

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!

[Grey]

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/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-6&page=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!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.

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!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.

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!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.

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!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?

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!!!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.

[RussT]

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.

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!


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.

[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 cannot necessarily take the current state of an object and figure out what the previous state must have been.

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



Originally Posted by RussT
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!

Originally Posted by Grey
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?

[(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.


You find an excess of angular momentum. Note that this problem is a tricky one.

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!


We break a conservation law at a single point in extreme conditions. Well, maybe.

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

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

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.php?p=648294&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.

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

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.

[Grey]

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!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?

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!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.

You cannot necessarily take the current state of an object and figure out what the previous state must have been.
You mean, like the whole universe from 10^-43 forward?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.

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

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!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.

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

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

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

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

Tony B.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Thanks for listening and for allowing me to interrupt.

Tony B.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

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!

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.

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

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

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.

[pacificap@hotmail.com]

OUR OPEN UNIVERSE
UNIFYING GR & QFT

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/2001/deathstartrans.shtml
(notice Boydan’s plight here!)
...



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 C