[Profpat]

So our universe is like a certain round red fruit, hanging from a tree, waiting to fall and land next to some guy named Newton.

Or maybe Max.

[Max™]

Heh, that would be neat huh.

Still waiting to hear back from Smolin, emailed him with some questions which I believe he will find interesting.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

The universe itself is, in fact, described by the same equations that describe a black hole. A black hole is a region where there is such a concentration of matter that the gravitational pull it produces is so strong that not even light can escape from its surface. Nothing from inside a black hole can affect the outside world, although objects from outside may fall in. Such a black hole may be produced when a star rather more massive than our own sun comes to the end of its life, and shrinks inward.

The Black Hole theory is a theory, Pat, it is not a certainty. And as you will know, Hawking also changed his idea about black holes as he now considers that black holes do not have to trap all energy.

In my theory black holes are actually gray holes (or ash holes), and the location is only the center of a gravitational disk that galaxies then are, a location where gravity itself is cancelled out. So we end up with a location where gravity is actually absent like wind is absent at the eye of the storm. Anything that gets stuck in this location will either get pushed back into the galactic disk but at a different angle (though still towards the breadth of the disk) or get torn apart, after which dust can then get pushed perpendicularly away from this location.

I think a little applause is in place for Dipayan for asking excellent questions that move us towards the real issue: how did our universe get started. I'd like to ask a question here too: did our universe start from a singular position or did our universe start from a collective action (with perhaps a singular reason such as the incorporation of limitation then required for all outwardly moving energy); outward motion of parts cannot be considered a singular result, so can all this have come from a singular state? If so, that would be like having a seed fertilize itself.

My explanation: at the heart of our universe's outward movement, limitation must have been experienced after which all energy catapulted outwardly into becoming matter. At the heart of the matter we then find not a seed, but a potential seed that could not have become the first seeds (plural) until certain requirements were met.

[Max™]

That is the idea I was considering as well.

Why a singularity, why can't the big bang have started with an object with actual size?

I had an interesting thought about black holes, which is similar in a way to that "location where gravity is actually absent" idea you said. That stood out to me because of what I was thinking about all last night while trying to sleep.

If you take the rubber sheet analogy, and make it a rubber cube or ball or whatever, just apply a third dimension to it.

If you stretch a portion of it inwards too far, it will tear, the edges of the rubber will retract somewhat, and you're left with a spherical hole where anything that is within the rubber cannot cross and return from.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Max™

That is the idea I was considering as well.

Why a singularity, why can't the big bang have started with an object with actual size?

I had an interesting thought about black holes, which is similar in a way to that "location where gravity is actually absent" idea you said. That stood out to me because of what I was thinking about all last night while trying to sleep.

If you take the rubber sheet analogy, and make it a rubber cube or ball or whatever, just apply a third dimension to it.

If you stretch a portion of it inwards too far, it will tear, the edges of the rubber will retract somewhat, and you're left with a spherical hole where anything that is within the rubber cannot cross and return from.

I like that visualization very much, Max. It provides a localized example of an entity that goes awry, while trapping another state within itself.

The Big Bang in my theory starts indeed not from a singular spot, but starts not until it is way out in the boonies. At heart, the Big Bang is empty (though possibly this empty area is affected not long after the Big Bang got underway). If you take a balloon under high pressure that pops in all directions more or less equality, then the center air molecules do not move. Movement of the other air molecules is outwardly, and those with enough speed actually make it, in this theory, to the materialization stage. Once at that stage, several new laws come into effect, and that could have effected the empty spot in the center as well.

This theory does require a non-materialized potential stage that went awry.

[Max™]

I had that image when I was wondering why we can describe the mass of a black hole by it's area, not the volume.

Implying that there is something cut out of space there to me, for some odd reason, probably due to relativistic concept poisoning.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Max™

Still waiting to hear back from Smolin, emailed him with some questions which I believe he will find interesting.

Lee Smolin doesn't reply to emails

Felix

[Max™]

Gah, I'm discovering that, I've been searching the PI site for some sort of contact method but cannot find one.

Why have a public email address and not use it? T.T

Guess I can place a call, but man that gets expensive fast.

[Profpat]

The Black Hole theory is a theory, Pat, it is not a certainty. And as you will know, Hawking also changed his idea about black holes as he now considers that black holes do not have to trap all energy.

Hi Fredrick;

They say the only thing for sure is death and taxes, and I'm not sure about death.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes;

Maybe entropy is the universes way of taxing heat. If that was the case it would be a classic example of an entity being taxed to death.