Is it possible that the exit point for all super massive black holes is the event known as the Big bang?

[georgenovak]

Since learning that the earth's core is years younger than its surface (due to gravity), I have begun thinking about how supermassive black holes may have an exit point that is chronologically as well as spatially distant from the singularity itself. If the expansion of the universe is related to time itself, than any regression in time goes back to a time period of a smaller universe. If you go back far enough (say 14 billion years), then the universe becomes a single point. It has been theorized that white holes may exist and those could be in the past as the massive gravity causes time regression for everything entering the singularity. So if a supermassive black hole produces a supermassive time effect, could that transport matter/energy back so far that the only exit point could be the Big Bang event?
Could this recycling of matter/energy also account for dark matter and quantum entanglement? I'm hoping someone can prove this wrong so I stop dwelling on it. Thanks!

 

[rod]

Since learning that the earth's core is years younger than its surface (due to gravity), I have begun thinking about how supermassive black holes may have an exit point that is chronologically as well as spatially distant from the singularity itself. If the expansion of the universe is related to time itself, than any regression in time goes back to a time period of a smaller universe. If you go back far enough (say 14 billion years), then the universe becomes a single point. It has been theorized that white holes may exist and those could be in the past as the massive gravity causes time regression for everything entering the singularity. So if a supermassive black hole produces a supermassive time effect, could that transport matter/energy back so far that the only exit point could be the Big Bang event?
Could this recycling of matter/energy also account for dark matter and quantum entanglement? I'm hoping someone can prove this wrong so I stop dwelling on it. Thanks!

Okay, *prove this wrong* I cannot claim to accomplish this but do find the supermassive black hole model very interesting. M87 supermassive black hole imaged now contains 6.5 billion solar masses and a diameter near 38 billion km or 254 AU. How large is your supermassive black hole and diameter that will cause another Big Bang event and make a universe as large as the universe we see today? I think this is the direction you may be considering.

 

[georgenovak]

Okay, *prove this wrong* I cannot claim to accomplish this but do find the supermassive black hole model very interesting. M87 supermassive black hole imaged now contains 6.5 billion solar masses and a diameter near 38 billion km or 254 AU. How large is your supermassive black hole and diameter that will cause another Big Bang event and make a universe as large as the universe we see today? I think this is the direction you may be considering.

My crazy theory isn't that a single black hole caused the Big Bang, but that all supermassive black holes are continuously causing the Big Bang. As it compresses matter into energy, the gravity also causes a time distortion which funnels all that energy back in time to exit from a single point. It is a continuous process. From our limited observation point, we only see the Big Bang as the past and black holes as the present; but they are linked by time-space and gravity.

 

[sgtnos]

Since learning that the earth's core is years younger than its surface (due to gravity), I have begun thinking about how supermassive black holes may have an exit point that is chronologically as well as spatially distant from the singularity itself. If the expansion of the universe is related to time itself, than any regression in time goes back to a time period of a smaller universe. If you go back far enough (say 14 billion years), then the universe becomes a single point. It has been theorized that white holes may exist and those could be in the past as the massive gravity causes time regression for everything entering the singularity. So if a supermassive black hole produces a supermassive time effect, could that transport matter/energy back so far that the only exit point could be the Big Bang event?
Could this recycling of matter/energy also account for dark matter and quantum entanglement? I'm hoping someone can prove this wrong so I stop dwelling on it. Thanks!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9PB_4F-OU
No such things as black holes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8&index=18 , and gravitational lensing would be required https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8&index=14 ,

 

[rod]

My crazy theory isn't that a single black hole caused the Big Bang, but that all supermassive black holes are continuously causing the Big Bang. As it compresses matter into energy, the gravity also causes a time distortion which funnels all that energy back in time to exit from a single point. It is a continuous process. From our limited observation point, we only see the Big Bang as the past and black holes as the present; but they are linked by time-space and gravity.

Okay, I understand, *all supermassive black holes are continuously causing the Big Bang*. This suggest to me that the Big Bang is not a single event that created the universe we see today but a process that continually recreates, perhaps many different universes like a multiverse. Setting this aside, a theory should be testable, and falsifiable in science. M87 black hole is a good place to test your theory. Here is a new report showing M87 has a jet that is moving superluminal speed or relativistic speed, x-rays for the first time imaged and shown. Famous black hole has jet pushing cosmic speed limit

""For years, astronomers have observed radiation from a jet of high energy particles—powered by the black hole—blasting out of the center of M87. They have studied the jet in radio, optical, and X-ray light, including with Chandra. And now by using Chandra observations, researchers have seen that sections of the jet are moving at nearly the speed of light. "This is the first time such extreme speeds by a black hole's jet have been recorded using X-ray data,"

M87 jet can be seen and imaged and tested at different wavelengths of light. How can astronomers test and observe that M87 is causing the Big Bang event vs. slow entropy and death under the 2nd Law, decay, and evaporation as Hawking and Kip S. Thorne discussed?

 

[sgtnos]

Okay, I understand, *all supermassive black holes are continuously causing the Big Bang*. This suggest to me that the Big Bang is not a single event that created the universe we see today but a process that continually recreates, perhaps many different universes like a multiverse. Setting this aside, a theory should be testable, and falsifiable in science. M87 black hole is a good place to test your theory. Here is a new report showing M87 has a jet that is moving superluminal speed or relativistic speed, x-rays for the first time imaged and shown. Famous black hole has jet pushing cosmic speed limit

""For years, astronomers have observed radiation from a jet of high energy particles—powered by the black hole—blasting out of the center of M87. They have studied the jet in radio, optical, and X-ray light, including with Chandra. And now by using Chandra observations, researchers have seen that sections of the jet are moving at nearly the speed of light. "This is the first time such extreme speeds by a black hole's jet have been recorded using X-ray data,"

M87 jet can be seen and imaged and tested at different wavelengths of light. How can astronomers test and observe that M87 is causing the Big Bang event vs. slow entropy and death under the 2nd Law, decay, and evaporation as Hawking and Kip S. Thorne discussed?

Black holes cannot exist. A lot of things that are required for them to be present do not exist, such as gravitational lensing around black holes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E

 

[georgenovak]

M87 jet can be seen and imaged and tested at different wavelengths of light. How can astronomers test and observe that M87 is causing the Big Bang event vs. slow entropy and death under the 2nd Law, decay, and evaporation as Hawking and Kip S. Thorne discussed?

Could this be tested using quantum entanglement. Inject one particle into a black hole and observe its twin? If one is destroyed or compressed beyond existence then the other should be as well. Though if one is pulled back in time, then I suppose the twin would also "disappear" and it would be hard to know if it was destroyed or just removed from the observers time plane.

 

[rod]

Could this be tested using quantum entanglement. Inject one particle into a black hole and observe its twin? If one is destroyed or compressed beyond existence then the other should be as well. Though if one is pulled back in time, then I suppose the twin would also "disappear" and it would be hard to know if it was destroyed or just removed from the observers time plane.

I do not know but M87 is a good place to start showing quantum entanglement. You would need to *inject one particle* into M87 and observe and record the measurements. Consider M87 distance from Earth.

 

[rod]

Black holes cannot exist. A lot of things that are required for them to be present do not exist, such as gravitational lensing around black holes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E

Interesting, gravitational lensing around black holes is used. Consider M87 black hole, it is some 254-256 AU in diameter using the Schwarzchild radius and 6.5 billion solar masses. To observe a gravitational lens effect near M87 black hole, what is the arcsecond measurement from this diameter be using a telescope? You need to know the distance to M87 black hole, the diameter which is 254-256 AU and an object near M87 black hole in angular separation to measure as well, so there will be a limit in arcsecond size to record.

 

[sgtnos]

Interesting, gravitational lensing around black holes is used. Consider M87 black hole, it is some 254-256 AU in diameter using the Schwarzchild radius and 6.5 billion solar masses. To observe a gravitational lens effect near M87 black hole, what is the arcsecond measurement from this diameter be using a telescope? You need to know the distance to M87 black hole, the diameter which is 254-256 AU and an object near M87 black hole in angular separation to measure as well, so there will be a limit in arcsecond size to record.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9PB_4F-OU&t=284s
What black hole? I do not subscribe to magical theories and fake data.

 

[rod]

Interesting, gravitational lensing around black holes is used. Consider M87 black hole, it is some 254-256 AU in diameter using the Schwarzchild radius and 6.5 billion solar masses. To observe a gravitational lens effect near M87 black hole, what is the arcsecond measurement from this diameter be using a telescope? You need to know the distance to M87 black hole, the diameter which is 254-256 AU and an object near M87 black hole in angular separation to measure as well, so there will be a limit in arcsecond size to record.

Okay, I will try and clean this up Presently M87 black hole diameter is as shown. At 16.4E+6 parsecs distance, the angular size is about 1.6E-5 arcsecond. How large will the arcsecond measurement be to detect gravitational lensing around M87 black hole then?

 

[sgtnos]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4NffTr_GMk&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uel_1K8_OQo11Tnvdaz6SJ8&index=5&t=0s

 

[rod]

This does not address the gravitational lensing problem claimed. M87 black hole that is some 1.6E-5 arcsecond at 16.4E+6 parsecs, and what the arcsecond size is for a gravitational lensed object near M87.

 

[sgtnos]

The problem is that galaxies pass behind M87 and we see no gravitational lensing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g&t=1s

 

[rod]

The arcsecond size of M87 black hole is tiny in the M87 elliptical galaxy. Astronomy seeks to measure tiny circles, Dividing the circle. The development of critical angular measurement in astronomy 1500 - 1850.

Showing the gravitational lens for a galaxy behind M87 black hole, needs a specific tiny circle observation test too.

 

[rod]

The problem is that galaxies pass behind M87 and we see no gravitational lensing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g&t=1s

the image is not M87

 

[sgtnos]

Why do you think it matters which black hole it is supposed to be and do you have evidence of it happening? I have shown a video that shows it not occurring around the center of the Milky Way. You have also not explained why the video is incorrect. It would always have to occur, so I do not understand your point anyways. If you disprove gravitational lensing once, it is broken and another explanation is needed. I do not have to create a new theory to prove one wrong.

 

[sgtnos]

I don't have to know the math to prove something wrong by observation.

 

[rod]

Why do you think it matters which black hole it is supposed to be and do you have evidence of it happening? I have shown a video that shows it not occurring around the center of the Milky Way. You have also not explained why the video is incorrect. It would always have to occur, so I do not understand your point anyways. If you disprove gravitational lensing once, it is broken and another explanation is needed. I do not have to create a new theory to prove one wrong.

I did not see specific tiny circles documented. M87 galaxy is some 7 arcminute angular size, M87 black hole is some 1.6E-5 arcsecond size. tiny circles show what is happening

 

[georgenovak]

What black hole? I do not subscribe to magical theories and fake data.

Would it be too much trouble to ask you to stop posting youtube videos with someone else's opinions on this thread.

I know it's easier to just deny something than to open your mind, but please do it elsewhere.

 

[sgtnos]

I have an open mind, but the thing is that evidence shows big bang cosmology is not correct and there are a lot of things wrong. I change my mind based on evidence and that seems to be something you are unwilling to do. What have you done other than say keep an open mind and go post evidence elsewhere, leave our opinions alone. Is that what you think science is?

 

[georgenovak]

I have an open mind, but the thing is that evidence shows big bang cosmology is not correct and there are a lot of things wrong. I change my mind based on evidence and that seems to be something you are unwilling to do. What have you done other than say keep an open mind and go post evidence elsewhere, leave our opinions alone. Is that what you think science is?

I think my initial and subsequent posts demonstrate and open mind. I engage in healthy discourse with people who are willing to share their ideas. Posting a bunch of youtube videos hardly qualifies anyone of being literate in science. Youtube is by far the least accurate source of any useful evidence. Only by study and sharing of OUR OWN ideas can we push science forward.

 

[sgtnos]

I did not see specific tiny circles documented. M87 galaxy is some 7 arcminute angular size, M87 black hole is some 1.6E-5 arcsecond size. tiny circles show what is happening

Something moving around does not show that it is a black hole that they are moving around. The lack of observed objects does not itself prove the presence of an object or that the object is what you think it is. The only proof shown is that something is affecting everything around it. A plasmoid could do that. Also, explain the galactic jets coming out of black holes or the need to come up with dark energy/dark matter to explain why they are missing mass that they cannot account for in their models. We have stars older than the galaxy and stars with transuranic elements, both should not exist. At what point do we decide to throw things out and actually rebuild theories.

 

[sgtnos]

Why do you think rewriting a large amount of evidence down is better than using evidence provided by experts. Who are you saying is not a good source? Why do you think disproving ideas is bad science?

 

[georgenovak]

I don't have to know the math to prove something wrong by observation.

That statement is inaccurate. Just as an example you should have read the information posted above -
Famous black hole has jet pushing cosmic speed limit

This shows how observation can be biased and a correct analysis accomplished using mathematics.