That title has nothing to do with my post.
"(about a focal point)No, they found a general trend of the objects distancing themselves from eachother though, and concluded that the universe is
That's fairly interesting. If there is not focal point to be found, our universe is either, much, much larger,... our scientists are complete
idiots... and/or the galaxies and superclusters interplay with one another thus distorting the focal point's possible location or removing the need
for a specific focal point (there may have been more than one Big Bang).
"Once again trying to conclude what form gravity is emitted in (particle, wave, force, etc...) deducing from the fact that we can not 'see'
gravity, it must be a different form than light."
One a massive scale, gravity is suppose to be understood as a wave. On the subatomic (quantum) level, it is suppose to be seen as a force carrier
particle (graviton). We have never found a graviton, so that may be incorrect. That's about all I know on the subject of its form.
"I THINK all matter, all quarks, everything... is made of energy, just in different forms."
That depends what energy is made of. Energy is now considered to be types of force carrier particles (matter), but I don't completely agree with all
of the theories on that one. Energy may not be the prime substance.
"You can't create matter out of NOTHING (I'm talking nothing... void... complete nonexistance)."
It's hard to say. Does nothing even exist? I mean, we may have aether, energy, dimensional substance (subspace), matter, strings, etc. If this is
true, there may be no such thing as nothing, only the illusion of "less stuff" in a particular area.
"I believe you could create matter out of energy... or quarks (which I consider matter in this case simply because they make up matter)."
Right. Quarks and leptons make up atoms, but it is all matter. Matter is pretty much any substance with mass or atomic structure. There are
experiments going on now to see if we can concentrate energy in special collisions that might yield some sort of matter.
"My statement was based on your statement earlier about how gravity tugs on itself... then wouldn't a reversed gravity push on itself... and push
the atoms appart?"
Well, gravity tugs on spacetime, so when two gravity sources pull on the same volume of spacetime, they are pulling each other closer. A reversed
gravity would depend on how it is structured. It may still pull on other forms of gravity, then cancel out in a collision, or it may push away from
other gravity sources. If it did push "mass/matter" apart, then that would explain why we don't find any exotic matter. If that is the case, what
could cause reverse gravity to exist? It would either have to withstand the push of reverse gravity or it would have to be bonded to the gravity.
Both ideas seem to have flaws. I'm not too worried about that at this moment.
"What if the aether existed before the big bang. Perhaps the aether, when stressed under an extreme force such as a black hole errupting, could
'condense' into matter (quarks and leptons if not atoms, and maybe even other forms we find in the universe). In other words, what if the aether is
a medium of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks, of the building-blocks of matter. Perhaps before the big bang there was NO matter, yet the
bang yielded such a force that it transformed some of the aether INTO matter."
Again, go back and read the article on Faster than Light Speeds. It is an article that is found in Discover magazine. It should be listed on one of
my last few posts. You'll find that it addresses these issues to some degree. The aether is sometimes called an energy soup. At other times is is
referred to as the building blocks for energy and matter. Who knows, but it is certainly something to keep in mind.
"The only problem I see with this as a theory for the creation of our universe is that if a black hole has an errupting point (critical mass) then
the ammount of matter needed for this to happen should be generally FIXED."
Right. This amount would probably be no less than a few whole galaxies worth of matter AND other black holes which all emerge into one.
"So if the big bang was this kind of erruption, there should only be enough matter in our universe to do it one more time and that would only occur
if ALL the matter in the universe came back together."
That would be a problem, especially since the universe is not contracting, but expanding faster. That would mean that no black hole would become
large enough to reach critcal mass. However, you've found a solution to your own problem...
"UNLESS my thought on an explosion of this magnitude could transform the aether into matter... then we might have a lot MORE matter than we started
with... allowing for the critical mass to be reached again and again by other black holes inside our universe."
Now you're catching up to my idea of the universe. I doubt it is getting smaller by any means. Even if we are fixed in the amount of substance,
that still doesn't mean that it takes a Big Bang to form substance. It may or may not mean that a Big Bang is required to create/make substance from
"I meant horrific in the terms of how we consider a supernova to be horrific in that it is an unthinkably massive explosion. A black hole erruption
would yield millions (if not billions) of times the force a supernova would."
That's what I mean, as well.
"Shrapnal the size of SuperRed Giants raining from the heavens... wonderful."
I don't think we'd worry about a 'rain' of it... I think the first one to come our way would pretty much take care of Earth.
Well, the fact that they would be like rain in the universe is what makes it so funny and freightening at the same time.