"Now that I think of it, maybe it wasn't NOVA"
I think you made it up.
"and their velocities (remember that a Velocity is a vector) to try to find if there was a general focal point (origin)."
I'm curious, did they find a focal point (a point where the Big Bang would have occured)?
"This would only be true however if gravitional radiation differed greatly in form from light, as light is not effected by the aether (far as I
Einstein believed that the aether existed (I believed he called it sigma in one of his equations (maybe lambda)). He believed this because our ears
only hear sound because the waves crash against particles which in turn crash into our ear drums. He said that we can only see light because it rubs
against spacetime causing the visible spectra that our eyes can pick up. Even if the idea has no proof behind it, the idea is very interesting. If
this is true, then light does interact with the aether, as does gravity and all other things.
"So assuming the aether exists and since it does not affect light (which is a particle-wave) can we assume that gravity is NOT a particle-wave?"
I doubt light is a particle wave. Unfortunitely, most people don't seem to have the curiosity to ponder what else it could be. Light could be a
stage between matter and energy (a force carrier particle in quantum physics with no mass). I personally don't believe in particles like the rest of
humanity. Teaching particles is a way for a layman to understand that their are differences between different types of masses and energies. The
reason why we can't figure out quarks and leptons is because we keep thinking they are particles and not just representations of something much more
complex (where the simple case no longer carries enough answers so the odds need to be stepped up a notch). Of course, this is all my opinion, but I
hope to make it fact one day. Anyway, gravity is spacetime distortion... let's just leave it at that for now.
"Aether=Zero Point Field"
Sort of. Zero Point usually refers to singularities that act as mass-energy conversion factories. Aether is not a singularity, but a special medium.
There is an example in philosophy where one fish turns to the other fish as says, "There is no water." Humans and the Aether are the same. Sad
(again, this is my opinion). We claim, "there is no aether," while we wallow in it. Again, sad.
"Unfortunately to test that we'd have to create matter out of nothingness... which is supposedly impossible (too bad, it'd be cool to see)."
I'll invite you to watch it one day
"That's a cros-section of the 'sheet' looking at the side of the gravity cone, right? (just want to make sure I got it)."
Yes. The spacing of the forum does not allow for a full cross-section.
"So theoretically any substance displaying negative gravity would throw itself appart atom by atom."
No, it would just have a field in the opposite direction of standard gravity. This means they either could not exist in the same space or that they
destroy one another. Maybe you could claim that negative gravity exists, but like antimatter it was lost at some point in the development of the
universe and only exists in minute amounts today.
"I think it would repel other NGM (Negative gravity matter... my new term cuz it's long to type) but simply IGNORE regular matter of the exact same
I like the term. NG for Neg. Grav. NGM Neg. Grav. Matter. It depends if negative gravity exists because of NGM or if it exists as an alternate form
of gravity produced by regular matter or a process we do not yet know of.
"If by invert you mean explode... I agree."
I think I like the term "erupt." Yes, eruptions involve an explosion, but how the matter is released from an eruption would vary in form, thus
explaining how the Big Bang occured. If a black hole essential boils down matter into its basic consituents (quarks, leptons, and maybe small atoms
like hydrogen), then when it spewed them out (after a gigantic shockwave clearing the way for the new substance) a new universe could form by the
exact same rules, thus creating a cycle whereby the children of the Big Bang (the original singularity) could have children--Bang Bangs spawning other
Big Bangs in other places. Ok, fine, a big a$$ explosion.
"I don't know enough physics or nuclear particle dynamics or thermodynamics needed to determine if it COULD explode"
Well, no one with those backgrounds seem to be able to answer that question anyway, so just take your best shot.
"Here's a scary thought... think of the black hole that's about to explode as a stick of dynamite. You put the dynamite on top of the rubber sheet
and you've got yourself a big wave going on"
Yes, enough to wipe out other types of existence for many lightyears.
"... but since the black hole is NOT on TOP of the sheet, but burrowed INTO it... it'd be like burrying the dynamie and then blowing it up or
digging a slim hole to drop it into (the dirt being spacetime)"
Which means that crap is blown all over the place (like in the Big Bang). The aether is stressed, new mass is created, complex forms emerge, and the
cycle begins once again.
"... you've got a horrific possibility on your hands there."
Not unless one happened already. Otherwise we have millions of years before any effects would reach us (if not billions).
"The black hole has A LOT of spacetime gathered up around itself, and possibly bent back on itself. Close your hand around the dynamite. Yikes!"
Shrapnal the size of SuperRed Giants raining from the heavens... wonderful.
"As I said above, "the black hole is 'burried' in our spacetime", perhaps it would explode 'under' spacetime and create a bubble... or another
universe connected to our's through the rip (perhaps a form of wormhole)."
I wouldn't say "under." Nested is a better word. It would not be a "bubble" either, but a big a$$ wave of fury.
I'm too tired to come up with anything else. Give me some opinions and some possible problems with our scenario. I like it when people find flaws.
They usually help me eliminate bad possiblities and keep the good ones. Whack away.