The Origin of the Universe - My Theory, page 2

Hm, maybe I didn't make it as clear as I meant to..

SkyFox, I wasn't proposing new and better forms of your theory, I was pointing out the ways that your theory must work - if there is no 'mass limit' then there is no need for there to be BH's at all, and your theory is completely void, since it depends on the creation of black holes.

What I meant to say, put much simpler and without cases, is that in your theory, the massive hole is that the universe feeding matter to the next universe will inevitably run itself out of matter - and since there is more than 1 black hole in every universe, then there is an ever-increasing number of black holes, and thus universes. Without an amount of matter that is ever-increasing, the amount of matter per universe will continuously fall, and there will at last, one day, be no universes with enough matter to sustain a single black hole, and the process will end.

The idea is that either physics is broken and there is infinite matter/energy being created at all times from somewhere in the multiverse, or that the process is self-terminating, which is something that just doesn't seem to happen. Processes don't just start and end themselves and never occur again, they loop. If matter were forced to move back through its holes and time to go backwards, it will loop, but you have directly denied this.

The point wasn't that there's a minor flaw in my own stream of thought, but a major flaw within your underlying concept. I don't say that as an attack, I don't doubt your intelligence, or your creativity, or wisdom. I say that simply as an objective observer - your theory is wrong.

Now, I had another thing to point out about your last message:

[QUOTE]Let's see. From what I can remember, white holes are thought to be highly unstable and are incapable of being in contact with matter at any time. If this is the case, once matter is transmitted through the black hole, and ends up spewing out the anti black hole, the white hole would be destroyed. Because of this, I don't think a white hole really fits the description of an incoming black hole.[/QUOTE]

... Actually, no, white holes aren't 'thought to be' anything. They're a very rarely discussed fringe bit of science, only suggested by a few theorists and truly believed by far fewer. What you seem to describing is, in actuallity, antimatter. Antimatter undergoes annihalation whenever it comes into contact with matter, and annihalation is so violent a release of energy that a single gram of antimatter reacting with matter would be equivalent to 23 filled space shuttle fuel tanks igniting at once. Very volatile in the presence of real matter.

White Holes are thought, on the rare occasion physicists think of them at all, as the opposite ends of black holes, essentially, big bangs. The idea was that matter would 'fall' into a black hole, and travel through an Einstein/Rosen Bridge, which is a Wormhole, then shoot out through a White Hole, which would appear as a source of unbelievable brightness, viewable from pretty much everywhere. The problem is, that Stephen Hawking recently revised the mathematics describing Black Holes, and it now seems apparent that matter does not 'fall' anywhere, it is simply compressed and held deep within the singularity, and eventually ejected as radiation, as previously discussed.

This does not mean that occasionally, there are wormholes. The BH model that was revised was of the standard model, and does not cover the occasional exceptions that Einstein/Rosen bridges have been thought to be.

Still, I hold that I'm not making attacks, just helping the learning process. I have a lot to learn too.