Most current theories come from trying to understand and answer basic questions like 'is the universe in a steady state?' (I think your model would be in this category), or 'does the universe oscillate in cycles of bang-expand-collapse?', or 'will the universe expand forever?'.

Thanks for the link, Chipper :)
To some extent, it confirms SOME of my ideas, particularly the red shift caused by gravity. I still think this could account for the apparent (accelerating) expansion of the Universe. According to the article, the gravity well of an MECO or Black Hole will also dilate time as well as space, making it likely the object concerned will exhibit a red doppler shift. Since a galaxy is hugely massive, I believe this same effect may be observed, albeit at a lower level, due to the galactic mass being diffuse, compared to that of a MECO or Black Hole.
Much of the maths is way over my head, but the article is plain enough for me to grasp many of the ideas it contains. I was interested in the captured radiation in a MECO balancing gravitational pressure, which is similar to my idea of a critical mass. However, the article seems to indicate this is not thought to occur, and that the MECO should continue collapsing, forming a real Black Hole.
A little bit of extrapolation tells me that the matter streaming out of a Seyfert galaxy is probably NOT from a central Black Hole, but rather the result of cataclysmic collisions between stellar-mass bodies being crammed into rapidly reducing space available near the centre of a galaxy.
Again, though, this seems consistent with the "dynamic equilibrium" concept, as the ejected matter would (theoretically) eventually coalesce to form another galaxy, at some point in the future.

Quote:

The thing that all good theories have in common is the language by which they're understood and communicated (and hence evaluated). They're all conveyed with the language of mathematics, so an understanding of maths is a necessary prerequisite to understand any models. Whatever else can be said of maths, it's surely the sharpest tool in the shed. (I go further, and say that it's not the physical constants that constrain the mathematical constants; it's the other way around.)
So not only must your cosmological model have descriptions of all quantities, relationships, and rates of change, you must also have models for the different quantities themselves, e.g., models for stars, models for galaxies, and models for larger scale structures, like clusters of galaxies. All these models within models must balance out into a picture that matches what we observe; not an easy task...

Maths is the key, as you say. I agree totally with your statement, above. The major weakness in my "model" is the lack of quantitive data I have. (e.g. what is the mass of a galaxy?) My mathematical skills are also pretty poor, so proving or disproving the model is not possible for me. No doubt, much of the data IS available, I just don't have the necessary skill to interpret or work with the figures in a constructive fashion.

Quote:

I thought that what you said about black holes (with critical mass) and redshift of light escaping a gravitational well was particularly interesting. As I was looking for an example of a model for a BH to show you, I found this one: Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). Quite a twist on the idea of mass in a black hole!

Amazing stuff! A Black Hole has NO MASS! I followed the argument, but wish I could explain it in my own words! (Mind boggling on all 8 cylinders now)

Quote:

Anyway, don't stop asking questions, since if your idea (or model) is good, then it's likely that there are good evaluations for it out there already.

Precisely: questions are the main thing. Without questions, we would have no scientists.

Thanks again for the links and reply, Chipper. I feel I have learned much.

How can a black hole be massless? what about conservation of matter?? if it is eating everything it sucks up, where is it going? it has to go somewhere.

How can a black hole be massless? what about conservation of matter?? if it is eating everything it sucks up, where is it going? it has to go somewhere.

Ok...
This is higher maths than I ever learned, but reading the article Chipper pointed to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object once an object becomes a Black Hole, it converts all matter into energy, according to Einstein's famous E=mcsquared equation.

That is to say, the energy contained in any object is the product of it's mass times the square of light velocity. That's a fair chunk of energy!

As the Black Hole forms, it compresses matter far beyond anything else, and in this causes matter to convert to pure energy, which is massless, and of course, dimensionless. (it occupies no space)

## RE: RE: Is Big Bang

)

Im going to reply to this in the cafe.

## RE: Hey LGMFM, Most

)

Thanks for the link, Chipper :)

To some extent, it confirms SOME of my ideas, particularly the red shift caused by gravity. I still think this could account for the apparent (accelerating) expansion of the Universe. According to the article, the gravity well of an MECO or Black Hole will also dilate time as well as space, making it likely the object concerned will exhibit a red doppler shift. Since a galaxy is hugely massive, I believe this same effect may be observed, albeit at a lower level, due to the galactic mass being diffuse, compared to that of a MECO or Black Hole.

Much of the maths is way over my head, but the article is plain enough for me to grasp many of the ideas it contains. I was interested in the captured radiation in a MECO balancing gravitational pressure, which is similar to my idea of a critical mass. However, the article seems to indicate this is not thought to occur, and that the MECO should continue collapsing, forming a real Black Hole.

A little bit of extrapolation tells me that the matter streaming out of a Seyfert galaxy is probably NOT from a central Black Hole, but rather the result of cataclysmic collisions between stellar-mass bodies being crammed into rapidly reducing space available near the centre of a galaxy.

Again, though, this seems consistent with the "dynamic equilibrium" concept, as the ejected matter would (theoretically) eventually coalesce to form another galaxy, at some point in the future.

Maths is the key, as you say. I agree totally with your statement, above. The major weakness in my "model" is the lack of quantitive data I have. (e.g. what is the mass of a galaxy?) My mathematical skills are also pretty poor, so proving or disproving the model is not possible for me. No doubt, much of the data IS available, I just don't have the necessary skill to interpret or work with the figures in a constructive fashion.

Amazing stuff! A Black Hole has NO MASS! I followed the argument, but wish I could explain it in my own words! (Mind boggling on all 8 cylinders now)

Precisely: questions are the main thing. Without questions, we would have no scientists.

Thanks again for the links and reply, Chipper. I feel I have learned much.

Regards

LGMFM

## How can a black hole be

)

How can a black hole be massless? what about conservation of matter?? if it is eating everything it sucks up, where is it going? it has to go somewhere.

## RE: How can a black hole be

)

Ok...

This is higher maths than I ever learned, but reading the article Chipper pointed to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object once an object becomes a Black Hole, it converts all matter into energy, according to Einstein's famous E=mcsquared equation.

That is to say, the energy contained in any object is the product of it's mass times the square of light velocity. That's a fair chunk of energy!

As the Black Hole forms, it compresses matter far beyond anything else, and in this causes matter to convert to pure energy, which is massless, and of course, dimensionless. (it occupies no space)

Pretty freaky, and not a little scary!