I've been in physical chemistry, cosmology and the physical reality field for well over 40 years and I've never
seen a need to invoke ANY of the interpretations that leads one into the blind alleys and illogical minefields that most
theoretical cosmologists find themselves in today. Black holes are just another, more dense state of matter/energy.
If you take a normal gas, such as hydrogen molecules, helium (He atoms) or atoms of the higher elements at elevated
temperatures and compress the gas, eventually it turns into a liquid (you need to remove the thermal energy as you do
this... i.e., cool it down). That thermal energy derives from the kinetic motion of the ensemble (collection) of the
atoms you are forcing closer together. By allowing this heat energy to leave the ensemble, the atoms slow down.
They collide less often and with lower force on each other and gradually lose the excess kinetic energy that
easily overcomes the very weak interatomic forces of attraction.
If you reduce the temperature (for monoatomic helium it would be to almost absolute zero) and squeeze the liquidified
state to even higher pressures, you eventually squeeze the interatomic space out and the atoms pack tightly "against"
one another and you get solid "ice". Squeeze it even more and eventually the electron orbitals collapse and the electrons
and nuclei are packed even tighter together in a free electron and proton and neutron "soup". This is what probably
occurs in the near-surface layers of stellar- and supermassive-sized black holes. With increasing pressure, this mobile
soup likely suddenly crystallizes into a less mobile state, though not necessarily into a well-ordered crystalline
array. Such a condition is likely to occur in the deeper interior of stellar-sized black holes. Squeeze it
even more and the spaces between the quarks that make up those particles collapse into a much more densely packed "quark soup".
At the highest pressures imaginable, the spaces between the quarks are collapsed into a "quarkian solid" ... and voila....
you get what is very likely to be the state of matter that would only be found in the deepest interior of supermassive black
This sequential collapsing of matter under the force of increasing gravitational attraction from increasing collection
of more matter actually results in a dynamically rotating model for black holes of different sizes which form
a series of "hollow shells" separated from each other at the various critical pressures where each stage of collapse
occurs. Each shell would wind up rotating at a different rate from the shells outside of it and contained within it.
All would have the same co-aligned spin axes due to conservation of angular momentum plus the interaction of the powerful
magnetic fields that each would necessarily generate due to its content of particles with spins. Thus black holes become
much more structured than they are currently modeled as. But this is more consistent with the known behavior of ordinary
matter and the phase diagrams that all matter can be described with. What we are actually doing is simply extending
the equations of state and the phase diagrams of ordinary matter into the more extremal ranges of temperature and pressure.
By this extension, all elements and all particles eventually have to arrive at the same final state. That state is simply
the original particles broken down to the their same fundamental elementary particles, the quarks and electrons that composed
It's really much simpler than those "pie in the sky" mathematicians and theoretical stringers/branes/WIMPS/MACHO types
would like to believe. Yes... I think even Dr. Hawking COULD be wrong on this one...BIG TIME. Black holes don't
have to "evaporate" as Hawking describes. They would always be rotating black holes (Kerr types) and at their poles,
the particles that initially emerge in the jets of actively growing black holes would initially be various kinds
of quarks. As those quarks shot away from the parent body following a helical path along the magnetic field lines, they
would interact when they got close enough to one another and would reform into protons, neutrons and electrons.
After they reformed into those particles, the first thing they would form upon reassociation is atomic hydrogen!
And there you see we have closed the cycle of stellar element generation. When enough hydrogen is assembled gravitationally
to ignite, it forms a protostar. At higher mass (stars are born in giant gas and dust clouds so they attract even more
matter to them), it eventually becomes a regular sequence star. It evolves through thermonuclear fusion and the
light elements are created. Eventually it runs out of fuel and loses its thermonuclear fires (several steps omitted
here for brevity). It cools down until it meets more of the same and the mass increases even more. Eventually
it reignites to begin creating even heavier elements by fusion. When that process begins to waver, the instability can
result in nova or supernova. Bam... much higher and heavier elements result and are blasted all over creation.
But what happens to these heavier elements? Some Big Bangers would have you believe that the universe will fill
up with it and finally we may have a big crunch. Others think that the universe will eventually turn into 100%
dark matter. Most of those who have created their theoretical models of the universe with finite size and content have
already run up against their intrinsic inconsistencies. One tenuous invention ultimately requires another less certain
invention that propagates over and over until the house of cards no longer can stand. Dark matter was invented
but not defined. Dark energy was then invented without definition. Finally "negative gravity" emerged! How
far does this neverending parade of untestable constructs have to grow until they realize the path to a likely picture
of the real nature of the universe has been finally lost?
I predict that the heavier elements are recycled back into atomic hydrogen everytime they are captured and compressed
inside a black hole, and particularly inside a supermassive black hole. Each black hole that exists (and there may be
an infinite number of them in an infinite, non-expanding universe) is a small decentralized
locus of what the Big Bangers would call the primordial singularity. They would have all this matter concentrated to
unthinkably small scales and time frames in a central part of the universe some 13 -15 billion years ago. I cannot be
in greater disagreement with this set of illogical predictions. A mathematical singularity occurs in their theories because
our mathematics is not perfect in its application to physical reality. I do not find any compelling physical reasons
for assuming that the presence of a large enough amount of mass would suddenly vanish from sight and only leave a massive
gravitational field in its wake. Matter and energy do not vanish. The dimensionality of space-time does not increase
when high field strength and distortions occur. Let us not create two dimensional allegories to explain a three dimensional
phenomenon. And we certainly do not need to invoke hyperdimensions to accomodate those ultimate phantom constructs:
strings and branes. One the other hand, there are a growing number of experimentally derived observations for patterning
the universe in the context of Chaos Theory. And within that framework, fractional dimensionality seems to be alive
and well and experimentally testable.
We don't need a Big Bang at all! Hubble's redshift data was right BUT the interpretations that followed that presumed
the red shift was caused by recessional velocity. Those assumptions are flat out wrong. There is much we
know about the molecular and elemental chemistry in deep space. And one thing we know is that it is filled with lots
of dark (non-luminous) matter. And it is filled with lots of carbon in different forms. Carbon compounds
such as soot are found in meteorites. Soot has some interesting spectroscopic properties. One of them is that
of fluorescence. Fluorescence occurs when a chemical compound absorbs light of a shorter wavelength and then re emits
it at a longer wavelength... in other words... A RED SHIFT! So Dr. Hubble's observations can be fully explained as being
an optical illusion caused by the low density in intergalactic space of carbonaceous soot that contains molecules of the fullerene
variety. It is those molecules that will interact to the greatest extent with a passing light wave and generate a red
shift that is dependent only on the density of that matter and the pathlength of the light wave.
And a great amount of the missing "dark" matter could also be accounted for by the highly compressed amount of matter
within black holes and supermassive black holes. The inter-galactic interactions that are starting to become clearly
observable may very well be generated by massive, long-range magnetic fields that intertwine and interact between nearby
galaxies as they fly through space, rotating like dynamos. The "large-scale" galactic distribution could
simply be a result of the way highly magnetized gyros would tend to organize themselves if flung in the same general directions.