Cosmogenesis .

[Cyclone]

So now you've had to make up something for which there is no mathematical or evidential support where a black hole suddenly ignores gravity and reverses its behaviour and which doesn't in the slightest explain spacetime expansion.

[sutty27]

So now you've had to make up something for which there is no mathematical or evidential support where a black hole suddenly ignores gravity and reverses its behaviour and which doesn't in the slightest explain spacetime expansion.

 

 

Big bank theory ignores gravity, assumes the existence of dark matter and dark energy which supposedly make up most of universe, assumes the existence of two unknown mechanisms to explain inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry in the early universe.

[Cyclone]

All of which leads on from possible explanations of what we observe.

 

Your hypothesis are falsifiable, don't explain what we observe and rely on inventing all sorts of ideas which don't fit within the model of the universe as we understand it.

 

But if you think you're onto something, write a paper, do the maths, get it published, that's how science works, not by arguing with randoms on a small forum.

[sutty27]

All of which leads on from possible explanations of what we observe.

 

Your hypothesis are falsifiable, don't explain what we observe and rely on inventing all sorts of ideas which don't fit within the model of the universe as we understand it.

 

But if you think you're onto something, write a paper, do the maths, get it published, that's how science works, not by arguing with randoms on a small forum.

 

It explains precisely what we see, and assumes just like big bang theory that a very hot very dense region of space can expand to form what we see now.

 

Isn't the point of the topic to discus that which the OP asked for.

 

I'm interested in what the forum thinks on the matter of how the universe started.

I've listed all the options I'm aware of that are reasonably popular.

I've left an "other" just in case...

 

I'd be grateful if those voting other could enlighten me.

[Cyclone]

Well, if you voted "other" I think you've now explained why. Good luck writing the research and getting it published.

[sutty27]

Well, if you voted "other" I think you've now explained why. Good luck writing the research and getting it published.

 

I didn't, I voted Always been here and always will be.

[unbeliever]

So we go right back several pages to my post about the black hole being a recycling mechanism that converts old matter back into the building blocks of the universe.

 

Randomly flinging subatomic particles into space increases entropy and doesn't help you at all.

Hawking radiation consists primarily of photons and neutrinos with a few heavier leptons thrown in. Good luck making fresh stars out of that.

 

So now we have a black hole increasing in mass so rather than shrinking its growing, does it grow indefinitely or does it at some point violently repel all it's matter and anti matter into space creating an ejection event that looks like the Big Bang.

 

When normal anti-matter falls into it, yes. But that's has nothing to do with Hawking radiation.

Black holes continue to grow as long as stuff falls into them. Some of them are vast. e.g. the ones at the centre of spiral galaxies. If they were somehow left completely alone with very little or no energy/mass added, they would very gradually evaporate. They do after all have a temperature and that's what warm things do. At no point do they create "an ejection event that looks like the big bang".

 

 

Besides:

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Randomly flinging subatomic particles into space increases entropy and doesn't help you at all.

Hawking radiation consists primarily of photons and neutrinos with a few heavier leptons thrown in. Good luck making fresh stars out of that.

 

 

Please remember that Hawking radiation is still just an unproven idea and they don't know very much about black holes.

 

"Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles.

 

 

There are lots of ideas but non are proven.

[unbeliever]

Please remember that Hawking radiation is still just an unproven idea and they don't know very much about black holes.

 

"Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles.

 

 

There are lots of ideas but non are proven.

 

Natural black holes are too cold to emit protons. In a stupid amount of time (many order of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe) one might shrink enough to kick out a few. Far fewer than originally fell into it. So black holes are always a net sink of protons and therefore of hydrogen.

Anyway, randomly flinging subatomic particles into space increases entropy and doesn't help you at all.

 

This is proven:

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

 

 

When normal anti-matter falls into it, yes. But that's has nothing to do with Hawking radiation.

Black holes continue to grow as long as stuff falls into them. Some of them are vast. e.g. the ones at the centre of spiral galaxies. If they were somehow left completely alone with very little or no energy/mass added, they would very gradually evaporate. They do after all have a temperature and that's what warm things do. At no point do they create "an ejection event that looks like the big bang".

 

That's just another unproven idea that may or may not turn out to be correct.