A billion degrees - is HOT

[xelasnave]

Well Ron I just had a thought and it may be in line with your approach.

The singularity may be the gravity rain "well" the "puddle" where it finally stops. Nuetrinos must fall off the speed of c and build up as dust somewhere.. maybe their dust makes up some of our black holes.

Consider this.
GR starts with radiation from a star (on my premise)..a nutrineo will do nicely or we can have a dedicated gr particle ..whatever... however after some time travelling thru space our nutrino or gr particle will end its life by giving up all its energy and coming to rest in a singularity... a black hole someplace? or I wonder can we have small pockets way out in the voids..unlikey but possible.

The cycle from a live star to its opposite is complete.

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Well put it this way Alex, if the definition of a black hole is something like this, "An object whose gravitational pull inside a certain radius is so strong that nothing, not even light can escape it. A black hole forms when the amount of matter in the core of a star undergoing a supernova is great enough to cause a runaway gravitational collapse", then and only then can we consider your offering.

So assuming you are playing by my rules above, my belief is that eventually the entire universe itself will slip into a black hole or to be a tad more accurate, the entire universe will evolve into a single large (super, super giant) black hole.

This is consistent with my theory that the universe will someday die (cease to exist). When matter, even your fabled 'GR' falls into a black hole, it undergoes a process of distortion followed by contraction to a point that 'for all intents and purposes' is infinitely dense, which is followed thereafter by ceasing to exist.

Thus during the life-cycle of the universe, the many black holes we have act as garbage dumps, collecting and cleaning the living universe, I see nothing strange in this....consider a dead animal on our planet, eventually nothing is left, nature will clean it up, there will be no remains....why would this be different for the universe as a whole?

So the many black holes 'eventually' would continue to grow and source more food, they are hungry, like anything that intrinsically wishes to exist, it must feed. Finally, eons pass, the number of black holes becomes fewer but larger till finally, at the universal singularity, the entire universe as we know it, is condensed to a single infinitely dense point and then nothing.

Of course, my theory goes on beyond this point as you know, but for one iteration of existence, that's my story and I'm sticking to it

Now trying to find a spot for your GR in my model, as I understand your version of GR, I would postulate this, given that your GR has the effect of neutralising forces in all directions, it would stand to reason that GR could exist in my model, because as each amount of GR is consumed and destroyed by a black hole, more is created by the next supernova, a sort of 'give-and-take' maintenance of sorts.

I must point out however that the amount of matter consumed would need to be greater than the amount created for my model to be correct. This is a vitally important and profound point and I will need to research it before I can move forward.

The question as put: Is the amount of matter (in all forms) being consumed via black holes at a greater rate than is being created in supernovas?

If you have an insight or hunch please let me know, I have a couple of Prof associates at a couple of Uni's that I can put the question to, I honestly don't know the answer to that.

Suffice to say that if the answer is in the affirmative, then your GR principle could be included in my model. However it would be useful if you dropped the word 'Rain' and selected something else, if you did that, I would drop the word 'Doughnut' and we could collaborate on a joint model with a new name.

It's a thought, however, I dare say that no one takes us seriously or even bothers to read any of this, so it is more than likely an endeavour only for our mutual benefit.

Let's try to answer the question and then make some decisions then.

Regards

[xelasnave]

You have avoided comment on the possibility of there being a proposition that the matter we belive will form a black hole can in fact collapse to that degree.

I simply dont know the figures and how this conclusion is inescapable.

Is there a case for the non existence of a balck hole..not withstanding the damage it may cause to a few Universes..yours as well?

My point is simply.. in theory they are possible but are they real and what evidence supports the belief they are real.

A super nova has a finite amount of matter, they leave evidence of the explosion etc so I expect they have a system to calculate the mass of the star and the debris etc. and the "mass" of the black hole that remains.

I cant see that any more matter will be created so if every star blew up ..there would still be black holes and debris... maybe.

Mmmm infinite gets rid of these problems sop I must say I like the lazy way out.


alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

You have avoided comment on the possibility of there being a proposition that the matter we belive will form a black hole can in fact collapse to that degree. alex

Okay Alex, sourced from publicly accessible websites, here is a current and educated discussion on Black Holes, without the Math

By definition a black hole is a region where matter collapses to infinite density, and where, as a result, the curvature of spacetime is extreme. Moreover, the intense gravitational field of the black hole prevents any light or other electromagnetic radiation from escaping. But where lies the "point of no return" at which any matter or energy is doomed to disappear from the visible universe?

Applying the Einstein Field Equations to collapsing stars, German astrophysicist Kurt Schwarzschild deduced the critical radius for a given mass at which matter would collapse into an infinitely dense state known as a singularity. For a black hole whose mass equals 10 suns, this radius is about 30 kilometers or 19 miles, which translates into a critical circumference of 189 kilometers or 118 miles.

If you envision the simplest three-dimensional geometry for a black hole, that is a sphere (known as a Schwarzschild black hole), the black hole's surface is known as the event horizon. Behind this horizon, the inward pull of gravity is overwhelming and no information about the black hole's interior can escape to the outer universe.

At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them.

Newton and Einstein may have looked at the universe very differently, but they would have agreed on one thing: all physical laws are inherently bound up with a coherent fabric of space and time.

At the singularity, though, the laws of physics, including General Relativity, break down. Enter the strange world of quantum gravity. In this bizzare realm in which space and time are broken apart, cause and effect cannot be unraveled. Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity.

What happens to a black hole after it forms? Does it vibrate? Radiate? Lose mass? Grow? Shrink?

Partial solutions of the Einstein equations point to two possible outcomes:

• A non-rotating, spherically symmetric black hole, first postulated by Schwarzschild.
• A rotating, spherical black hole, predicted in 1964 by the New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr.

These two types of black holes have become known as Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, respectively. Both types of black holes are "stationary" in that they do not change in time, unless they are disturbed in some way. As such, they are among the simple st objects known in General Relativity. They can be completely described in terms of just 2 numbers: their mass M and their angular momentum J. Theoretically, black holes may also possess electric charge, Q, but it would quickly attract enough charge of the opposite sign. The net result is that any "realistic" or astrophysical black hole would tend to exhibit zero charge. This simplicity of black holes is summed up in the saying "black holes have no hair," meaning that, apart from its mass and momentum, there is no other characteristic (or "hair") that a black hole can exhibit.

However, both the Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes represent end states. Their formation may result from various processes, all of them quite complicated. When a "real" black hole forms from, say, the collapse of a very mass ive star, or when a black hole is disturbed by, say, another black hole spiralling into it, the resulting dynamics cause disturbances in spacetime that should lead to the generation of gravitational waves.

By numerically solving the Einstein equations on powerful computers, scientists have been able to simulate the gravitational waves emitted by perturbed or interacting black holes. When visualized in movies generated by advan ced computer graphics, the unfolding wave patterns are not only intriguing but strikingly beautiful. By emitting gravitational waves, non-stationary black holes lose energy, eventually become stationary and cease to radiate in this manner. In other words, they "decay" into stationary black holes, namely holes that are perfectly spherical or whose rotatio n is perfectly uniform. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, such objects cannot emit gravitational waves.

Though we cannot "see" a black hole itself (since not even light can escape the hole's gravitational field), we may see the hole's effects on nearby matter. For example, if gas from a nearby star were sucked towards the black hole, the intense gravitational energy would heat the gas to millions of degrees. The resulting X-ray emissions could point to the presence of the black hole.

Or, if a massive black hole were surrounded by large amounts of orbiting material -- gas, dust, even stars -- their rapid motion close to the hole could be observable via shifts in the energy of the radiation they emit. Evidence along these lines is mounting, suggesting that black holes may not be that rare in the universe.

However, such evidence remains indirect and therefore inconclusive. To confirm that black holes actually exist, we'll need to be able to observe the gravitational waves they produce as they form or interact.

If scientists could build gravitational wave detectors of sufficient sensitivity, they should be able to measure the vibrations in spacetime generated by black holes as they form from a collapsing star, when they ingest large amounts of matter, or if they interact, even collide with a second black hole or another massive object, such as a neutron star. Certain patterns of gravitational waves emitted would reveal the "smoking gun."

So far, the wavelike disturbances in spacetime have eluded detection. In a relativistic universe, there should be no shortage of places in which to hunt for black holes. Much larger and more sensitive detectors are now under construction. With luck, soon gravitation scientists may be shouting "Eureka!"

So it's up to you whether or not to believe in the existence of black holes, I for one firmly believe in the probability they exist, unless you can furnish me proof they do not.

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Ron.
I will go thru it all again later but I work now.
My daughter wants to play horses and guess who dobbin is..
I hope I have not pushed your thinking time into debit.
alex

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by tailwag

It's a thought, however, I dare say that no one takes us seriously or even bothers to read any of this, so it is more than likely an endeavour only for our mutual benefit.

I've read this thread with interest. Your model is close to how I view the universe - at the edge of our visible universe we are accelerating towards a singularity (which is what your cone like donut shape also points to). The only thing I can't figure out is why the circular cone has a hole in the middle like a second donut shape

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Kal

I've read this thread with interest. Your model is close to how I view the universe - at the edge of our visible universe we are accelerating towards a singularity (which is what your cone like donut shape also points to). The only thing I can't figure out is why the circular cone has a hole in the middle like a second donut shape

Ahha another human, you beauty

I'm glad you asked that very good question. The short answer is so that time can flow in a linear fashion forever i.e. each position is preceded by the previous position and followed by the subsequent position, so that you are always moving towards where you just were. Simple huh?

A slightly longer answer could be, that because this universe is expanding in all directions constantly and observing the linear condition set above, you need to have the curvature of the universe such that the beginning is actually the end of the curve, I guess a perfect circle would have worked except for the elongation caused at the singularity, thus a more doughnut like shape.

All existence would flow in an overall direction, whilst simultaneously expanding in all directions, the only shape that fits this inside the darker regions of my mind is the humble doughnut that is flattened on one end.

There is a paradox of sorts that some expansion tries to go backwards as it were, against the flow, and I accept this as a possible opportunity to lose matter along the way i.e. the backwards expanding matter could represent our conventional thinking of a black hole.

This is an evolving model, a work in progress, if tomorrow something comes along via scientific discovery, then it would need to be included in the model, like all other models. I don't know the answer's any more than anyone else, but I have a great movie playing in my mind of what it could be, according to me

You no doubt have your own movie, why not play it for us

[xelasnave]

Ron I am still working hard on bringing my knowledge to a level that I may ask you more questions .

Perhaps one... that I asked elsewhere but to date have no reply..which is reasonable as it was only recently posted..but I guess it is causing some thought on how to explain this proposition.

I wonder do you have any understanding of frame dragging and do you expect they will find it with experiment..Er there was the gravity B probe but I dont know what has happened there ... keep missing what they found or it may not be out yet .

I suggested an experiment once and was told gravity b probe sort to prove the opposite of what I saw... I could not see the relationship of what they were doing and what I was suggesting ..I was talking about gyros possibly being pushed together.. I read the gravity b probes mission but was no wiser..

I find the concept of frame dragging so far beyond my grasp and ask as your explanations always are understandable, or at least they make me feel warm inside and that I sortta understand .

alex

[xelasnave]

And needless to say a gravity wave is the geometric rendition of GR, G wind, SPUE or dark energy, or the term I really like Universal Pressure... whatever.. which I guess the gr Universe would see when the black holes merge.. well exactly how would they ..boom! or slower I wonder.

It is interesting that the view is that different "gravity" can propogate through space in the space time approach... very interesting stuff.
alex

[xelasnave]

and I only clicked with this........

"According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, such objects cannot emit gravitational waves".

Waves are in essence a geometric represention of something ..a bend in the space time graph really... I see no reason for them to propogate unless a major event either when I think about it.

Still what size star needs to blow to form a black hole?
Have we seen one blow and assessed the left overs?s

Do you think the voids harbour black holes that have in effect already consumed all their host galaxis? mmm maybe that where all the missing matter is???!!!
alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

frame dragging

It's a simple concept Alex, once again a quick Google reveals tons of info on it, here is a brief description:

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1][2][3] Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. This is the frame-dragging effect. The predicted effect is incredibly small — about one part in a few trillion — which means that you have to look at something very massive, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism.

As you correctly point out there have been two probes, here is the status of both:

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite-based mission which launched in 2004. The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005, and data analysis is currently underway. Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress-energy tensor (the distribution, and especially the motion, of matter) in and near Earth, and thus to test related models in application of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Initial results confirm the expected geodetic effect to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging signal is similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by currently unmodeled effects). Work is continuing throughout 2007 to model and account for these sources of unintended signal, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging signal if it exists at the expected level.

And the earlier one:

Gravity Probe B was a relativity gyroscope experiment funded by NASA. Efforts were headed up by the Physics department at Stanford University with Lockheed Martin as the primary subcontractor.
Mission scientists view it as the second gravity experiment in space, following the successful launch of Gravity Probe A (GP-A) in 1976.
Some preliminary results were presented at a special session during the American Physical Society (APS) meeting, 14 to 17 April 2007. NASA has requested a proposal for extending the GP-B data analysis phase through December 2007.
The mission plans were to test two unverified predictions of general relativity:
The experiment planned to check, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth satellite orbiting at 650 km (400 statute miles) altitude and crossing directly over the poles. So free are the gyroscopes from disturbance that they provided a near-perfect space-time reference system. They were intended to measure how space and time are "warped" by the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, if and how much the Earth's rotation "drags" space-time around with it; the so-called frame-dragging effect or gravitomagnetism, a field generated by the rotation of Earth and similar to magnetism in electrodynamics.

So this is basically it in a nutshell, just because it has a weird name, don't be confused, it just a prediction that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves, just another force if you like, not too dissimiliar to your infamouse GR.

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Do you think the voids harbour black holes that have in effect already consumed all their host galaxis? mmm maybe that where all the missing matter is???!!!
alex

No. You are confusing missing here. Missing matter that has been consumed is not the 'Missing Matter' that is required to maintain the gravitational equilibrium throughout the universe.

[xelasnave]

There is so much to look at but I seized upon the following:-

"Earth's rotation "drags" space-time around with it; the so-called frame-dragging effect or gravitomagnetism, a field generated by the rotation of Earth and similar to magnetism in electrodynamics".

I find I must be missing something are they saying that a geometric representation of the Universe, namely "space time" can manifest itself in the real world?

How can a geometric representation produce a real effect?

Or are they simpply saying they have the sums to describe how the path of light will never be straight in its course to reach us?

I must re read all this...however thanks Ron for everything and as you say there is a lot out there upon this ... but you do seem to have a knack for making it sound better.

It must be my expectations of space time are not as high as some...
I cant see how the sums can change anything.. the effect of bent light is pretty obvious when you think about it..

Sorry Ron let me think about what they suggest.

And thinking about it there is no need for the geometric frame of space to be dragged... it is a geometric representation of space for goodness sake... this is human experience getting in the way of common sense.

Still if I think about a gravity rain approach to the planet ... or the course of any gravity rain particle ..or nutrineo... its course will always be "curved" thru real space one way or the other like river water guided by the banks gr is guided by the shields thru space...gravity in other words. Why would it do differnet when approaching a rotating planet??? the effect will be slight but space time cant claim anything more than drawing a plan of the events..if you see my point.

I must see things different ..sorry.

The principle seems like observing that a garden hose if swung around the yard will not leave a curved course...

I am not sure that I understand what I have read and having understood it disagree... or... that I have missed the point somehow.
Not enough to form any opinions anyways.

But I can only relate my impressions they dont make anything wrong or right..

Been busy and I am beat so I am sorry if I could not comment on all the matters you raised in your last posts...second last in particular.

On the last one I probably sidetracked your thoughts sorry.

And as to the missing matter I just wanted your view as there was I point that I thought what I suggested was what you were hinting at..

The main problem with the gravitational imbalanced in the Universe is that the current numbers possibly are missing something .. say if gravity pushed and pushed only..no attraction..just to pick something out of the blue as an example.... then like the need for dark matter going away (to produce dark energy), with that approach, maybe the need for "missing matter" may go away also.



alex



alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Hi Alex,

I have consumed an amount of red wine, so I will probably make perfect sense for a change

I just want to say one thing to you, all the theoretical stuff is fine, the questions without answers are good, it stimulates the brain....however....here is my tip, after a lifetime of thinking about stuff, keeping it simple is always the best policy.

The more you read into something the more complex and convoluted it becomes and the essence of what you require becomes clouded and often forgotten or replaced by new thoughts on queer tangents.

Take for instance the frame-dragging effect, forget what the math states, forget about geometrical models, go back to basics with this, it's so simple if you let it be. The spinning of an object has an effect on its surrounding, would you agree with that, you probably would. That is as simple as you can state it, so why the hang up when you upsize to a planet that is in the 'Real' universe, why wouldn't the spin of our planet have an effect on what surrounds it, and isn't that effect felt throughout the universe as a whole?

NOTHING happens in isolation, if the space around our planet is affected due to the Earths rotation, then the universe is affected because you can't simply have a set of rules that apply in isolation.

What's good for one is good for all, keep it simple mate. You will understand more by breaking all the theories down to basic units that cannot be broken down further and stringing them together.

Perhaps too much red, I feel flushed, I better stop now.

[xelasnave]

Ron you summed up what I am pretty well trying to say..when you said...

"Take for instance the frame-dragging effect, forget what the math states, forget about geometrical models, go back to basics with this, it's so simple if you let it be. The spinning of an object has an effect on its surrounding, would you agree with that, you probably would. That is as simple as you can state it, so why the hang up when you upsize to a planet that is in the 'Real' universe, why wouldn't the spin of our planet have an effect on what surrounds it, and isn't that effect felt throughout the universe as a whole?"

Well that what I thought I felt tempted to say .. so what! ... it seems to be stating the obvious and saying you have the way of describing the obvious that makes the describing of it the most important part.

I dont see the proposition as unreasonable just strange to think it is sortta unexpected without space time being there to point the way.. one would think such a situation would be " normal" I suppose.

Mmmm red wine ..greatly enhances the brain to make profound comment in a moment when it feels a little less bound to convention.

and happy to hear you see it very much the way I see it ..in that there is a connection ...within the Universe which if limited to no more than beams of light passing from one place to another ..still is indeed a wonderful thing to think about..but of course there is more ..more than visable light..electromagnetic, energy, particles .. the flow is limitless even in a finite Universe.
And so indeed everything touches everything else.. hard to imagine but its really that way when you think about it.

Your observation of me reading too much perhaps into things.. I gather..is no doubt an expression of your concern that I think to much with too little about too much.... you are right but there is nothing to worry about I have my feet firmly on the groung..thanks to GR..er sorry just joking but what an irony..nevertheless I have no trouble holding all views all at once and not having any internal confusion... it is all just information finally so its nothing to worry about Ron.

Ron have a good night, drink twice as much water as you do wine and you will arise refreshed.

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Ron have a good night, drink twice as much water as you do wine and you will arise refreshed.

alex

Finally you have said something truly profound, thank you

[xelasnave]

It is so hard to make any worthwhile contribution but I speak unfortunately from experience and selected the best solution.

I have indeed thought about your Universe and wondered if finite can we determine how far we are from the closest edge as it were?

In the popular model we deal with an observable Universe which of course we must by definition be at the centre of..we each are so we can be individually special.. at least thats whatr I personally like to think... however I have never heard of an attempt to place us in relation to a "side" ... could we be on the out side of a bigger town I wonder.

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I have indeed thought about your Universe and wondered if finite can we determine how far we are from the closest edge as it were?

alex

There is no edge Alex, you haven't been paying attention

I have explained this several times, and here are two paragraphs taken from earlier posts that describe why there is no edge, it's not a full explanation, but there is enough to give you the general idea.

A slightly longer answer could be, that because this universe is expanding in all directions constantly and observing the linear condition set above, you need to have the curvature of the universe such that the beginning is actually the end of the curve, I guess a perfect circle would have worked except for the elongation caused at the singularity, thus a more doughnut like shape.

All existence would flow in an overall direction, whilst simultaneously expanding in all directions, the only shape that fits this inside the darker regions of my mind is the humble doughnut that is flattened on one end.

[xelasnave]

Ron please do not interprete my inability to grasp , what is to me a higher concept than possibly my mind is capable of managing, as inattention. Merely I find the concept difficult to visualise.
If there is no edge as you say I find it hard to see that as anything other than a condition for ïnfinity" yet I see that the absence of an edge does not place that condition upon your Universe.

I miss something from the time thing maybe.

I have seen artists impressions along the lines you suggest to demonstrate the evolution of the big bang Universe.. a cone representation...each cross section a section of the flow I guess we see as time.

I presume the diameter of the cone is physical "size"... so I see an edge there ... but even there I realise I miss something in the concept.
It has to do with thinking finally if the big bang worked the way they say I visualise a finite Universe...from the outside..and wonder where outside is.

I was thinking last night if time in effect slows "infinitely" to a stop in a black hole does time speed up infinitely in the voids or less dense regions of the Universe.

So I guess where space time is perfectly flat, the grid humans use to describe space and the Universe.. that would equate in the real Universe to areas of the voids and the like.. in these regions time presumably moves faster..but no matter how far you go you can only ever be on a curve as it were.. but thats the math trying to describe the reality which may not follow a humans extrapolation.

I guess thats what the space time sums must say finally. And lack of gravity must also be infinite??? could there be a region perfectly flat.. never.. so time must not run infinetly fast.... why at the other end can we have a black hole I again wonder... I feel there is a point that maybe man and nature part on the implimentation of the idea.

But such a region where space time can only represent "space"as flat would really be "nothing"... mmm I can see why a 3d circle is handy... these matters have me going around in circles thats for sure.

(Still on the positive some thought process is still taking place in this human.)

Will this mean some parts of the Universe are older than others... namely the "emptier" regions?

alex

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Will this mean some parts of the Universe are older than others... namely the "emptier" regions?

alex

I'll answer your question above later, but first I want to explain my 'spin' factor, so that you will better understand the seamless, edgeless universe.

Notwithstanding all that I have said and armed with my image supplied earlier, it seems to me that the part you can't understand is probably because I haven't explained it very well. It is difficult using words to describe some rather incredible motion, however I will once again try, because I can see you are a keen student

So looking at the doughnut image I posted earlier, you will see FOE (Flow Of Existence), and you should easily understand that given the arrows, the direction of the flow is circular (doughnut shaped) as a whole. The part you may not be clear on is that in the cut-away cross section, there is a foe also, this foe runs perpendicular to the main foe. Seen side on by an observer, the motion would equate to spin, however I prefer the more accurate term of flow, where the end precedes the beginning.

The hardest part to fathom is what happens when the natural expansion of the universe tries to go in the direction where it came from, i.e. against the flow? That is a great question Alex

Well let's go to our Simple & Natural set of rules for not complicating the answer, what would indeed happen when anything goes against the flow, there can only be one result. What of the Salmon or is it Trout that tries to swim upstream, what happens when you run up stairs, you of course are resisted in varying degrees, depending on the mass, but resisted nonetheless. The river will continue to run despite the fishes most frantic efforts, so the expanding universe which is rapidly bobbing along the flow of existence will also be stopped eventually by the foe.

To be sure a titanic struggle will occur and mass and energy will be lost, as in any struggle, any fight for survival, so what - let me ask this again - WHAT, is the only thing you know that can 'eat' the universe???? Yes give the man a lottery ticket, yes it's a good old 'Black Hole'.

A black hole is formed when the two giants meet in battle, when the unending expansion of the universe meets the impenetrable force of the FOE, only one thing can happen, a black hole is formed, some of the previously expanding universe is consumed and the remainder Continues on in the correct foe.

There is the never-ending self regulating, self cleaning of the parts of the universe that try to swim upstream. It is a beautiful system, and when the black hole has no more to feed on, when it can no longer grow, it will die, everything dies, even black holes, even the universe itself.

The spin aspect cannot be understated, sit in your bath and watch the water spin it's way out of your bath tubs existence and wonder what forces make it spin, it has a life and energy of it's own as long as the flow of water continues, this is analogous to a black hole in many respects, and when the water has run out, the sink hole is useless, so to is the black hole. A black hole with out anything to consume is a doorway to nothing, it will fade and cease to exist, as the hustle and bustle of the active universe continues on its merry way.

Now, back to your question, there is no empty region or full region, there is the entire universe which means everything that exists, even where there seems to be nothing, there is still something. The word nothing is another human invention to make you feel a little better about things, but there only exists in my universe, when the universe ceases to exist, it does not cause volumes of 'nothingness' to fill a space that used to contain something.

Thank you for staying with me this far, I understand that you are struggling with certain aspects of my model, but if you just go with my flow scenario, you will see the beauty in a natural existence that is on a journey and that the simple is the probable and the complex just muddies the waters.

We are all on a journey, our universe is on a journey, and much like any journey there are good sections of the trip and some rough patches. The universal rough patches are the cosmic cleaners, the black holes, they will clean up every time, it's what they do best. The rest of the universe is growing and enjoying the many splendid facets of it's lifecycle, and like our own human form, the universe will eventually grow old and die - everything dies, it is the way of things, all things.