I Propose A More Logical Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Macro Universe

Thank you for accepting the challenge Kirraz. As I am still unfamiliar with the niceties of formal debate, I won't burden you with rules, however I will request that you provide at least a few sources to support your arguments, if you would be so kind. Theoretically, black holes have no limit. That hasn't stopped researchers from trying to set them. Mainstream science continues to lean toward a heat death and to that end, having a black hole hanging around for eternity wasn't going to work. The first limits were in the millions. Then we would discover one that exceeded that limit sending the researchers back to their computers. "Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun." [1]"Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit." [2] Interestingly, the 50 billion limit came out a week before the 10 billion limit. "Physicist Jeff Steinhauer from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa — via his laboratory-manufactured artificial black hole — may have caught a glimpse of radiation, which physicist Stephen Hawking theorized four decades ago." [3] A black hole of 1011 kg, the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes. However, since the universe contains the cosmic microwave background radiation, in order for the black hole to dissipate, it must have a temperature greater than that of the present-day black-body radiation of the universe of 2.7 K = 2.3 × 10−4 eV. This implies that s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="M" /> must be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth[22] - approximately the mass of the Moon. For a black hole of one solar mass ( s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="M_{\odot}" /> = 1.98892 × 1030 kg), we get an evaporation time of 2.098 × 1067 years—much longer than the current age of the universe at 13.798 ± 0.037 x 109 years. [4] And as I recall, according to Neil Tyson, a million sol black hole would take 10^100 years to evaporate. The bigger the mass, the slower they evaporate. I believe the most massive confirmed is 17 billion sols. And I don't doubt we will find much bigger ones as our technology improves. All that said, my assertion that they have a limit is a 'theory' ... not a fact. However, I do have some support for this, which will become apparent ... hopefully. Just an observation ... Hawking Radiation has not been confirmed. I hope for Hawking's sake, it is. Either way it would not have any effect on my model We would not be able to 'see' the gigamassive remnant, as it would be hidden behind the opaque 'curtain' prior to re ionization. Still, my hope is the James Webb space telescope due to go up in a couple years may give us a better view, earlier in time. And there are other potential ways of detection. There is still a mountain of data we haven't analyzed from previous missions. I am hopeful in that regard, too. The remnant may have played a role in the early ionization. That remains to be seen.And I should point out that Hawking came out about a year ago with this ..."Now Hawking is suggesting a resolution to the paradox: Black holes do not possess event horizons after all, so they do not destroy information." [5] "Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?" [6] The lead researcher on this from 2013 is with the Perimeter Institute in Canada, the director is Neil Turok, who has been working on a couple different models, notably the ekpyrotic model, which requires extra dimensions. And the black hole referred to here originates in a higher dimension, much like the colliding 'branes' Turok has been trying to prove exist. The branes are dependent on the existence of SUSY, unfortunately, as are many alternate models, which had a setback a year ago with the experiments at the LHC. My black hole is not the same as this one.The spin scenario has really only been seriously considered in the last few years. "Was the universe born spinning?" [7]"Tensor Model of the Rotating Universe" Exercise in Special Relativity Abstract We consider a hypothetical metric of space-time, which is shown to be a model of the universe in expansion. This is an exercise in Special Relativity with transfor- mation from an inertial frame to a rotating frame with constant rotation. November 4, 2014 [8] Supporting Evidence:1. The laws clearly apply across the observable universe.2. Quantum mechanics dictates that all matter has physical dimensions and occupies physical space.3. There is no evidence that matter decays to zero. In any case, the estimated time for a black hole to evaporate far exceeds the time needed for the merging process to occur. We have already observed a black hole believed to be 18 billion suns. There is a high probability that black holes in excess of one trillion suns already exist. If the time it took for a trillion sun black hole to fully evaporate was reduced to the age of the Hubble volume, then it is a safe comparison that the time it would take for the entire H/v to merge into one black hole should be far less than a billionth of a second.4. The apparent homogeneity evidenced in the COBE data, depicting the universe at 300,000 years after the Big Bang, is only evident on the large scale. It is clear that on the smaller scale it is anything but homogeneous. There might very well be in excess of trillions of supermassive black holes hidden within that picture.5. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is consistent with the model.6. The high numbers of black holes merging or set to merge were not generally predicted by the Standard Model or theorized isotropic death of the universe, but are inherently predicted by the model.7. Virtually all galaxies appear to have massive, or supermassive black holes at their cores and this phenomena is also inherently predicted by the model.8. The recent discovery of a dwarf galaxy containing a supermassive black hole is in contradiction to established theory regarding the relationship between the mass of galaxies and the mass of their central black holes, and calls into question basic assumptions regarding galaxy formation. Both hierarchical (majority) and non-hierarchical formations are predicted by the model9. The recent observations detecting far more galaxies and their attendant black holes gravitationally bound to ours and M31 than expected.10. The recent discoveries of high numbers of early protoclusters clusters, including quasars with masses ranging up to 10 billion suns inconsistent with generally accepted theories.11. The just-announced (unconfirmed) discovery of a protogalaxy , 480m years after the Big Bang. ( Rychard Bouwens, Nature 1/27/11 )12. The recent discovery of a supercluster in the distant past containing the mass of 800 trillion suns, the existence of which is not supported by current theories of galaxy formation.13. The recent discovery of a black hole spinning at upwards of 1,000 rps.14. The recent observations suggestive of black hole spin's upward velocity being related to increased mass.15. The recent ergosphere/frame-dragging studies.16. The recent discovery of a supermassive black hole exiting a galaxy at several thousand kps.17. The recent Penrose et al. study indicative of violent events prior to the Big Bang.18. No compelling evidence that black holes are limited to any specific mass.19. No evidence of black holes showing any loss of mass.20. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.21. No evidence of any black holes exploding.22. No evidence of white holes.23. No evidence of branes, strings, 11 through 26 dimensions, although strings per se would not conflict with the model.24. Closed-loop supported by 1st Law of Thermodynamics.25. Violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy build-up) is avoided.26. The process is not constrained by the existence of dark matter or anti-matter.27. Appears to be entirely compatible with current particle research and generally accepted Standard Model particle theories.1. http://www.sciencedaily.com...2. http://www.newscientist.com...3 http://www.salon.com...4. https://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 6. http://www.nature.com...7. http://physicsworld.com...8. http://www.elemenat.com...