Inflation & Gravity

Black Holes and other massive objects

 

A Black Hole seems to have an unproven description (understandably so), but it’s existence seems to be without question. Somewhere I read about the evolution of stars and the question was posed as to how we knew about this evolution if it took millions of years to progress. The answer was given by using the analogy of a forest where all sizes of trees are present. From observing the various stages of growth present at one time one can deduce the growth pattern of trees. Thus by observing stars in various stages of development it has been neatly deduced what stages a star goes through in its lifetime. Unluckily we cannot see black holes and are attempting to prove their mathematically deduced existence by astronomical observations. The assumption that light would not be able to escape a black hole assumes the characteristics of a black hole as “invented” and postulated by these mathematical deductions. Once again it is easy to criticise this incredible deduction but someone had to have the guts to postulate something as awesome as a black hole and make assumptions regarding it’s characteristics that may or may not be proven correct. Enormous energy inside a black hole is said to be created by gravitational collapse of matter and not able to escape the gravitation of a black hole. These dynamic drivers of our galaxies form a major part of my homeostatic model and even though my postulates differ from the classic theory of black holes in that they can and do emit vast amounts of radiation and as such are the main drivers of inflation, I would like to retain the wonderful name “Black Hole” … man what an awesome name!!!!

 

I postulate that: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SINGULARITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All processes in nature have a built in negative feedback system. Yes, there is such a concept as a positive feedback system that would tend to promote a runaway process, but this only applies to a section of a process and any natural process will have a built in negative feedback to slow and eventually stop excessive progression. The usual end result is that a different process is born out of the progression and this principle is the basis of homeostasis. Nature has perfected this in thousands of processes … why should a black hole be the exception? What happens inside the black hole when it has converted mass into energy? What happens when fusion is no longer possible. The immense mass of a black hole must keep gathering energy due to its attracting mass and energy in the form of EM waves (gravitation) and even occasionally other masses. The answer logically lies in emission or radiation. Mathematicians have however precluded this possibility and we cosmologists have accepted this conclusion. I would like to refute this evidence on the basis of relativity. This may sound like a long shot but bear with me and perhaps return to this section once you have digested the section on relativity (later in this article) where I will dedicate more time on the equivalence of speed and mass. At this stage suffice to say one or two sentences on equivalence:

 

The space warp of space being absorbed (see my definition of gravity) by a classic black hole is equivalent to mass travelling at the speed of light. Both situations are impossible!!!!!!! BUT the space warp near the speed of light is possible and equivalent to the space warp due to a mass near to withholding radiation and light. What I am saying here is that a black hole withholding radiation is equivalent to saying that mass can travel at the speed of light. The same negative feedback process is preventing both situations. You cannot add enough energy to the mass to increase its speed that last bit to attain the speed of light due to the fact that radiation would keep rejecting that input. The same occurs with a black hole. BEFORE the point of attaining enough mass to become massive enough to preclude radiation, the very radiation exceeds this increase. We will discuss this again under the section of Relativity.

 

A Black Hole is always emitting radiation, high energy stuff that initiates Inflation constantly. All mass does this, but obviously the inflationary capacity of the emitted waves depends on the size and mass of the body causing gravitation. Why should neutron stars collapse into black holes? (if that is how they are formed) Let’s say that this progression was valid and the addition of energy in the form of mass or radiation keeps getting added to this neutron star. Where can this energy possibly go? One might think that their added kinetic energy in a spiral galaxy could keep them in “spinning” faster and faster indefinitely till the absorption and radiation of energy is in balance. Is this however a sustainable option? Because the rotational centripetal force would eventually counter the increased gravity thus increasing the radius radiation may be able to be emitted again. In the greater scheme of things this seems too simple. The insidious accretion will lead to that neutron star and all mass for that matter eventually being recycled through the incredible density of the black hole

.

It may seem ineffectual to ascribe the dissipation of the massive amount of energy incorporated in these enormous masses to emission of electromagnetic waves until you realise that these masses were once electromagnetic waves. It DOES take a hell of a lot of waves to re-emit all this energy but all that has to happen only to the extent that energy is coming into the black hole. I do not think that the stability of the galaxy is subject to a mini Big Bang cycle … cells in a human body don’t for instance explode every ten years. This is more of a homeostatic balance of an organism that has grown over gazillions of years. There is NO reason to even consider a cyclic or permanent break down of the system.

 

Within a star and even within the black hole the compression is merely the balance between collapse of internal space and electromagnetic wave formation. The enormous energy inside a black hole is homeostatically STABLE and the supernova criteria are somehow not being met. When a supernova occurs it is an indication that too much mass is present and the wave gets eaten before it gets emitted and the whole caboodle blows up … only to start again with the accretion process but this time with heavier elements. This one seems to be essential to the nucleosynthesis cycle and must surely be seen as part of the cycle and never as a singularity being held responsible for the explosion. A galactic singularity like a Black Hole is another beast and supernovae are not proof that the galaxy should explode every couple of gillion years.

 What is so different here? Are we perhaps making a big fuss about the gravitational capacity of a Black hole because we have never considered the gravitational binding that is caused by Cold Dark Matter. This omission would lead mathematicians to conclude the need for a really massively gravitationally active body (Black Hole) in the middle of the galaxy. This is my favourite scenario, but lets give the mathematicians the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility of a quark soup forming with the subsequent conversion to and emission of electromagnetic waves. I would call this unlikely scenario a form of primordial lysis to oppose it to the formation of quarks from Electromagnetic radiation being called Primordial synthesis.

 

 

Primordial Lysis

 

Theoreticians have come up with the theoretical concept of an event horison around a Black Hole. Anything beyond this theoretical boundary is history… undiscussable, taboo, beyond our mere understanding!!!! Although I respect their guts for daring to propose such a mind boggling concept I think it an unlikely possibility because it represents a form of infinity or singularity. As I have stated before, these two words tend to end all dialectic and I always try to work around them.

 What happens inside the “event horison” then? I am convinced that nothing as sinister as a singularity or some form of infinity occurs. As has been marvellously described in the nucleosynthesis cycle in stars, mass synthesis gradually requires higher and higher energies to attain the next level of compaction of nuclear material. It is assumed that only the big bang could achieve the necessary energy to reduce mass to a “quark soup”.  I do not accept this assumption. It is easily quoted that black holes contain millions or even trillions of solar masses. I would like to see the math that proves that this is insufficient to dissociate mass and slowly allow its energy to be emitted as radiant energy. For Pete’s sake, we don’t even know how much mass/energy is in the galaxy, never mind the universe!!!!!

The question remains… how does this energy escape the event horison? This is the second assumption that I feel needs some imaginative rejection. Remember that we discussed the analogy of the event horison to the mass near the speed of light? (This argument is just an extension of Einstein’s thought experiment about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass).  In the case of the accelerated mass the force required to accelerate the mass increasingly goes into the formation of inertial mass, thus limiting the speed to less than c. In the case of the event horison of the black hole the mass or inertia is already there and is equivalent to the mass attempting to reach the speed of light. It cannot happen! Attempting to put energy into radiation and increasing the amplitude within this grossly shortened wavelength to maintain the speed of light wave equations, is only one option of getting rid of energy, but let’s pursue this option first. Just as the mass cannot reach the speed of light, so the reverse must apply. The event horison cannot retain its power over the radiation for the same reason that the mass cannot reach the speed of light. Stephen Hawking has already theoretically determined that Hawking Radiation takes place out of a black hole but I think that the assumption that radiation cannot escape the event horison needs re-evaluation. To me this is the same as saying that mass can travel at the speed of light which is obviously not the case. I agree that the math will show the exponential tendency toward a singularity, but in reality inherent negative feedbacks prevent these infinities from coming about and thus I maintain that radiation CAN and DOES emanate from black holes and forms the basis for Local Galactic Inflation that is one crucial missing link in the understanding of our universe. I contend thus that mass cannot reach the point where gravitation can prevent the emission of electromagnetic radiation (light). Before this mass is reached, emissions will escalate to prevent its attainment. This is the same argument as mass reaching the speed of light … as the critical speed is neared the escalation of energy needed is packed into the mass and emitted if the mass gets too large. Understanding this equivalence is core to the integrity of this article because it not only sustains homeostasis of the galaxy but also will be used to set up a model to approximate the space density or “warp factor” (λ) at varous points within our galaxy and beyond.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completing the Cycle

 

 

My gut feel tells me that this end of the energy cycle is characterised by the emission of high energy, large amplitude, and short wavelength electromagnetic radiation of whatever frequency. This IS what space IS around the massive body. High energy, dense space.

From a cosmological point of view it is important to recognise that due to emissions from galactic black holes being contracted by gravity, the density of space immediately adjacent to the event horison is of such intensity that the inflation of these waves or space extends well beyond the boundary of the galaxy. These layers of compacted space inflating in a concentric manner around the black hole get more and more stretched or inflated with each concentric increase in radius. This phenomenon occurs not only around the black hole but around all mass within its galactic boundaries to a lesser extent and most significantly it extends to around the galaxy itself and is the main contributor to galactic red shift. This is contrary to the conventional view that galactic red shift is mainly due to the Doppler Effect or even time dilation. (See later discussion on Red Shift)

 

 

Summary of Postulates relating to this Section   There is no such thing as a singularity or infinity Black holes can and do emit radiation to the extent that they are being fed by absorption of space as well as mass entering them from the accretion process. A classical event horison is as impossible to attain as any mass attaining the speed of light. The equivalence of these two situations holds 100%. The high energy that is needed to effect lysis of mass into a quark soup (if necessary) can be attained by these awesome entities. Black holes are thus the main generator of electromagnetic space formation by the process of high energy radiation and emission. The densest area of space occurs around black holes and inflation emanates from this point in a galaxy.