A cure for singularititis

Maybe the universe IS shrinking, but maybe it's done it before, lots of times. Maybe when it collapses enough, it reaches some equivalent of critical mass. I will call it super-critical mass. It would be hard to even write out the magnitude of this mass level even with exponents. We're talking massive on a level hard to even conceive of, like that of a black hole. What if "black holes" are what Meta Model would suggest they are, a giant M&M(to use an analogy), A hard shell of gravitationally collapsed matter, containing an interior mass which either experiences only it's own gravity, or no gravity at all. Lets say that at some point the supermass gets so incredibly large that the shell becomes extremely thin relative to the whole mass. Imagine, if you will, that gravity can only penetrate 1 parsec(totally pulled out of the air, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this example). Well if that object is 2.5 parsecs in diameter, only .5 is free from external gravitation. Now if you make that same object 30 parsecs across, instead of the internal mass being one-fifth of the diameter of the total, the internal mass is fourteen-fifteenths of the diameter of the total object diameter. As this continues eventually the internal mass is so extremely large relative to it's shell, that something happens and it basically blows up like a big bang, recycling that matter back into the universe in a renewed form. Basically a cosmic food chain, with the top predator eventually dying of natural causes, or maybe more appropriately; obesity... and then feeding the smallest, who are eaten by bigger and so on up the chain until the top predator has once again gobbled up all the food and the cycle starts over again.

As for the idea that the "black hole" sucks light into it and all that, I would say that I think Meta Model would explain that as extreme redshift caused by the extreme compression of the LCM caused by the presence of a perfect graviton blocker. That shall stops 100% of all gravitons that come at it, and that would create a level of density immediately surrounding the object that the redshift would be extreme enough that it may actually even stop the light completely, or at least shifting it into something we can't measure.

If viewed this way, the universe is neither born of nothingness, or going back to it. Perhaps though, I am just misunderstanding you? Perhaps all I just wrote is irrelevant to this discussion. By all means let me know what you think!

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps though, I am just misunderstanding you? Perhaps all I just wrote is irrelevant to this discussion. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, most of its irrelevant. If you detected a very strong undercurrent of sarcasm, you're getting close to understanding me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If viewed this way, the universe is neither born of nothingness, or going back to it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is the one part of your response which is relevant to this admittedly wacky topic. It's all in the way you view the universe. In a light-hearted way, I'm trying to show that measurements are born of definitions, and we should not judge the validity of a theory according to the definitions of some other theory.

For example, GR space is curved because of the way Einstein defined space travel. He could have said, "Let's turn off the acceleration and coast for an instant, then see how close our destination is by applying SR; then accelerate for another second and coast for another instant; etc." Instead, he said, "Let's assume the acceleration will continue indefinitely; at this rate, how long would it take to reach our destination; multiply that by our average speed to determine our present distance to the destination." The two methods should yield the same end result, but one does it by warping space, the other by gradually shrinking and expanding space. I believe both methods are equivalent. If their underlying assumptions are valid then both methods are true; if the assumptions are false, then both methods are false. Unfortunately, some people believe in one set of definitions as if they were created by God. God may have created the universe, but He didn't define distance, time, mass, etc.; those are just words invented by people to describe their perception of nature or God's creation or whatever you want to call it.

In this thread, I have introduced a whole new set of measures. I am calling them distance, velocity and time; but they are not the distance, velocity and time that are familiar to everyone---or anyone, for that matter. Perhaps I should not call them by those names; but they do represent concepts similar to what those words convey. Every other scientist who has ever tinkered with new definitions of familiar physical concepts has kept the old familiar words; why should I be any different?