The absolute flow of time could make the relative reality relatively from point to point, and it could be the reality of the relative reality. A completely nothing universe is a thing even if it is infinitely nothing, and that nothingness could increase with time from point to point continuously because nothingness is not a constant with a permanent location. Also, the flow of absolute time is something fundamental that could continue and make relative points of nothingness (negative and positive emptiness). Therefore, relative time could emerge from relative interactions between points of absolute time. If the smallest unit of matter is a zone like the smallest matter zone mentioned in Buddhism, then it would contain another smallest time smaller than the Planck time. And if the Planck volume appears and disappears repeatedly, then it somewhat prevents or reduces its further divisibility. And binary physics of reality is more fundamental than relatively emerged physics. The Planck constant is likely a fundamental constant. The physics of Dependant Origination:Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything

But this binary physics theory shows that there are probably 32 different/parallel Planck constants. Most probably, Dark Matter contains a lot of hidden layers of reality. And likely, there is high-density space and dark/hidden matter (parallel matter) around massive objects. Also, the Buddha explained about habitable 31 planes of existence. So around 32 or 31 Planck constants could make those parallel worlds/planes.!

Nothingness could grow with the unstoppable time while becoming positive and negative emptinesses of time relative to each other. Time is a moment of spacetime. A moment is a point of existence. A point of time is relative to the 6 directions and dimensions, and they exist relatively. Each point with time is like a baby universe. And they could make the relative existence relative to the directions and dimensions. Time could grow the universe, making and continuing the points of unstoppable time. The meaning of time is a continuation. Prof. Einstein can't change it using his principles. Everything experiences time, but sometimes it is not very obvious. Time could be the creator of everything, and time can move everything. It is extremely logical. Time is not a clock. The entire universe is completely new at each moment if time is the fundamental limit at each point. And those new points of time could make and maintain the limits of constants because the points of time are always new and relational to each other. Time could exist before space, and that is why anything starts and continues. Infinity is infinite if it is not relative. Infinite nothingness could be the infinite negative time in the completely nothing universe. And that moment of nothingness could be both infinitely large and infinitely small because it could not be relative to anything. And then, time could continue to the positive time from point to point because a small point of nothingness doesn't have a permanent location if time continues. Therefore, it could increase with time from point to point. Completely nothingness is also a thing even if nothing existed in the nothingness in the earliest universe. And time is the thing that must flow in the universe. The universe was a thing even if it was completely nothing because it was the only thing that could experience time. It is a simple logic. Time continues inside the Planck volume. And time is a fundamental reality even if it is completely new at each moment.

The entire universe had a start. But it doesn't mean that it had an infinite density and it started to expand like a balloon. It could start from a point, and it could expand from point to point. Therefore, the edge of the entire universe would expand forever. The eternal growth of the universe could start an uncountable time ago. Most probably, we only observe some parts of cyclic continuations in the observable universe. Real mathematics starts from zero, but some theorists tried to say that the universe started with strange mathematics that instantly jumps from nothingness to a point with an infinitely huge density. And they don't explain any reason for the growth of space after the formation of the infinite density. There is no reason to think that Black Holes make space (Dark Energy) while becoming more massive. Most likely, some Black Holes accelerate the flow of space materials between galaxies because they would absorb space materials to become more massive. A balloon expands somewhat uniformly when air comes into it, and space comes in while it is expanding. But it doesn't make extra material space. The earliest growth of the universe and some interactions could make both space and matter. The observable universe is not the entire universe as the nearest galaxy is not the only galaxy. And some theories only relate to the frame of reference. High-density space materials could come from all around the universe into low-density regions of space, causing an expansion if quantum gravity supported it. Space materials would travel faster or slower or at the speed of light depending on their interactions with forces and because the speed of light and other elements depends on the density of space (medium) and their wave symmetry (mass distribution). Presumably, light (photons) and similar high-speed waves represent highly symmetric cancellations of opposite dimensions while becoming. So then, electrons would represent an amount of widely effective uncancelled dimensions on its asymmetric structure. Thus, gluons likely contain overly cancelable dimensional structures that cancel dimensions in other materials too.

Preston Guynn Perhaps you would be happier reading the conference paper which makes the case scientifically:

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Preston Guynn, Scientists should know what Energy is. They can’t say that the expansion of the observable universe is made by the energy that makes space. The materials in space are not massless energy, and forces can change their location, and make high and low densities. General Relativity is only a geometric interpretation. The contraction of the observable universe could easily start soon after the moving materials in space reduce the speed of the expansion. Balloons expand somewhat uniformly even if air comes inside from only one side of them. Probably, space air comes between galaxies from everywhere, causing a similar expansion. The standard model of cosmology ignores that possibility while using an unbelievably infinite energy density without matter, blocking the Big Bounce model.

The space between galaxies is somehow expanding. But it doesn't mean that space is growing. High-density space could come from somewhere into low-density space if quantum gravity supported it. Space and material elements could exist before the Big Bang/Bounce. Also, time must exist before space, and that is why space starts and continues. The edge of the entire universe could continue growing the universe because of the relatedness between each new point at the edge. And that relatedness could make some constants relatively. General Relativity doesn't explain how mass makes gravity. Gravity could originate from an effect of some quantum particles that travel from high-density to low-density space. Some quantum forces could increase the density of space around a massive object. It means that space doesn't bend in reality, and only its density increases due to gravity. Elementary particles can't decide the actual time because quantum fields are more fundamental than them, and quantum fields obey the actual time flow. If quantum fields travel like waves, then they should travel faster than light to travel at the speed of light. Prof. Albert Einstein introduced energy in Kilograms. But in reality, energy doesn't have a mass, and only a mass produces energy. Also, light contains a type of mass because momentum contains mass. According to my theory, Prof. Albert Einstein was wrong, but a lot of people believe him. Experiments proved the existence of matter and antimatter particles in space called virtual particles or quantum foam/fluctuations. Massive objects could reduce the speed of particles around them because gravity could increase the density of space near those objects. It is not a bend. Theorists shouldn’t ignore quantum physics to prove General Relativity.

Suresh Wanayalaege

Preston Guynn

Yes it is quite difficult to be truly scientific when dealing with cosmology and fundamental physics.

With cosmology we can see back in time but when we see variations it is not clear whether this is a variation with time or with distance.

We are in a position where the James Webb Space Telescope is going to tell us that the Big Bang theory is wrong so we had better start looking for alternatives.

I think that with so much scientific effort having been put into the Big Bang and lambda CDM we should check the initial assumptions behind the theory.

One important assumption is that all matter formed at the beginning. This the Big Bang narrative about going back in time and everything becoming hotter and denser. The alternative is that galaxies formed progressively over time.

The second assumption is the cosmological principle which seems doubtful based on observations.

The third assumption is the cause of the CMB which is deemed to be the echo of the Big Bang. The whole idea of recombination is not verified in the lab. The explanation as to why the CMB appears with a look back time of 13.8 billion years when the Big Bang happened everywhere is not satisfactory.

This you could say is a scientific challenge to an established theory.

By rejecting these initial assumptions we are free to define new assumptions such as an evolution from a state comprising a spherical region of empty space with a space boundary.

Having constructed such a new model we are then free to examine how well it matches observations. Does it explain galaxy formation and distribution? Does it explain dark matter and dark energy? Does it conform to the law of conservation of energy?

I think this is the best approach that we can manage scientifically, given the constraints.

I will talk about GR and energy in a separate post.

Richard

Suresh Wanayalaege When we think of mass and Space curvature there is clearly a close relationship. It all comes down to understanding the nature of the medium of space.

Light is a wave in this medium and electrons, protons and neutrons are looped waves in this medium.

The energy associated with these matter particles is in the form of the expansion and compression of the medium of space.

Since these matter particles are space curvature, they curve the space around them.

This is explained more fully here:

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Richard

Richard Lewis, A Big Bounce could make the early island universe slowly. According to the supreme Buddha, the world systems formed during the expansion. And then, stables the expansion. And then, starts to contract. And finally, stables the contraction within a similar duration called Asankya (innumerable) Kalpa (Eon). There are 4 Asankya Kalpas in a Great Kalpa called Maha-Kalpa.

Space is material, and quantum physics proved it. General Relativity doesn't explain the quantum nature of gravity. And it doesn't explain the expansion of the universe. Most likely, neutrinos are making the quantum gravitational force because most objects emit a lot of neutrinos. And they can come back too. Likely, Black Holes grow using matter and material space. So Black Holes can change the density of space too. And if the expansion stops, then Gravity is enough to make a Big Bounce. If Black Holes absorb and reduce particles in space, they would eventually move towards each other faster and faster.

Arguably, the wavelength and wave amplitude (height) of electric and magnetic waves represent the strength of their capacity of asymmetry (potential energy). And their asymmetry and speed would relate to their wavelength and wave amplitude. If speed is relative to the conservation of symmetry of waves, then either wave amplitude or speed should change with a change in its wavelength. So quantum jumps or fast interactions should increase their speed if their wavelength and wave amplitude are relatively small. The wave amplitude of electrons is likely very high even if their wavelength is very small, and that is why they are powerful. And generally, their amplitude would cause their waves to move slowly between other waves.

Seemingly, there is a wave symmetry between Electron, Muon, and Tau. And likely, those numbers are related to a ratio between wave amplitude (height), wave width, wavelength, and wave density like this:

Wave symmetry ratio of the Electron: 2886.99969548 × 1 × 59 × 3. The Electron would have a 1-dimensional width.

Wave symmetry ratio of the Muon: 10117.6266877 × 59 × 59 × 3. Muon’s wave height can cause it to decay faster.

Wave symmetry ratio of the Tau: 59 × 59 × 59 × 3×2883.8716. The Tau has a high-density mass.

Most probably, the nothingness in the universe increases infinitely without reversing, making the relative existence. Material and immaterial forms would exist using the empty points of many nothingnesses, using them as the substance that only exists momentarily. Elementary particles wouldn’t feel the distance in the structure of their relative fields between the fabric/gap of space. Also, the entangled particles wouldn’t feel the distance between them mathematically, showing that they communicate faster than light, even after traveling a very long relative distance.

Suresh Wanayalaege The paper linked below explains the quantisation of the electron and the quantisation of light using classical ideas:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

This means that we can relegate quantum theory to a theory which is solely for the prediction of experiments. Quantum theory does not describe physical reality and the conflict between GR and QM is resolved.

Richard

Richard Lewis, Protons are attracting dimensions of electrons, staying at the center of atoms. But antimatter protons would provide dimensions, using the anti-dimensions of its quarks, and behave somewhat like electrons. Positrons would take dimensions from anti-protons, and behave somewhat like protons. If two or more anti-protons can't stay together because of their positive electron nature (Pauli Exclusion Principle), then it creates an asymmetry between matter atoms and antimatter atoms. And anti-protons would not support making antimatter atoms larger than hydrogen atoms.

According to the fundamental behavior of the dimensional sets in my theory, the electric field doesn’t make a force, and it would make an angular momentum (electric moment) like the so-called magnetic moment (μ(L) in “μ(L) = -g(L) L μ(B) /ħ”) in Maxwell’s equations. Likely, the electrons are angular momentums because the electric moment (called the magnetic moment according to Maxwell’s equations) makes the angular momentum like the orbital angular momentum of an electron. The real field in the electric field in Maxwell’s equations is likely a magnetic field in reality. And the real field in the magnetic field in Maxwell’s equations is likely an electric field in reality. It was an interpretation that made errors in science.

According to the laws of electricity and magnetism, a density (∇ ≡ (∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z)) of electric charge (𝜌) is the source of the electric field of force (E); and an electric current density (J) is the source of a magnetic field of force (B). Gauss's Laws: Electric Field, ∇ . E = 𝜌/ε0 (ε0 is vacuum permittivity). Magnetic Fields, ∇ . B = 0.

The Faraday-Maxwell Law: ∇ . E = -(∂B/∂t).

The Ampere-Maxwell Law: ∇ . B = μ0 (J + ε0(∂E/∂t)), (μ0 is vacuum permeability).

Those laws should match with fundamental reality to make correct interpretations of their fundamental process. But according to my analysis of those processes, electrons can’t make an electric field force with their filled dimensions. It is not electrons that reject electrons and move away, making the field force; and that outside force is the magnetic field force that causes the potential force called electric charge. Therefore, Gauss's Laws for Electric Field should be ∇ . B = 𝜌/ε0. And the Magnetic Fields should be ∇ . E = 0. Also, the Faraday-Maxwell Law should be ∇ . B = -(∂E/∂t). And the Ampere-Maxwell Law should be ∇ . E = μ0 (J + ε0(∂B/∂t)).

According to Abhidhamma, the Material Forms exist in a Matter Zone called Rūpa-Kalāpa. And Matter Zones make Matter Body (Rūpa Sarira/elementary particles), and then they become Matter Groups (Rūpa Santhāna like Atoms).

Presumably, the matter zones emerge, becoming larger within 24 moments, and then they become smaller and disappear within the next 25 moments. Perhaps, it makes matter within the first 24 moments, and it makes antimatter (increases negative charge) within the next 24 moments. If so, Antimatter is like a disappearing state of matter that uses the disappearing moments of the matter zones. And if matter zones make both matter and antimatter, then matter and antimatter would exist together like an illusion of material energy relative to the observer who uses matter or antimatter. And a covered point of existence that would contain -6 dimensions relative to matter means that it potentially contains +6 dimensions relative to antimatter, but those antimatter points are reflections of dimensions received from other points. The +1 and -1 dimensions are relative to their direction of appearance because it depends on the point of reference, and the point itself is the detector or observer. If 6 matter points make a virtual antimatter point between them relatively, then that virtual antimatter point would become a matter point at the next moment, continuing the causality. Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything

If the lifetime of a dimensional structure is equal to the lifetime of a Material Zone called Rūpa-Kalāpa, then we can compare their similarities. According to Abhidhamma, the 49 or 51 smallest ‘moments’ (Khaṇas) within Rūpa-Kalāpa (before reappearing) host the mind/Citta to continue 17 ‘mind moments’ (Cittakkhaṇas) like this:

1.) Atīta/Past Bhavanga/Becoming-part (AB) === A part of Photon? (P)

2.) Bhavanga Calana/Vibrating (BC) === A part of Magnetic Monopole? (M)

3.) Bhavanga Upaccheda/Sub-breaking/Arrest (BU) === A part of W Boson 1? (W1)

4.) Pancadvaravajjana/ Advert-the-five-sense-doors (PD) === A part of Neutrino 1? (N1)

5.) A sense (contact) like Cakku/Eye Vinnana/Special-knowledge/Consciousness (CV) === A part of Z Boson? (Z)

6.) Sampaticchana/ Receiving/ Accepting (Sam) === A part of W Boson 2? (W2)

7.) Santīrana/ Investigating/ Inquiring (San) === A part of Gluon? (G)

8.) Vottapana/ Determining or Manodvaravajjana/ Advert-the-mind-door (V) === A part of Neutrino 2? (N2)

9-15) Javana/ Energy making/reacting (Karma making) (J) === An Energy created by antimatter and matter? (E1-7)

16.) Tadarammana/ Results-using/ Registering (T) === A Resulted-Energy while ending the Zone’s lifetime? (RE1)

17.) Tadarammana/ Results-using/ Registering (& jumping?) (T) === A Resulted-Energy while disappearing? (RE2)

E.g., A mind/Citta series: (AB),(BC),(BU),(PD),(CV),(Sam),(San),(V),(J1),(J2),(J3),(J4),(J5),(J6),(J7),(T1),(T2).

A smallest material series: (P),(M),(W1),(N1),(Z),(W2),(G),(N2),(E1),(E2),(E3),(E4),(E5),(E6),(E7),(RE1),(RE2).

Suresh Wanayalaege I don’t agree with the model of the proton as three quarks. In the Space Time Wave theory the proton is three wavelengths of a looped wave in the medium of space.

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Richard

Richard Lewis, The overall mass of quarks in a proton is about 1%, and it shows the existence of hidden mass in a proton. I think it shows the existence of hidden realities like hidden Planck constants of hidden planes of existence.

The Supreme Buddha Explained The Origin Of The Observable Universe: https://youtu.be/yI1FksQwHHk

Electrons have a positive nature of charge, and that is why Matter could make atoms lager than hydrogen atoms. The early Antimatter couldn't survive a long time because Antimatter-protons are like electrons, and their positive nature of charge fights with each other more than a Matter-proton fights with another Matter-proton. Therefore, the speed of the early Antimatter-protons could increase and become material-energy again, causing them to collide and make matter and antimatter again. Also, Matter and Antimatter could annihilate each other, increasing the heat (photos) in the early universe. Modern science must be turned around by changing the plus and minus symbols to understand the true nature of reality.

Particle accelerators didn't make Big Bangs. It only showed how existing material energy-beams could collide and make matter and antimatter particles (like a Big Bounce). The real science (Buddhism) is blocked by the fake standard model of cosmology. Balloons expand uniformly because air can come inside them uniformly. Probably, space air is coming to the low-density space between galaxies, from everywhere. Scientists have enough evidence to remove the inflationary Big Bang theory from the standard model of cosmology if they really don't want to keep it forcefully to help promoting creationism. Islam tries to keep Muslims forcefully without letting Muslims leave Islam easily. Seemingly, intelligent people don't have enough power to go against the unintelligent religious or political authorities.

Suresh Wanayalaege This illustrates one of the problems with the Big Bang theory. It doesn’t obey the law of conservation of energy. If you estimate the total mass of the universe as a trillion galaxies that is around 10^12 times 10^42 kg which is around 10^54 kg.

If you go back in time with the Bog Bang theory, all this mass was concentrated in a volume the size of a grapefruit!

But then when you assume matter and antimatter annihilation you need another million times the mass.

I don’t think matter formed at the beginning. I think matter formed progressively over around 126 billion years from energy released from the expansion of space.

Richard

This sounds like you are proposing a variation of the Steady State Theory of cosmic history; but no such theory can explain the Cosmic Microwave Background, so odds are that a detailed study of your proposal will show that it is wrong (sorry to be dismissive, but history shows that most theories are wrong, and even if accepted at one time, eventually end up being replaced by better ones; and if you can come up with a variation on your theory that does explain the CMB, and some way of making observations to confirm the result, I'd be willing to alter my opinion).

However, I believe that you are correct in presuming that the Big Rip theory is wrong, and strongly doubt that so-called Dark Energy actually exists. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts that large amounts of empty space tend to expand, and as the Universe grows and gets more empty space, it is bound to asymptotically approach some finite rate of expansion, which deletes the need for Dark Energy, and eliminates the concept of a Big Rip. (I say asymptotically approach some finite rate since the Universe is already far more empty space than mass, so increasing the ratio from 73% empty space and 27% mass to essentially 100% empty space and 0% mass shouldn't change the rate of expansion by a significant amount.)

Courtney Seligman Hi Courtney. It is not really a variation of the Steady State theory. In the Steady State theory galaxies form in the gaps between other galaxies in an infinite universe.

In the event horizon theory, galaxies form in a finite universe with a space boundary and the location of galaxy formation moves from near the centre out towards the boundary.

Where I think Fred Hoyle was right was in his conclusion that the galaxies didn’t form from a huge amorphous cloud of gas and dust. They are just too structured and isolated for that.

You are absolutely right that the explanation for the CMB is key. In the event horizon theory, galaxies form and after several billion galaxies have formed there is enough mass in the universe to create an event horizon. It is a simple calculation based on the Schwarzschild solution giving a radius at R=2GM/c^2.

If you had 28 billion galaxies of 2x10^42kg at a time 13.8 billion years ago then an event horizon would form at 8.77 billion light years. Then radiation from matter close to this event horizon would take 13.8 billion years to reach us across expanding space.

Richard

The universe will host life for at least 10^23 years. What you are seeing now is an early epoch of planet formation. The main fuel source for life will be neutrinos annihilating within iron-cored oceanic planets, not nuclear fusion within stars. The calculations demonstrating the viability of this mechanism for sustaining life were published prior to the pandemic, but the academic community opted to turn its back on science and reject the goals of the universe.

Robin Spivey That period of time is equal to one hundred thousand billion billion years. I would be interested to know how you arrived at that number and what reason you give for life coming to an end at that time.

I am surprised to hear about neutrinos playing a part in sustaining life as I understand they pass through our bodies in their millions without interaction.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Life is reliant on energy and the energy reserves of the universe are finite (we know that it's about 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% baryonic matter). As the universe continues to evolve the dark energy will decay to very low energy (slow-moving, non-relativistic) neutrinos, which will engulf the largest galaxies, trapped by gravity (their own gravity and that of the galaxies from which they originate).

Neutrinos rarely interact, that is true, and also deliberate. It helps them target their energy precisely where it's needed - in a way that internally heats (oceanic) planets so they can sustain aquatic life. The mechanism is very efficient, well over 95%. Life on Earth, in comparison, is sustained very inefficiently at present - the vast majority of the Sun's radiation goes to waste.

What you should bear in mind is that a slow moving particle (and neutrinos can move very slowly since their mass is non-zero) has a very large deBroglie wavelength, especially if is has a small mass, like the neutrino. So the wavefunctions of the neutrinos can overlap even if their volumetric density is low. And then all you need are sites that mediate the mutual annihilation of pairs of neutrinos. Iron is a transition element and there is very little difference in energy between a 3d and 4s electron orbital. Neutrino annihilation targets these sites - and nature provides almost no good alternatives.

I posted this short article in an attempt to debunk some of the myths about neutrinos:

(1) (PDF) The annihilation of gravitationally trapped neutrinos (researchgate.net)

More detailed calculations can be found here:

(1) (PDF) Planetary Heating by Neutrinos: Long-Term Habitats for Aquatic Life if Dark Energy Decays Favourably (researchgate.net)

A few years later I was able to identify the mechanism by which dark energy will decay to neutrinos. The calculations are a bit tedious but I can give you the link if you're interested.

The discoveries lead quite naturally to three novel resolutions of the Fermi Paradox, without identifying which one is correct. Since then the correct resolution has been identified through a very different approach. We are not alone in this galaxy - not even alone on this planet. And the status of our species was drastically downgraded in recent years, prior to the pandemic.

An (outdated) discussion of the resolutions to the Fermi Paradox can be found here:

(1) (PDF) A cosmological hypothesis potentially resolving the mystery of extraterrestrial silence with falsifiable implications for neutrinos (researchgate.net)

Robin Spivey My understanding about the neutrino is that it is very fast moving being close to or at the speed of light in which case it must have zero rest mass.

The explanation for dark energy in the presentation linked above is that it is a false conclusion based on the observations of the recession velocity of distant galaxies. This unexpected recession velocity is actually caused by gravitational accelerated towards the centre of the universe.

This means that mass in the universe is 85% dark matter and 15% stars. The dark matter particles are formed in galaxy formation events and decay to two neutrons during star formation.

With the removal of dark energy from the picture, we no longer have accelerated expansion but constant expansion at a rate of around 1/14 billion light years per year per light year. (This is 69.84 km/s per Mpc)

So the key point is that the effect of the event horizon of the universe is to contain all the galaxies that have formed within a spherical region of radius 8.77 billion light years.

You might be interested in the galaxy distribution analysis which supports this model of the evolution of the universe.

https://youtu.be/HqKx6uVto0M

Richard

Any particle can move at high speed, even arbitrarily close to the speed of light. That does not mean the particle has zero mass.

The existence of dark energy is firmly established and the observable universe is far smaller than the entire universe, so much so that there is no observational evidence allowing us to point in the direction of any "centre of the universe".

The neutrinos produced by the decay of dark energy are quite unlike those produced in stars. They have low kinetic energy, comparable or less than their rest mass energy - much like almost everything we see here on this planet.

I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of life in the future universe as it's so unlikely that humans will still be around even a century from now.

Robin Spivey "The main fuel source for life will be neutrinos annihilating within iron-cored oceanic planets, not nuclear fusion within stars."

Nice idea, but a little bit off track.

There is another scenario, even for an eternal energy source.

Let us consider gravity. Gravity grows, if it spends energy. This shows us that gravitational fields contain negative energy. But negative enegy cannot exist. Therefor gravity reduces positive energy. This implies that a cosmic field with a positive energy density exists. Mass reduces the positive energy density of the cosmic field, and this is what causes gravity. Around any celestial object, the energy density of the cosmic field is reduced. The energy density E reduction is given by E=-g²/(8πG). G is the gravitational constant and g is the gravitational acceleration. The energy density Ecos of the cosmic field is Ecos=gmax²/(8πG). gmax is the largest gravitational acceleration which occurs in the universe.

But now let us consider black holes. The black hole matter has been generated by pressing out the cosmic field from a neutron gas, the form of matter which resides in neutron stars. We can say that all matter, up to a certain extend, is filled by the cosmic field,  except black hole matter, which is absolutely free from this cosmic field.

If we consider the cosmic field, which is pure energy density, we can imagine some properties. Energy density is the same as pressure. But according to E=mc² it also is mass density. Therefor it is a medium which supports compressional waves. According to wave theory the propagation speed of waves in that medium is c, the speed of light.

Because the medium supports the propagation of waves, it also supports a mechanism of wave generation. We know that any particle, including photons, is surrounded by a small gravitational field. This gravitational field is nothing else as a tiny depression of the cosmic field. If the particle moves, the depression also moves and implies a movement of the cosmic field. Any movement of the cosmic field contains kinetic energy, provided by the particle movement. This means that any particle movement transfers some energy to the cosmic field and becomes slowed down by this energy transfer. But this gravitational interaction between the cosmic field and moving particles is extremely weak. But if this interaction lasts for billions of years it sums up. Especially in the interior of stars, where many particles move with a high velocity, considerable contributions occur. This means that within a large period, the energy density of the cosmic field growth and growths.

Finally the energy density of the cosmic field gets big enough that it even penetrates black hole matter, where it had been squeezed out by the impact of a large amount of dense matter. This exactly reverts the process, which had converted the neutron gas to black hole matter. The conversion process had consumed energy, which then is contained as binding energy of the black hole matter.

But now it is getting interesting. The reconversion of black hole matter to the neutron gas consumes energy. This consumption lets disappear the cosmic field medium, which is pure energy. But the disappearing energy density enforces new energy density to stream in. According to the wave properties, the streaming-in occurs with the speed of light. This fast streaming changes the energy density profile of the cosmic field. We know that the energy density profile is responsible for gravitational impact. The interesting part is that if this profile is no longer caused by a mass effect but in this case by a fast streaming, it has a drastic impact on gravity. The neutrons, just escaped from the black hole matter, now are also freed from the gravitational bounds of the black hole and therefor can quickly spread in space. The expanding neutron cloud additionally contributes to lower the black hole gravity. The streaming-in continues until all black hole matter has evaporated to the neutron cloud. But this can last up to some millions of years, depending on the size of the black holes.

The neutron cloud drives matter to higher metallicity or decays to hydrogen. The hydrogen is new star fuel for another tens of billion years. In this new period new black holes emerge and the cosmic field is again blown up until it also can penetrate the matter of the new black holes. This cycle of regaining star fuel can be repeated for ever.

Wolfgang Konle, and you have performed the calculations yourself, have you? Of course not - you cannot even spend an hour or two confirming that the calculations which have been performed are correct. And the reason why the academic community has completely failed to comprehend the function of neutrinos after all these years is their mistaken (and idiotic) assumption that a neutrino's total energy is the same as its kinetic energy, ignoring its rest mass energy. Their belief that neutrinos almost never interact may have some basis for ultra-relativistic neutrinos, but is completely incorrect for a degenerate cloud of self-gravitating neutrinos.

There is no such thing as "black hole matter". Science does not involve making things up. You don't even seem to be aware of the reason why black holes don't exist, which was pointed out in a 1939 paper by Einstein himself. The "black hole information paradox", and many other foolish, non-existent paradoxes entertained by black hole "theorists" were resolved over 80 years ago by a genuine physicist.

Robin Spivey "There is no such thing as "black hole matter"."

What happens with matter of a neutron star if this star collapses due to too strong gravity? Does this matter vanish? No, it becomes transformed to black hole matter with an even higher density as the density of the matter of neutron stars.

Or do you think that it becomes something different?

Wolfgang Konle.

The Schwarzschild metric is only physically valid OUTSIDE its event horizon. Portions of that metric accurately describe the spacetime surrounding a neutron star. Of course, general relativity knows nothing about neutron stars and leaves open the possibility that stars can be ALMOST as compact as an (hypothetical but unphysical) black hole of the same mass.

Yes, a neutron star might accrue so much mass that it can no longer support its own weight. What happens then is indeed an implosion - but not an implosion that proceeds to form a black hole with an event horizon. As Lev Landau explained in one his famous textbooks (censored and edited since his death in the editions universities now like to stock), the outcome is basically an object supported by gravitational time dilation - which is essentially infinitely strong. That is a stable configuration which can persist until the universe is infinitely old. The Russians once referred to these objects as "frozen stars" (in the days before the mathematicians had totally invaded general relativity, as Einstein put it).

The structure of the final collapsed object of course depends on the details of its formation history but in essence the matter density increases the deeper you go (not that you can travel there since infinite time dilation prohibits it). Right at the centre you would notionally reach a tame "singularity" - infinite density but zero mass. In reality, this is tamed further by Planck-scale physics so that the "singularity" has a radius comparable to the Planck length and a mass comparable to the Planck mass. Certainly, there are no paradoxes nor event horizons.

We actually have strong observational evidence that the objects incorrectly referred to as black holes DO NOT actually possess event horizons. That evidence has been with us since the 1960s. Had Einstein lived another ten years he might well have pointed it out.

Robin Spivey "We actually have strong observational evidence that the objects incorrectly referred to as black holes DO NOT actually possess event horizons."

Did you read what I had written about black holes?

But now let us consider black holes. The black hole matter has been generated by pressing out the cosmic field from a neutron gas, the form of matter which resides in neutron stars. We can say that all matter, up to a certain extend, is filled by the cosmic field,  except black hole matter, which is absolutely free from this cosmic field.

The consequence is, that black hole matter is surrounded by a zone without gravitation.

The universe is configured so as to efficiently host aquatic life for upwards of 10^23 years through the annihilation of gravitationally trapped neutrinos. The 4s electrons of hexagonally close-packed iron present within iron-cored planets mediate their annihilation. Should the iron overheat, 4s electrons hop to the 3d subshell, blocking opportunities for neutrino annihilation. Hence, a natural mechanism exists for thermally regulating these planets in a way that ensures oceans remain in a liquid state with little energy being wasted. The arrangement is highly efficient with 97% of the available energy of the universe being used to sustain life. The spent energy is radiated into space via infrared photons of long wavelength. Energy is conserved but entropy increases in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

If you want to insist that life will thereafter commence anew in some future universe you are left with the thorny problem of how the entropy of this universe is erased - good luck with that in your remaining time on this planet.

If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Arthur Eddington, 1915.

Robin Spivey Yes, entropy is an important issue. If you start with a spherical region of empty space then this has an initial entropy.

Then as the universe expands, matter is formed at the rate of around one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per 14 billion years. The energy for this matter formation is coming from the expansion of curved space.

However, the matter formation takes place in galaxy formation events. Every time a galaxy forms from this release of energy the entropy is affected in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

I see no problem with the idea of future galaxy mergers leading to new star formation leading to Earth like planets forming leading to new life.

Richard

Richard Lewis "Then as the universe expands, matter is formed at the rate of around one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per 14 billion years. The energy for this matter formation is coming from the expansion of curved space."

Sorry, but baryon conservation does not allow such a hydrogen generation without generating the same amount of antimatter.

Wolfgang Konle So baryon conservation would require an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today?

Is this hypothesis supported by observations?

Richard

Richard Lewis "So baryon conservation would require an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today? Is this hypothesis supported by observations?"

Baryon conservation is a basic natural law and not a questionable hypothesis.

Wolfgang Konle Oh I see. A basic natural law inconsistent with observation. Richard

I took a look at the Wikipedia entry for baryon asymmetry:

In physical cosmology, the baryon asymmetry problem, also known as the matter asymmetry problem or the matter–antimatter asymmetry problem,[1][2] is the observed imbalance in baryonic matter (the type of matter experienced in everyday life) and antibaryonic matter in the observable universe. Neither the standard model of particle physics nor the theory of general relativity provides a known explanation for why this should be so, and it is a natural assumption that the universe is neutral with all conserved charges.[3] The Big Bangshould have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since this does not seem to have been the case, it is likely some physical laws must have acted differently or did not exist for matter and antimatter. Several competing hypotheses exist to explain the imbalance of matter and antimatter that resulted in baryogenesis. However, there is as of yet no consensus theory to explain the phenomenon, which has been described as "one of the great mysteries in physics".

In the event horizon model of the evolution of the universe, matter formation takes place in the form of neutrons. Some are bound in the form of dark matter. Single neutrons decay to form a proton and an electron which conserves net charge neutrality.

Richard

Richard Lewis "A basic natural law inconsistent with observation"

Where can we observe baryogenesis or hydrogen production?

Richard Lewis

You say that the baryon number conservation must be wrong because we do not observe a zero baryon number sum. But we also can conclude that the hypothesis about baryon generation could be wrong. The alternate conclusion is that a baryon genesis never happened. The imbalance of the baryon number had been since ever.