The Dark Shell (8) Oscillations & the Source Bag

07/25/05

Given the size of the dark shell, its oscillations could not be driven by gravitational forces. If the dark shell is presumed to be merely a simple extension, that is an extreme expansion, of the original of an ultimate black hole, then the exterior boundary conditions of the dark shell should arguably be similar to those of the ultimate black hole from which it evolved. If the original expansion of dark matter within the ultimate black hole results in a somewhat steady state which roughly maintains the volume of the dark shell then a number of interesting questions arise.

Why would the dark shell be rather stable, that is, why would it not frequently burst like a balloon. If it does collapse and rebuild what are the boundary conditions of the collapse? Is it possible to consider the entire dark shell to be just an enlarged ultimate black hole, that is, a minor variation of an unexpanded ultimate black hole? One can argue that the dark shell represents an extremely small fraction of the mass/energy of the original ultimate black hole. It is probably a transient phenomena, but the oscillations may be due to the forces which shape or which give rise to geometry of a dark shell and/or to those which dominate the exterior of an ultimate black hole.

If the concentration of energy in a big bang at its densest (smallest volume) is taken as a standard, then what is the density of an ultimate black hole? If the associated dark matter in a big bang is folded, is the density of dark matter in an ultimate black hole equally dense? Are there different degrees of density in the folded dark matter?

Although it is convenient to think of dark matter as being in some way like regular matter or anti-matter in that it is evidenced by gravitational interaction with regular matter, perhaps it is improper to make such an assumption. Perhaps a completely different category of substance/energy is a better way to view dark matter. Perhaps this new category is as basic as energy or matter (or anti-matter). What should this new category be called? It is suggested that it be called tatami (after the Japanese mats). Then the basic relationships between tatami and energy and matter (and anti-matter) would need to be found.

05/12/08

Currently, the existence of cosmic rays (high energy particles) remains unexplained. Today, the most powerful particle accelerators can only generate a particle with a very small percentage of the energy of a cosmic ray. It is suggested that cosmic rays are a product of a back scatter effect arising from the collapse of a triple point singularity (a sink) when a big bang occurs. Arguably, the random distribution of cosmic rays seems to indicate (1) a very thorough mixing process, (2) a very long time span, (3) very great distances and (4) the existence of an overall containing structure (which is a basic characteristic of a dark shell).

It should not be a surprise that an event as dynamic as a big bang should cause the sink which accumulated such a great amount of energy to echo back in some manner. Therefore the concurrent issuance of a great pulse of energy back through the sink resulting in a back scattering of cosmic rays does not seem to be completely unreasonable. This result also would strongly imply that the situs of the singularity and the situs of the big bang are spatially very remote from each other.

09/09/8

It has been suggested that the very highest energy cosmic rays are produced by the accretion disks of super massive black holes at the centers of galaxies. This may be correct.

The visible universe is relatively flat. Various models have been proposed to explain why this is the case. It is generally accepted that dark matter surrounds galaxies and that this explains why they exhibit stable high rotation rates. This is strong indirect evidence of the existence of the associated dark matter. Further it has been estimated that most of the universe is comprised of dark matter with the visible (baryonic) matter constituting less than 10% of the total. This situation raises an interesting question. Perhaps the true shape of our universe is somewhat spherical and that the flat (visible) baryonic portion is just an artifact of the creation process.

09/10/08

Assume that a big bang is derived from a sink which collects dark matter and/or energy along with such baryonic matter as may enter the sink (as described earlier in this log). If in fact, the dark matter is folded and the baryonic matter is converted to energy on entry, then one issue to consider is how this combination is released in a big bang. The assumption made earlier is that the dark matter passes through the sink and survives the big bang unchanged (except for being folded on entry).

There is problem here -- (like in accounting) -- is it first in, first out or first in, last out (for the dark matter)? Does it make a difference? Probably not. An equally likely situation would be "everything out at once". The current two step description for the initial stages of the expansion is rather complicated and is probably incorrect. Let suppose that the (baryonic matter/energy) is enfolded with the folded dark matter -- this is a simple and probably more accurate model.

There also is the issue of the characteristics of the sink at the moment of its final instability (at the moment of transition). The assumption has been made (earlier in this log) that time on the input side is very long (billions or trillions of years) and that on the other side, time is short (or zero). What happens to time at/during the transition? Let us suppose that the sink is destroyed in the process (otherwise, we would have a lot of old ineffectual sinks floating around).

This issue relates directly to the spatial relationship between the sink and the situs of the big bang. It is probably incorrect (but easier to imagine) that there is no spatial relationship that can be defined or determined for this (see earlier speculations in this log). In passing, it should be noted that, in effect, the dark shell has constant entropy as the sink/collection/big bang sequence basically reorders everything.

What type of transition would create a flat (baryonic) universe? Let's look at the "everything out at once" situation. It would seem that the dominate item would be the still-folded dark matter/energy and that the (baryonic) energy is just an extra, minor factor. Perhaps the released (baryonic) energy is constrained to be in the form of a central "edge" accretion mechanism. In such case, a disk is formed (like a flat crack in a rock) which grows on the outer edge (like some crystals or like a snow flake) -- between two hemispheres of folded dark matter/energy.

Suppose that a sink is not destroyed by the instability which gives rise to a big bang. Suppose that a given sink produces a series of big bangs. The gradual accumulation of sinks would provide a straight forward (very long term) mechanism for the destruction of a dark shell. In such case, are the sinks also destroyed?

It has been suggested in this log that multiple dark shells may exist, that they may be sticky (touching each other) and that a sink in one feeds or causes a big bang in another dark shell. Perhaps there might be another mechanism -- suppose that the region excluded by dark shells provides a haven for folded dark matter and for energy derived from baryonic matter which enters a sink. Then some means is needed for injecting enough matter/energy to form a universe into a dark shell. Perhaps a local excess in the region might be enough -- this is a tough issue.

A big bang might occur within an ultimate black hole (or of a remnant of one). What would be the result? The answer is nothing. Why? Arguably, any process which goes from A to B can be redone to provide a steady state of any condition at A or B or in between. This is easy to say. Let us examine the very earliest moment of a big bang -- an entire universe of matter/energy is crammed into a vanishingly small point. This is our point A. It would seem that the entire ultimate black hole (or a remnant of one) has this density -- therefore the addition of this amount of matter/energy at some point within it would have little significance.

Returning to the issue of a flat universe, it may be the case that an enclosing somewhat spherical dark matter/energy volume sandwiches the flat universe in the middle but that it also extends beyond the fringes of the universe. Then instead of a sandwich it is a fat pouch. Also, it may not cover all of the fringe.

What happens if two big bangs occur close to each other? It sounds messy. The issue here is what constitutes "close". In any case, they are expanding into each other and the over lapped region has twice the normal density (assuming that both occur at the same time). What if one is young and one is much older? Very unclear result here. Suppose that a series of these occur in sequence, each close to each other -- a rapid fire input (every few billion years). The youngest one would be normal with outer shells of increasingly older structures.

Within a dark shell, is there any pattern to the distribution of universes? Asked in another way, does the existence of a universe make it less likely that another one will be created in a nearby region? Are there some regions which are saturated with universes -- or perhaps dense with them and overlapping?

For an oscillating dark shell to sweep up all of the remnants of a universe, the "reach" of a dark shell has to be large enough to get it all. Does it always get it all? Are there leftovers? Are there regions which contain lots of leftovers? What are the conditions just at the time (and region) of a reversal of the oscillation (the surface finally stops and then starts on its return journey). We are back to surface condition issues here.

09/13/08

It would seem that most of what constitutes the substance of the initial stage of a big bang is largely dark matter and/or dark energy.

10/8/08

The initial hemispheres of dark matter/energy bounding the top and bottom of the primordial flat universe probably have been largely dissipated in the form of expanding dark energy. There may be some small residual remnant on each side. These would be in the form of a thin cap or crust and might be slightly thicker in the center.

7/15/09

It would seem reasonable to assume that the entire volume involved is filled with dark matter with lumpy regions (at/near black holes), bubbly regions (at/near sinks) and extremely dense concentrations at/near early phases of big bang events. This raises an interesting question regarding the discontinuity proposed to exist at a sink in that there does not seem to be any compelling reason why there should be a one-to-one relationship between a given sink and a given big bang event. There may or may not be such a relationship.

Suppose there is no such relationship and that the accumulation (for convenience, assumed to be in another dimension) is itself a continuum. Perhaps the accumulation is pervasive and if so, then it can be viewed as a bag (say, a source bag) which gives rise to big bang events because it (1) is leaky or (2) has local concentrations within the source bag which rupture it or (3) is both leaky (i.e., has inherent weaknesses) and has local concentrations. The result for any of these cases would be rupture events which are independent of the filling processes. If the source bag theory is incorrect, then there may be a dynamic link arrangement between at least one sink and a local catchment from which a big bang can emanate.

It would seem that the time frame within the source bag is vanishingly small, but finite (compared with events external to the source bag). Thus accumulations over very long time periods (as viewed from outside the source bag) are viewable from within the source bag as an extremely short burst for which the source bag is just a simple conduit. If true, the transfer of such energy within the source bag then would be a rather routine activity. This proposal assumes that a given dark shell has a single spatially congruent source bag. If so, then this is genesis. Also, it seems possible that the source bags of proximate dark shells may be linked in some manner.

07/31/09

If the argument regarding a source bag is correct, then perhaps sinks are as much an artifact of the source bag as are big bangs. This thus implies that a dark shell would not be needed. But if so, then there should be leftovers - unless a big bang sweeps all of these aside (or they may not be easily distinguished from everything else). If the source bag is resposible for both the creation of sinks and for big bangs, then a generative process is needed which dates from the creation of an ultimate black hole. This is a tough issue and does not extend easily to embrace the characteristics of dark matter. A simpler approach is to accept that the dark shell and the source bag are inherent manifestations of the original creation process of an ultimate black hole. However, the dark shell (alone) may or may not be responsponsible for the creation of sinks. It would seem likely that somehow the source bag is intimately involved in the creation of sinks.

There is no reason why the source bag needs to be pervasive. A local accumulation would work as well. Therefore, local source packets, each having the same characteristics as a pervasive source bag, would suffice.

08/13/09

Although the proximity of a source packet to a sink recommends the conclusion that this arrangement is preferrable to that of a source bag, consideration must be given to the extreme shortness of the relevant time frame. As the time factor is seriously distorted, one is drawn to the conclusion that a comparably severe distortion also affects distances. This would seem to be a reasonable conclusion and is a small vote in favor the source bag theory.

To consider this issue further; given the extremely short time interval in which the source bag exists, the entire concept of dimensionality within the source bag is probably not relevant or meaningful. If this is true, it is a very convenient result in that there would be no spatial restraint between (at least) one sink and (at least) one exit point (a big bang).

It would seem that both the source bag and the dark shell are concurrent initial derivations of an ultimate black hole. This raises a question as to the fate of the source bag when dark shells are destoryed and regenerated. The simplest approach is to just say that such events probably do not affect the source bag in any material way. Following this logic, the duration of the source bag (in terms of time exterior to the source bag) would be the same as the lifetime of the (remnant of) an ultimate black hole. Viewing the overall situation the result is that there are two extremes of time -- a very short life of the source bag and a very long life for the (remnant of) an ultimate black hole.

10/23/09

The bare bones minimum for a stable system would seem to be a source bag and at least one sink with enough instabiity to rupture the source bag occasionally. This would then avoidss the need for a dark shell and an ultimate black hole. The end result however is about the same in that the overall entropy would still be constant and the time periods would be the same (very long).

11/23/09

So how do you make a source bag? This is the wrong question. The proper perspective is from the source bag itself. The question should be -- what does the source bag see? Not so simple. With no dimensionality and a vanishingly small duration which maps one to one with incredible stretches of (external) time, the source bag is a strange singularity. It is very convenient to have an ultimate black hole with which it is associated -- this solves a lot of problems. A stand alone source bag is not very meaningful -- it really requires that the exterior be dynamic. The proper argument is probably that dark shells exist but are not very meaningful and that the key items are the ultimate black hole and the source bag -- everything else is transitory (even though the source bag is a singularity). So we are back to the creation and fate of the ultimate black hole. The best explaination would seem to be that the source bag is just an artifact of the existence of an ultimate black hole. The source bag may be just the result of the extreme mass of the ultimate black hole -- a kind of ancillary result. If so, then it is very tempting to embrace the concept of oscillating dark shells. It would seem, in any case, that the source bag maps to periods of time well prior to the creation of an ultimate black hole and that it must be present regardless of the form of the structure which created the ultimate black hole. Rather messy thinking here -- it means that this singularity maps very far into the past. Does it outlast the ultimate black hole? This really begs the question as to whether ultimate black holes can aggregate(and/or become unstable). Suppose you combine two ultimate black holes, what happens to the two source bags? This doesn't seem to be very important. A better question is what is the intimate relationship between a source bag and an ultimate black hole? The nicest idea is that the source bag and the ultimate black hole are really the same entity. Then feeding the massive character of the source bag is easy -- it derives from the ultimate black hole. This is much easier to accept. Then we back into the issue (again) of how a sink is created -- and whether a sink is really needed -- it seems so or things would get very piled up and repetitive cycling is lost. It is very hard to proceed without having at least one sink -- and creating it is mess without a dark shell.

One way to think of a source bag is that it is the "reach" of an ultimate black hole.

The vanishing short duration of a source bag thus outlasts everything. Even if an ultimate black hole were reconfigured, the associated source bag would persist. Only if an ultimate black hole were completely dispersed/destroyed would it cease to exist. This might be a big presumption however. There is no logical reason why a source bag really needs to be associated with an ultimate black hole. Now some interesting questions can be asked.

If there were no sinks (and thus no need for a dark shell), then the entire structure would stagnate as more and more universes were created. The result would be a low entropy stew with new universes just barely perturbing the stew. However, this is not what is observed. The universe is rapdily expanding. There seems to be an expansion into what might be termed a a fairly true void. Unless the overall structure is very young (less say, than a few 100 trillion years) a cycling means such as an oscillating dark shell (or an equivalent) is needed so as to sweep up the debris. It might be possible to proceed without at least one sink and still achieve an overall continuity. The existence of at least one sink however is very attractive. The argument is as follows: If there are weaknesses which can result in a big bang, then (1) other types of weaknesses could generate/tolerate a sink and/or (2) the same type of weakness which can create a universe might, under some circumstances, be able to create a sink. The nicest thing about having a sink is that it reorders everything (i.e., mainly recycling dark matter) -- and it would mean that the overall entropy is constant.

Reverse logic applies here -- if you get enough matter together, then you should also generate/create an associated source bag (it takes a lot of matter however). The best evidence for the existence of a source bag is that there was at least one big bang (ours). For consistency, a source bag needs to be derived from an ultimate black hole (or an equivalent). Is this really true? Can you have a source bag without an (associated) ultimate black hole?

Suppose that you only have a source bag (for a long term system you would still need at least one sink). There is no evidence whatever that an ultimate black hole exists or that a dark shell exists. With a bare bones system, can you get by with just a source bag (and perhaps a sink)? It may be possible, but it is rather ugly in that no matter how hard you sniff around, you never get to evaluate a source bag. However, we know what can be ejected (a universe) and this should tell us something about the contents (unfortuantely, not very much).

Let's try another line of reasoning. Suppose that the source bag came first (a solo item). A tough one -- first, if so, then let's look at the situation just before a big bang. I am a big believer in leftovers, in driftwood, in dirty dishes. I believe that perfect snow flakes can exist, but also I accept the fact that bread gets stale. Restated, what is out beyond/ahead of the expanding universe? It is not enough to say that it is almost empty -- it is that small residue, that residual mix out there that is of interest. To make matters even worse, most of what is there is probably dark matter. But we have (at least) one clue -- cosmic rays (very high energy particles). It is probably a safe bet to say that there are cosmic rays out beyond/ahead of the expanding universe. So, what does this mean?

Let's diverge here a little and examine the concept of a vanishingly short duration for the existence of a source bag. Assuming that it is true that there is literally no meaninful length of time for the existence of a source bag and therefore no dimensionality is possible, the mapping to our frame of reference is still probably continuous and perhaps even somewhat linear (stable over time). In evaluating a source bag it is not productive to worry about its short duration. If it maps continuously and fairly linearly, it still has a history and a future. Who cares that the time scale is greatly distorted? The concern really should focus on the lack of dimensionality. It is a difficult concept. We are tied to a reference frame which is locked in time and space. Let us coin a term "extent" which generally sets an artificial (but practical) bound to a source bag -- independent of any reference to dimensionality. Then the "extent" of a source bag is governed by/defined by/described by something else. If it is associated with an ultimate black hole, then the answer is easy -- it is the absolute size of the ultimate black hole that controls. But, we are looking at a solo item here. Let us not focus on how it was created or what its fate might be -- let's focus on this strange beast as it exists. Physical chemistry is nice -- it packages a lot of things into reasonable theories. Let's lean a little bit on some of these concepts and see if something seems to fit. The simpler the result, the better.

Without dimensionality, most concepts in our frame of reference falter badly. Entropy, for example, relates to the degree of orderlyness of a system -- but this requires a time reference -- normally it is a snapshot documenting random motion (e.g., heat; electron motion). For a source bag, the concept of entropy has no meaning. This is not much fun.

Let's ask if the contents of the source bag are uniform. Even better, let's look at a source bag before, during and after a big bang event. Number one -- there is a substantial loss of energy from a point of departure/rupture. Number two -- there needs to be some sort of recovery/closure at that point. Number three -- something (probably a condition which was exceeded) triggered/caused the departure/rupture. It is a safe (initial) bet that the loss was insignificant (leakage normally only taps out a small portion -- even for breaking dams). Lacking the luxury of being able to refer to dimensionality, how does the source bag recover? The recovery depends on the character of the event itself -- if it is like ejecting a seed, then the item ejected (at the beginning) is already almost free and clear of the source bag. This is a nice concept. It is like saying that the seed is ripe and that its loss is normal/routine/nondisruptive. It is tempting now to look at edge theories here for guidance (for boundary conditions). Bessel functions don't help much. For the seed theory to work, it means that (at least locally) the situation is not uniform -- so far, so good. With or without the seed theory, some disturbance/perturbation seems likely. However, it would seem that the source bag is incredibly massive and that the loss has no tangible effect whatever. If so, then the manner of ejection is not relevant. It is arguable that the ejecta is just scrap/second level debris/boundary material/unrelated to the contents/a portion of a "skin" layer/prior-accumulated material/a reactive component/...

What is the shape of the source bag? Not relevant, but a nice question. Let's look at the origin question instead. Assuming that some minimum (huge) mass is required for a source bag to form, it is an unusual event (like a shock wave of an earthquake that gathers energy as it travels and then breaks out and goes much faster). It is probably not productive to look at the transition (at least intially). All of this assumes that there is an association with an ultimate black hole. Let's get back to the solo item issue -- is there any way to form it as a solo item?

Suppose that the reference frame of the source bag is "normal" -- then our reference frame (start to finish) is gone in less than an instant. Stretching out the source bag reference frame, what do we have? The best guess is that it is a tight collection of energy (probably mainly dark matter). We have proceeded by assuming that it is "frozen" -- effectively having no real dimensionality, motion or duration. The reality is that it can produce a big bang. How do we deal with this? Are we to say we are wrong and that there is dimensionality? If so, then it is little more than an interesting aspect of an ultimate black hole (as noted above). This does not seem quite right. It appears that the very short duration of the source bag must be finite (but still a very short singularity) -- therefore/if so, it is just a crowded closet and the closet can be very messy.

01/01/10

So what is the very simplest arrangement that can be configured? Clearly a leaky source bag is needed. If cosmic rays were created by a big bang, then at least one other big bang is required to explain the current random distribution of cosmic rays. the inference in any case is that the overall structure is very large and the time involved to get such a complete mixing is very long indeed. Since the structure has to be very large, then the number of cosmic rays also must be very large. It seems difficult to argue for the occurence of a single event which gave rise to cosmic rays as their numbers are continually being reduced (by collisions). Even with complete mixing the needed size of the structure is so great that the outpouring from a single event would have to be very large (and as such, a gradation would surely occur but it would be on a vast scale -- one which would be very hard to discern). So, either the cosmic rays were created by at least one (earlier) big bang or by some other mechanism (e.g., the back flow from a sink). Suppose that we stick with big bangs and assume that they are and have been numerous. Then sinks are not needed if cosmic rays are a by product of a big bang. But then the over all sysem would run down (i.e., a gradual reduction of entropy). Also there is the question of the origin of the source bag -- a tough one. It requires saying that the earliest period that one can designate is an unknown origin of the source bag. This is not a very productive line of reasoning. Let's ask a better question. Is there an alternative to having an ultimate black hole from which a source (or "the" source) bag is created? Having an ultimate black hole makes the entire situation much easier to grasp. Actually it almost seems that the package (i.e., big bangs, sinks, a dark shell, a source bag and an ultimate black hole) is both an adequate theory and a minimum configuration. The general concept is anchored by the existence of cosmic rays. If this package is embraced as a good first guess, then it doesn't matter whether cosmic rays are/were part of a big bang event or back flow from a sink (when a big bang occurs). Let's assume that this package is a reasonable starting point for further speculation.

Now then, is there any other basic periodicity which can be projected to exist? Let's try to figure out the long term fate of an ultimate black hole. Let's assume that the vanishing short duration of the source bag is true. Then it's short existence spans the lifetime of the ultimate black hole with which is it is associated. Assuming a batch of ultimate black holes were created, the perspective of their (associated) source bags would be that they (the ultimate black holes) just wink into existence and then are gone. Really? What would happen to them? The best argument would seem to be that a source bag shares the fate of its (associated) ultimate black hole. The nicest argument is that the existence of a source bag is just a collateral unimportant artifact of the existence of an ultimate black hole (as would be the overall large structure which the ultimate black hole anchors). Is there any situation in which the overall large structure would collapse onto/into the ultimate black hole? This would probably take the source bag with it as well. A complete collapse could mean that everything starts all over again. Now we are talking about a periodicity of the ultimate black hole itself. Another nice question is whether an ultimate black hole itself is stable. The general rule is that there always seems to be something around that is larger. Do ultimate black holes come in different sizes? It has been postulated that they are/may be sticky and that they come in clusters. Does the fate of an ultimate black hole have any impact on its contents? Restated, it would take a very long time for the general structure to realize that this massive central anchor is gone (assuming that there had been no collapse).

01/11/10

If a source bag exists which would seem to be the case, there is a question as to whether it fully extends to fill the entire (encompassing) structure. A more interesting question is whether the source bag is affected in any manner by the loss of matter/energy when a big bang occurs. If the proposed very short duration of a source bag is true and if it lacks dimensionality as has been proposed (above), then it is easy to argue that a local depletion should occur. This line of reasoning seems to argue against the existence of or need for sinks. Not much fun here -- the existence of sinks is a very convenient concept (and not one easily abandoned). An uncomfortable answer would be that time, as a dimension, is different in different portions of a source bag. If so, then it is simple to accept the accummulation concept which requires at least one sink and (perhaps) an associated big bang. This would compell the conclusion that Einsteinian phsysics does not apply inside of a source bag (at least as far as dimensionality and time are concerned). Another, easier, approach is to say that the source bag has measurable duration and that the physics inside, including concepts of dimensionallity, is normal. Either way, the removal of a large amount of mass/energy must have some impact on a source bag (i.e., when a big bang occurs). Let's term this effect a hiccup. Let us continue. Assuming that the source bag is of very short duration, it may well be that sinks may exist but that they are not essential. In other words, the hiccups cause there to be (1) local deficiencies or (2) normalization to a standard from an (local) excess condition. If it is the latter case, then the source bag arguably was formed with at least some nonconformities (that is, some excess concentrations). Then a source bag can be likened to an ovary. Nicely this approach tolerates the concept that the duration of a source bag is vashingly small. However, what happens to the input from a sink (into a source bag)? What if such input creates a local excess? Hi Ho, then we do not need irregularities when the source bag is formed -- the local excesses which will/may give rise to a big bang, have an origination means. This raises a strong argument for some sort of spacial relationship between a given sink and a given big bang.

What is happening just inside of a sink? Time for a beer.

Is there a minimum size for a universe? We are speaking here of a very small amount of crud inside of a large volume of dark matter; the crud becomes a (flat) universe (almost incidentally). Is there an average size?, a maximum size? Is the ratio of crud to dark matter a constant (which seems very unlikely)? Can you get a big bang with (almost) no crud? If so, then you would still get a tiny flat configuration of regular matter (flotsam). How about the reverse situation? The classic (and probably wrong) view is that everything that comes through a big bang is not dark matter. Another way to ask the question is; can you get a non-flat universe? Don't bet on it.

Back to the issue of the entry point of a sink. If the theory of folding dark matter is correct (which seems reasonable) and the destruction (conversion to energy) of regular matter is (even somewhat) valid, are these transformations truly concurrent events? Are these processes linked in some way? Let's try another point of view. Let us ask whether the crud in (our, assumed typical) big bang which becomes a universe was centralized intially or whether it migrated through the surrounding (sphere) of dark matter to become a central blob? This is not a trivial question -- the situation just outside the big bang (singularity) has a strong likelyhood of being very similar to the situation just inside the source bag (before it exits). This begs the question of the physics of folded dark matter. Since we get both the crud and a mess of (majority of) dark matter, there seems to be a tolerance of/mixing of these that arguably is much like classical chemical mixtures. Suppose that this is not so. Suppose that it is more than tolerance -- suppose that the result is a single form of matter (i.e., that the crud and the dark matter are one type of item). Ah ha, then we can say that "folded" dark matter really includes/has a component of (potential) crud. This means that the crud effectively would precipitate out (centrally) when a big bang occurs. A very nice clean theory. Does such a theory extend to partially folded dark matter? Not clear on this. Perhaps, perhaps not.

A name is needed for the creation process for an excess (at the entry point of a sink into the source bag) -- a (very long) "pre-hiccup" perhaps. Also, the term "folded" dark matter is not very good/not very descriptive of the configuration. Let's call it "source" matter.

The ratios of entry crud and dark matter has to vary greatly, so source matter is somewhat like a suspension (of energy derived from crud suspended in some form of folded dark matter). It may be like a eutetic mixture. A proper mixture might trigger a big bang. Alternately, perhaps some minimum (local) size (for a follicle) is required for a hiccup to occur (or some minimum amount of crud). It would seem very logical to accept that some special condition, internal to the source bag, is required in order to have a resulting hiccup/big bang.

It may be that a folicle is a local time warp having a finite duration (compared to most of a source bag). If so, then each of these regions represent input from a sink. These regions may well otherwise be normal. It is probably convenient to assume that they are somewhat spherical (except for the interface with the sink). The time distortion across the interface is severe. Is a folicle of uniform composition? Do we have a "pile up" situation? That is, layers centered onion-like and extending from the interface. This line of reasoning assumes that there is some (limited) dimensionality to a folicle.

Now, let's again look at cosmic rays, again assuming that they issue from either a sink or from the singularity which gives rise to a big bang. Is there any reason to favor one exit point (from a source bag) over the other? Yes -- we know a lot of stuff is issuing out of the singularity; a little more is a more logical assumption than saying that the cosmic rays are blow back out through a sink. OK, let's say this is the case. At what point in the process do we get these? It is safest to say that they are probably first, or close to first, out. Also, this line of reasoning is not dependent upon the existence of a sink. Since this type of source is highly directional, the result is that the random character of cosmic rays must mean that the overall structure is vast and that the time scales are very long (as been stated above). The mixing is thorough and it would also seem that we are observing a steady state situation. Again, this implies a very large number of big bang events occurring over very long time periods.

Back to basics. Can a sink/folicle fire more than once? Tough item here -- is it a single shot or a multiple firing? If there is no blow back through a sink (of cosmic rays), it would seem that a sink configuration is stable and that there is no inherent reason why it can not continue to function routinely. This argues for the possibility of having multiple firings arising from/being fed from a single sink. Do you have to reload a folicle to have it fire again? This question relates to whether the region of the (big bang) singularity/source bag is weakened/altered in a specific area by a big bang event. If not, it also assumes that the threshold for commencing the first event is high (higher than is needed for subsequent events). Do multiple firings affect the content/size of later discharges?

Assuming that the dark shell cycles exist, is there any connection between the stage of a cycle and a discharge? This seems unlikely. The source bag is isolated and also therefore, the folicles would be isolated. By inference, it seems that cosmic rays should survive passage in/through the dark shell. On the other hand, with great mixing possible (during a single cycle), they may be devoured by the dark shell -- there is no way to tell. The overall structure of the dark shell may limit or avoid contact -- or it may contribute to the mixing directly.

It has been proposed herein that the dark shell is a very violent, compact oscillating structure. Could the dark shell itself generate cosmic rays (rather than having them produced by a big bang)? This seems unlikely. As a mixing factor, it is an excellent candidate -- as a generating source, it is not realistic since it would provide some directionality (which is not observed).

01/13/10

Is there any possibility that cosmic rays are produced by the dark shell -- a very chaotic place. Probably not; it is just not the correct environment.

Better question. Assuming that the initial sphere formed at the time of the big bang was uniform with crud and dark matter, can we assume that all of the crud in fact migrated to a central region? Restated, as the configuration cools, do we get a gradation of crud which is more dense centrally? The point here is that it seems unlikely that all of it made it to the central region. This is an argument that there should be traces of the crud in the two hemispheres of dark matter which currently straddle our flat universe. These gradations would be concentric half shells and would probably be continuous and not discrete (although this possibility can not be ruled out -- since the conditions vary greatly as the expansion progresses).

Suppose that it is (for the moment) just a nice continuous (but not linear) gradation. It would be difficult to detect since the particle size(s) would be small and aggregation might not easily occur. If there are striations (actually they are not needed) reflections might be detectable. You get a rainbow from rain drops that just happen to be in the correct position -- the same is true here -- the question is how to look for these (not easy, not my area of expertise in any case).

Can we get a messy blob of crud? Given the very flat character of the universe, this seems to be very unlikely. Let's think about what messy really means. Messy or not messy means something that can be quantified (i.e., seen, measured, etc.). If we are below a key treshold, then it could be a real mess -- not just Brownian motion. The problem is that the characteristics of dark matter at an early stage of expansion may be very different from what is now the case. Let's ask if this dark matter was homogenous at that time. If not, then there is grounds for saying that the blob of crud left some patches of crud behind (i.e., trapped to some degree).

Let's back up. Assuming that there is/was source material which is/was a final form of matter (in the source bag), at what point does this relationship cease to exist on exit from the source bag? Not a trival question. As the hiccup (on the source bag side) ejects, it would seem that the ejceted material has a good chance of still being all or partially comprised of source material. There is an issue here of dealing with the time distortion which has been postulated for the source bag (and which is interfaced with Einsteinan physics at the exit point). This interface has to be very similar to that of a sink (if sinks exist). The one real difference is the direction in which the matter is moving; also the volume of material in each case is drastically different (small and continuous going into a sink; large and abrupt leaving the source bag). Nevertheless, the exit boundary is a key item to think about as if it is a conduit of sorts. Suppose a follicle in/on/of/at the source bag has a "surface" region which fails whereby the entire follicle suddenly no longer is in (or a part of) the source bag. Then we do not have an ejection of matter. We have an accommodation of the follicle to a new environment. This is a very pleasant idea. Why? -- it requires no acceleration of the follicle (i.e., nothing is ejected). It is like saying that there is only a change in the status of the follicle. If so, do we get a hiccup? Yes and no. No one would argue that things are the same (given the loss of mass) in the source bag, however if it is a clean break, then effectively there effectively may be no hiccup. Nicely this approach also does not really require a follicle -- if you break off a piece, then you get the same result. Even better, it means that the contents of a source bag can be uniform. A verb is needed for this type of event -- suppose that we call it partioning. Let's leave the concept of an ovary-like structure for a source bag to others to consider/muddle over.

Now partioning also has accommodate input from a sink (if these exist). The next item to consider therefore is the fate of the material if/when it enters a sink.

So far, except for the loss of source matter in bulk with a clean break, we seem to have a steady state situation for the source bag and its contents. However if there is routine input from at least one sink, then the easiest way to deal with the effect of such input, is to say that it is strictly a local phenomena. Can we postulate a neutral activity for this (like the clean break away of pieces)? Let's gp back ans start with the simplest case. No dark shell, no sinks -- only the source bag and the remanent of an ultimate black hole (from which the source bag is created and sustained). Let's let the extent of the source bag define the general overall structure. There is no inherent need to have to resupply the source bag -- the anchoring remanent of an ultimate black hole is enough. It could be that partiioning is like a flaking off process -- a natural type of activity/process. If we say that such events create cosmic rays and that these events are relatively common, then the model is simple. A universe then woud die by a process of a simple low entropy death. Given the ramdon nature of cosmic rays however, the general structure must be very large and the time periods must be very long -- further, there has to be a steady supply of source material which is partitioned away to maintain a steady state situation for the cosmic rays. Now it gets tough -- there should be some evidence that we are dealing with a dirty system -- one in which old worn out universes can be identified. Alternately one can argue that a big bang sweeps such debris away and that thus there is no evidence of this type. But does it?

If cosmic rays enter routinely as postulated from a mixing process involving the entire general structure, is there anything else that arrives routinely and which is more local? This is not the correct question. The proper question is whether as the universe thins out, there is any intrusion which can be detected which provides evidence of the presence of an earlier universe? If we are dealing with crud then the presence of dark matter is not important. For example, is there evidence of very old (burned out) galazies? We are looking here for evidence that the dark shell does not exist.

There is a better line of reasoning. Suppose originally there was no dark shell. Suppose further that the flaky source bag concept is valid. Over a long period of time, the debris would build up a dark shell. So it seems that we have a good, valid basis for its formation. The situation for the creation of sinks is much less clear. With a flaky source bag, do you really need the sinks? Well, yes -- without the sinks, the distribution of dark matter would be rather uniform and there would be no expansion of a universe -- one can argue however that it would take a lot to fill everything up to a point where there would be no expansion. This is true. You would have to look at a lot of events to begin to know the answer -- further, it is complicated by the fact that the amount flaked each time probably varies. The question becomes how clean (new) is the dark matter at hand? Is there any residual trace from the pre-event situation? There is an additional problem in that the total volume of dark matter is vastly greater than a batch of sinks could capture -- at best, the sinks could only capture a very small portion of the dark matter. The argue for the existence of sinks therefore weakens. But, the composition of the dark shell really tells the story. If it is a true accretion, even a messy accretion, then its composition really should tell whether or not there are sinks. Suppose that we have a nice oscillating dark shell -- a product of a very great number of overall cycles. Do we need to have sinks at all? A big bang will always over whelm any residual amount of dark matter that may be present. A flaky source bag functions well without the need for sinks. Further, whatever the total amount of dark matter may be, it would seem that the net result of these events (big bangs) is a continual increase in the amount of dark matter present (outside the source bag). This line of reasoning assumes that the source bag has some/adequate crud. If we have to recycle the crud then we need sinks. So it seems that the existence of sinks would depend upon the composition of the source material. But the crud has to come from somewhere so it appears that the source material must have enough crud to do the job.

Let's stop and think about the end point of this. Is there a limit to how flaky the source bag might be? Seems very unlikely -- the over all structure is so vast that filling even a portion seems unlikely -- here filling is a strange term -- the over all structure is vastly larger than the ultimate black hole so you never fill it up. Now you only need an oscillating dark shell if you need to form sinks. If you have a flaky source bag (and no need to recycle crud), then you do not need an oscillating dark shell -- you may get some junk piled up here and there but the need for a dark shell is avoided. This approach means that gradually the junk is accummulated -- but it is not needed to keep the process going. It appears that we do not need either a dark shell or sinks. A flaky source bag does it all. The junk can be termed a dark shell if it is continuous -- which is very possible.

It is beginning to appear that the dark shell may in fact just be the accummulated junk, debris, from a long sequence of big bangs. This junk would be nominal in quantity compared to an ultimate black hole/flaky source bag. Assuming that we eliminate sinks from consideration, the result is a very simple configuration. Further, no assumptions need be made about the dimensionality of the source bag or it duration relative to the overall structure. These considerations regarding the content of a source bag really are not of much concern. So we wind up with a very large over all structure, a flaky source bag and an anchoring ultimate black hole. The source bag may or may not define the extent of the over all structure. The production rate of material (number of big bangs) seems low and so the time periods for any appreciable amount of junk to accummulate is very great. It may be that as the source bag becomes smaller, the over all structure also becomes smaller. In the limit (jokingly) it may all converge back into/onto the ultimate black hole. This raises questions about the flaky source bag, its origin, its fate and whether such a convergence is cyclic in character. If it does cycle, the cycle time would be very long. It would require the creation of a new flaky source bag for each cycle.

01/17/10

Is there any relation between the plane of our universe and the source bag? Probably not. What is the shape of the source bag? Very tough question. There is no inherent reason why it should be smooth. What causes the flaking process? Is there back pressure on the system? Is it a continuous feed directly or indirectly from the ultimate black hole? Is this is system effect or are these inherent weaknesses (which cause flaking).

01/26/10

If we assume that source material is a final form of matter, then the concept presented above that dark matter in the source bag was folded needs to be revised or abandoned. The concepts of compact dark matter and expanding dark matter as set out above still seem reasonable. As dark matter disassociates from baryonic matter, does it deserve a name? Restated, even if the status is very transitory, it seems a poor choice to call it compact dark matter as it is not stable (at least not as stable as compact matter). Previously it has been called partially folded dark matter.and for now that is probably OK even if misleading. The etiology of the transition appears to be obscure.

Why would the change in status of a small amount of source material give rise to cosmic rays? Why does flaking from a source bag occur? At some scale there must be (slight) local variations in the source material. Perhaps cosmic rays are created to allow the boundary conditions at the singularity to be properly configured.

02/03/10

Let's look at a source bag which is not smooth. Suppose that at least some portions of the surface have cusps -- cusps which can or do give rise to a big bang when flaking occurs. If so, can a cusp give rise to more than one big bang? Is there a healing process in which the cusp is reformed? The basic question here is whether or not there is movement within the source bag of source material.

Back to the issue of partially folded dark matter. Let's take the simplest case. Suppose that there is only compact dark matter and expanding/expanded dark matter. Then the transition from source material to crud and dark matter is very simple. The key item is whether or not there is a thin, distinctive layer on the surface of neutron stars. If there is, then that is a strong argument for a different form of dark matter -- a form which constitutes this layer. Perhaps a better term is needed -- perhaps dense dark matter would serve -- then we avoid the term folded and partially folded all together.

If cusp formation is routine (or an inherent characteristic), there is still no inherent reason why the regions adjacent to a cusp should be smooth. Suppose that the source bag is messy and that it is not homogenous. Further, if it derives from an ultimate black hole, then there is an issue of propagation/creation of a source bag originally. The easiest approach is to say that a source bag is an attribute of an ultimate black hole and that it exists from the time of the creation of an ultimate black hole. This is a nice approach since the extreme distortion of space/time could imply that this is a single package. It is hard to believe that the creation of an ultimate black hole would be realized without a fair amount of tumult. If so, then it is reasonable to believe that this unsettled creative event extends a measure of instability/nonuniformness/change to an associated source bag.

02/04/10

It seems that using "dense dark matter" is not a good idea. It is unlikely that the version (state) of dark matter which is more dense than compact dark matter (which surrounds a galaxy) and which may form a layer over neutron stars is the same as that which issues from/through a big bang event. So it is best to stick with old nomenclature (used above) with the (possible) layer over neutron stars termed "partially folded" dark matter and that which issues from/through a big bang event, "folded" dark matter. So now, let's look at a cusp on a source bag.

For convenience let's suppose that one gets a "droplet" formation at the tip of the cusp by which there is a thinning, or threadlike connection with the rest of the cusp -- with final termination (flaking) giving a spherical shaped droplet. Is this analogy (with surface tension) correct? If not then we have a stumpy cusp. At what stage during this process does the change of state/status change to a (our) time and dimensional framework? Trying another approach, why would there be a need for the issuance of a mass of cosmic rays at this junction? The energy involved for this would have to be slop from the source bag.

02/14/10

There seems to be two options with regard to cusps. Either the original configuration is stable and the cusps are gradually used up or there is movement within the souce bag of source material. Another possibility is that there is local movement at a (used) cusp to reform it. For extensive depletion of source material, movement within the source bag seems to be a more likely option. If there are long strings of source material, it could be that the end of a string acts like a cusp; the ends then just shorten as the mateial in the tips flake off. If this is the case, then the source material is just a pile of spagetti. if so perhaps it is somewhat ordered like the blossom of a thistle. This implies an originating source which is not needed with the spagetti model. The spagetti could be ordered (i.e., in a parallel/radial array).

Again the issue of the dimensionality and duration of the source bag arises. Is the distribution of events (big bangs) random within the overall structure? If so, then the flaking process would occur randomly within the overall structure. The best guess would seem to be that the overall structure is vastly larger than a single event and that randomness is not a factor. It is the thorough mixing of the cosmic rays that is the real indication of the vastness of the overall structure. There seems to be no other clue.

02/21/10

Suppose that there are (relatively) local, large thistle like formations and that these clusters are the essential part of the source bag/source material. Suppose further that these clusters are used up in some pattern of usage (either partially or almost entirely). If it is a serial process, then there is an ordering of the clusters (i.e., differences in vulnerability to flaking). Let's forget about these complexities for the moment. Let's consider only the tip, the cusp (or the end of a string).

Just before an event, the density of the volume to be flaked should be a steady state density (arguably something of an average if not dead on). Let's try another option. Suppose that (regular) super black holes warp space and time so greatly that they can generate a big bang -- bad argument -- a great shortage of mass/energy -- but suppose that the distortion is great and that there is a link with the source bag. Is there leakage either way? Again I return to the issue of time in the source bag and really like the concept that the time element is vashingly short.

Why do we have to live/deal with the concept that the big bang is a singularity? Just because it is probably small does not compell the conclusion that it is a singularity. The math and the physics may be just guesses -- certainly at some point, basic physics falters. Suppose that it is not a singularity -- small yes, but finite. Can we think of an equation that in effect says; source material = dark matter + crud + cosmic rays? Forget about the cosmic rays. Is there a place here for the monopole? Probably not. Can the source material have magnetic fields? We are back to the issue of why/how flaking occurs.

3/22/10

Let's try another theory. Suppose that the other dimensionality has a fairly uniform distribution of "droplets" and that each of these are the potential source for a big bang. Now then, there is a question of the density of these droplets -- let's assume that they do not aggregate and that they are somewhat spatially isolated from each other. Assuming that this situation exists, the absolute need for an ultimate black hole (as an original source and/or as a sustaining factor) is questionable. However, all that is required for a droplet to convert into a big bang is a change of status -- and the complexity of a "flaking" process is gone. So, instead of a source bag we have a vast collection of source droplets. Suppose that the collection is fairly dense. Question is the overall size of the containing structure fairly constant? Is it a factor of the actual volume/density of the collection? Suppoe that most of the droplets ultimately convert into big bangs, are there any collateral effects? One can then argue that the overall structure has a greater volume -- but so what -- the time involved is great and all you get is more debris. The droplet theory is just as valid as the source bag theory -- it is hard to tell which is better (and perhaps they are both wrong). So far we have a source bag concept, a linear assembly of rods and a collection of droplets -- each is a reasonable, complete theory.

How would you originally create a collection of droplets?

Now then, should the droplets be hollow shells (or effectively hollow), then an implosion can be postulated as the change in status. This is very convenient idea as the result would be a singularity -- precisely what the big bang appears to have been. This result puts the droplet theory ahead of the rest of the concepts in that such a transition would explain the mechanism which best and most easily provides a compacting process (into a transitioning singularity).

So the question then becomes how would you originally create a collection of (very small) hollow shells? (Are we blowing bubbles here or not?) It is probably best to think of this process as comparable to the degassing of a liquid (like bubbles in beer). But here we keep the bubbles (and ignore the beer).

It may well be that these are not hollow but that they only have an inherent characteristic of being able to implode. Further it may be that only a certain category of these may have this characteristic. For example, it could be that the ratio of dark matter to crud is determinative. For stars, only a certain range of mass is suitable to permit a super nova -- it could be that this ratio (dark matter to crud) determines whether or not implosion is possible. Let's call such an item a RIS (a routine implosion sphere).

Back to the issue of sinks -- can a sink create one or more RISs? What percentage of spheres would be RISs? Stars evolve -- do these RISs evolve? A better question is whether we can use the zero time model (for the old source bag model) to avoid/accommodate the evolution issue. OK, so far so good. Suppose that in fact we are dealing with a final form of matter (dark matter plus crud), is it like an alloy (variable mixtures, percentages, are stable) or is it like a chemical compound (NaCl), a fixed ratio (1 to 1 for NaCl). The alloy model seems best. It sure is tempting to project that a RIS evolves. Is this necessary? Let's forget about the spacial problem (formation sites versus big bang sites), is the zero time approach usable here? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is there, can there be, any other way to make a RIS? We have now largely left the source bag model behind (but not the source material theory). We are now faced with a collection of irregularly sized RISs. Can it be argued that these are/were a product of an ultimate black hole when it was originally formed? Very unclear on this, but if so, then there is a finite number of RISs. The continuous feed/supply theory (from an ultimate black hole) is a more attractive idea (no odds on correctness). What if the collection of RISs is not pure -- that is, other stuff is included (back to the beer analogy).

For now, let's assume that the RIS model is workable, that sinks may or may not produce these (or that some other mechanism is responsible), that a RIS can implode to create a big bang and that the boundary conditions of the process are satisfied with the creation of cosmic rays. Very nice theory. What if only a certain range of ratios (the alloy) are possible -- then the balance is just (folded) dark matter (or an excess of energy). This extra non-RIS component is then the beer. The zero time model (for the collection) is really seductive here -- it easily avoids the evolution issue for the RISs.

Tough question -- what triggers the implosion of a RIS? With the zero time model, they implode virtually as/after they are formed (a convenient idea). Again the ugly question of the spatial relationship arises (formation site versus implosion site). Let's wait on this.

Suppose that the normal situation is that no RISs are formed. Instead suppose that sheets, strings, odd shapes or other non-bubble types of structures are the norm. Suppose that all RISs are immmediately unstable and instantly collapse when formed. Suppose further that RIS formation is rare. Then the rest doesn't matter; if and when you get a RIS you get a big bang. This needs some thought.

Let's look at the transition. From a RIS (in another dimension) to a singularity to a volume equal to a RIS (in our space/time). Assume that we get a spray of cosmic rays as the singularity enters our space/time. Suppose that the time from RIS formation to singularity formation is vanishingly short. If the RIS formation is by reason of a sink, then only the entry conditions (for RIS formation) need to be satisfied.

There are two choices -- a RIS has finite duration (existence) or it doesn't. The sink model assumes a long term (external) accumulation -- the source bag theory assumes a vanishingly short duration for the source bag. If we steal the characteristics of the source bag (mapping from its short existence to our very long time frame) and apply it to the RISs, then the duration question is solved. When everything is very short, a little shorter doesn't matter much; however the relative times do count. Let's keep the short mapping theory -- then the collapse occurs without an estimatable time frame. Let's not consider that a RIS could be formed from the stuff that is in with the collection of RISs.

There is no inherent reason why RISs should all come in the same or in similar sizes -- they may well vary greatly in size. One could postulate the creation of a mini-universe. Is there a threshold minimum size to make the transition (into our space/time)?

It is of interest to consider that the operative dimension involved may in fact contain nothing substantial -- no mass or anything which could be typified as a form of energy. (in viewing the foregoing theory) as such, it is merely a conduit for a very rapid transfer; the movement of a great pulse of energy gathered by a sink into a configuration conveniently termed a "singularity" at which point it vanishes. Assuming that the brevity of the time line for this dimensionalilty is even partially connect, that fraction devoted to such a transfer would be substantially shorter.

In any case, the theory now is fairly well defined. The actual mechanism may not be a sink, but the end result which is observed, has as a prerequisite, the long term collection, transfer and consolidation of a huge mass (i.e., a universe) -- to think otherwise is to have to (1) postulate a declining, non-equilibrium, situation, (2) a source which conveniently shrinks to a sigularity when and as the transfer is to occur, (3) and a modality which effectively ejects both dark matter and crud as a single ejecta.

The rest is that it seems simplest to assume the existence of at least one sink, a new dimensionality other than our time and space frame into which collected material can be drawn/stored and a time relationship which is mapped from an extremely short period for the new dimensionality to our frame of reference. This shortness of duration permits the great difference which is spanned by/across the sink. In conclusion, we again must consider the manner of formation of such a sink, in that, the reliance upon the existence of an oscillation dark shell may not be mandatory to achieve this end.

If indeed the average number of cosmic rays is constant, then the average is a sawtooth pattern with the vertical increases each being the result of a big bang.

To simplify the basic model even further, all that is needed is a sink with a time frame which is exceptionally short. The sink can be a simple anomaly in space. Further, it is not clear whether the gravitational collapse (of a very cold mass) occurs at, within or adjacent to the sink. It may be that the steadily size of the mass itself ultimately disrupts the existence/continuity of the sink. The fate of the sink is unclear. It now seems best to consider that a big bang is preceeded by this type of implosion as it provides a very simple mechanism for the collection and creation of a big bang.

The previous speculation regarding a composite final form of matter as the material is gathered and/or as the implosion occurs is academic given the extremely short duration of such a composition.

Should the inference that the overall structure be huge -- as would be implied from the randomness of cosmic rays, the issue of whether an ultimate black hole is a requisite then needs to be reconsidered. If the anomaly which is needed in order to form a sufficient mass giving rise to a big bang can be accounted for by another means, then the theory of an ultimate black hole fades away. However, we are stuck with the inference of a very large, very old overall structure and the occasional creation of universes well spaced apart. Even without a central item such as the postulated ultimate black hole, one is still left with a very stable overall configuration -- one with great continuity and, as such, much like a clock which, once started, continues indefinitely. Ultimately everything is recycled repeatedly. The current question now is (again) the nature and character of sink formation.

03/25/10

It must be observed and commented upon that the common concerns expressed when examining factors relevant to big bang events have previously not considered that a big bang seems to occur as a logical result of an implosion process. Given the summary presented above, it seems proper that future considerations in this regard can and should evaluate an associated implosion process as a critical and important aspect of the overall event.

03/26/10

Assuming that the collection means is a sink which is spherical and that the time required to collect enough matter to form a universe is very long, the previously proposed time distortion (very short and mapping one to one to our space), means that the collected matter is effectively not subject to gravity. Restated, the very short duration of the sink (as viewed from within the sink) means that the collection process is vashingly short. Thus a huge mass can be seen to be accummulated in a vashingly short period. In effect the collection of material is viewed internally as a single intrusion of a great mass in a vashingly short period. Externally, the time required to gather this amount of matter (mainly dark matter flowing into the sink) would require trillions of years. The gathered material requires a name -- the name herein proposed is the "Culex" (latin). At some point the tiro becomes subject to gravity with a resulting implosion (creating a big bang).

Until triggered, a Culex thus is accummulated in what is effectively a zero gravity environment. It may well be that the postulated mechanism for its creation is inaccurate or poorly focused as to the details, but the comparison with a super nova is both reasonable and logical.

It would take a considerable amount of time to accummulate enough matter with a sink to form a universe. Perhaps 10¹⁵years. Assuming that this time period maps uniformly to 10^-15 seconds within the sink, the distortion in time would be 365x24x60x60x10³⁰to one.

Over this time period, a few stars should wander into the sink (a matter of simple statistics). It may be that as the accummulated mass increases, there is an increase in what might be termed back pressure (against the sink). This might be the reason why with time the sink finally fails and the accummulated mass then becomes subject to (our) normal gravitational forces. It can then be postulated that the embedded stars would then commence to create expanding "hot spots" within the Culex. Gradually this factor would seriously weaken the Culex and in due course a collapse would begin. As the implosion progresses, a point would be reached where the Culex becomes homogenous. From this point onward, the compression increases until the configuration is a singularity. There is an issue as to how small this singularity might be and it is unclear whether the current estimate that it is shrinkingly small (a true vashing point) is correct -- it may have a finite size before it explodes (in a big bang). It is further postulated that during this drastic desacceleration, a spray of cosmic rays is issued. This model is a very simple model which may be very inaccurate in many respects. First, it is difficult to estimate the size of a Culex. Next, the collapse may not be uniform -- given the size of a Culex, it may be a messy process -- but the final result should be about the same.

03/30/10

The comparison of the implosion of a Culex with that which precedes a super nova is inviting. The scale is vastly different however. The general problem is that there are many open questions. First, is it really possible to collect the required amount of matter (to form a Culex)? The answer is that the ignorance of the distribution of matter independent of our universe makes speculation about this a very unsure process. Next, is the issue of the spatial relationship between the sink and the resulting big bang (there may well be little or no correlation). Also, it would seem that under the very best of conditions, the implosion, at least initially, would be a very irregular process given the great inhomogenity of a Culex. There is an interesting question about particles which are less energetic than cosmic rays -- what else is produced (assuming that cosmic rays are produced)?

Of necessity, it seems that we must again return to the basic issue of how a sink could be formed. The original theory (now about 8 years old), that an oscillating surface (the dark shell) is needed may have to be reevaluated. Perhaps there are other factors that are important.