Eckard,
What first clued me into the possibility that alot of cosmology and eventually physics, was far more handwaving than anyone is willing to acknowledge, was the fact that expansion and gravitational contraction are opposite effects and quite possibly perfectly balanced, a fact borne out by observation of the background radiation by COBE and WMAP. If they balance, then where is the additional expansion for the universe as a whole to expand? The argument then became that inflation actually expanded the whole universe so large that the observable part only looks flat because it is just a small part.
The logical conclusion, by anyone not beholden to orthodoxy, is there is some form of convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass, such that what falls into galaxies is eventually radiated back out in some form or another and the cycle starts again. Since the universe is infinite, entropy doesn't apply, since it's not a closed set. Energy lost is replaced by energy gained and this whole galactic cycling is little more than vacuum fluctuation on an infinite scale.
All this obsession over black holes is further nonsense. What exists are gravitational vortices that eventually spew out whatever falls in. Either radiated out as it heats up, starlight, etc. or finally shot out the poles as cosmic jets. Smaller examples, such as binary star systems, eventually blow up when the absorbing star gets too dense.
Remember that if you were to drill a hole down to the center of the earth, you wouldn't find a gravitational singularity. In fact, the gravity, pulling from all directions, would cancel out. (Of course you would be crushed by the pressure.)
Essentially you would be in the eye of the storm. So why wouldn't the same principle work for galaxies? If you were to fall into the black hole at the center of the galaxy, would you fall through some wormhole into another reality, or would your constituent ions be shot out the pole in some quasar? Eventually to be cycled back into another gravitational vortex.
I think alot of this goes back to our rejection of space as anything foundational and insistence on the point as source of all structure.So everything becomes points and measurements between points. Anything else is just derivative.
Quanta are quanta of energy, not information. What if they could vary in volume? Release a photon of light and does it simply travel off in a single line, or does it expand out to fill space? If it expands, it is still the same quantity of energy, so the "temperature" drops, according to the laws of thermodynamics. In my discrete vs analog entry I compared this to a dripping water faucet. As you tighten it, first the water becomes a thin stream, then starts to drip. Since the drips are the same size, due to surface tension, the quantity of water is reduced by them getting further apart. Think of this in terms of light from a distant source, where it is so far away, only single quanta of light are registering. Wouldn't the result be a redshift of the pattern, as the light is reduced to single quanta and the time between each gets longer? Remember redshift is entirely proportional to distance and the effect is that we appear to be at the center of the universe. A logical solution is some form of lensing effect, not the sources actually receding. Then you don't have to argue space expands, yet still have a constant speed of light against which to measure it.
Also, when these quanta of energy are condensing back into mass, the effect is reversed and a vacuum forms, ie. gravity.
I could go on, but this is a better article.
Regards,
John M
