Big Crunch?

Regarding Nature article: "Black Holes do not Exist." Again the article is back to a limited view of our Universe being dominated by Matter and Antimatter only serves as a subservient cause of Universe expansion in the form of "dark energy pockets."

The article states that matter is shot back out into the Universe which is totally wrong. Antimatter is shot back out from the extreme gravitational forces caused by extreme rotation and compression of matter that creates a zone of reverse polarity Antimatter white hole. So, you have a Black Hole and a White Hole inside that has a reverse gravitational field to matter.

The article is very loose in descriptions of the actual processes and does not define exactly how the Universe in the first place creates Antimatter and assumes that Universe is dominated by Matter. Well, gravity exists because of rotation and rotation would not exist unless something greater than the individual gravitational forces of all Matter with equal force was causing an inward motion do to a reverse polarity of attraction that maintains a constant circulation of Gravitons and Anti-Gravitons. Again, I will say that a T-0 is a paradox construct that cannot really exist by itself in nature other than in an equation, and exists only as a dependent function between the construct of two reverse spinning Universes that create a forward and reverse time wave. Even though Zero Time does physically exist, it only exists because of forward and reverse motion of two sucinct finite spaces of reverse polarities that are Matter and Antimatter Universes. If the Universe collapsed by some external force it would automatically regenerate because you cannot destroy the energy of Matter and Antimatter due to Mass Anihilation, the energy waveforms would repell due to reverse motion and recharge due to attraction and differentiate into Plasmas and begin the process of creation of Mass all over again. So, zero time only exists at the center between these two Universes.

I agree with parts of the article but for the most part the direction or even statement that "Black Holes do not Exist" has no meaning in such a loose definition of Universe.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Regarding Nature article: "Black Holes do not Exist." Again the article is back to a limited view of our Universe being dominated by Matter and Antimatter only serves as a subservient cause of Universe expansion in the form of "dark energy pockets."

I agree with parts of the article but for the most part the direction or even statement that "Black Holes do not Exist" has no meaning in such a loose definition of Universe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The black holes are introduced by a mathematical singularity of the conformal group, but the mathematical singularities show generaly that we are out of the field where the laws apply... (an other example is the infinity of the energy of the zero point field).
All these stories of expansion are consequences of the ignorance of the parametric light-matter interactions (examples of such interactions : refraction, laser amplification, phase conjugation mirrors, frequency mixings, down conversion of frequencies, photon echoes...). In atomic hydrogen in states 2S and 2P, energy is transferred from the high frequency beams to the low frequency (CREIL effect) producing frequency shifts which may be confused with Doppler shifts. It is a joker which explains a lot of observations without any need of strange hypothesis.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />More and more are waking up. Scientist are finally starting to get it now. It's about time.

www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

rousejohnny

yes it was interesting. and it is about time. at the very least they are questioning so called set theories.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How about this, a "perfect liquid"? This is very interesting.
North, I know you are into plasmas, what do you think of this one.

www.universetoday.com/am/publish/early_u..._liquid.html?2042005

I thought this was interesting...positrons and eletrons annihilation sometimes preceeded by positronium.

Here's the link.

www.universetoday.com/am/publish/search_positronium.html?862005

For those of you interested in plasma cosmology, see my list of links below.
My interest is how it fits with the MM model.
Links
www.electric-cosmos.org/links.htm

Our solar system
www.electric-cosmos.org/planets.htm

Predictions for the Sun..
www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

Heliospheric current sheet.
www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Scientific/Topics/S...SolarWindGlobal.html

Is it possible tha the "Axis of Evil" observed in the CMB could be evidense of a Universal attractor?