Mordred

They have already it off and tested it on 70+ patients found this in the writeup on the links I provided above http://www.massgeneral.org/cancer/assets/pdfs/STM_article_final_HLCC_yr_RW.pdf

http://edwardwillett.com/2012/06/a-handheld-mri/ http://www.gizmag.com/handheld-dmr-diagnoses-cancer/23067/

I've already realized I did the wrong set of calculations, above lol. (forgot the misnomer) I wish to just add the related Gforce calculations. of a falling object impact. (older textbooks) now its properly called impact force Even though the OP is referring to g -force in terms of acceleration so the above posts by others is correct. (this is just in terms of g-force of a falling object at impact)(or sudden deceleration), just for informational purposes. of the older formulas once used (the above answers by others is correct for the OP) funny part is this is what you would find in an engineering safety data sheet. However G-force is a misnomer the correct definition of g-force is g-force A force acting on a body as a result of acceleration or gravity, informally described in units of acceleration equal to one g One g is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface and is the standard gravity (symbol: gn), defined as 9.80665 metres per second squared, or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass. some older textbooks still have whats below for example my year published 1923 physics textbook. or sites as follows http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr2.html Gforce (due to deceleration of a car in the example) down below is from one of my older engineering books velocity upon impact is give by v = (vo 2 +2gs)1/2 v= velocity upon impact (ft/s) vo= initial velocity (ft/s) g= acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s2) s= distance of the fall (ft) rate of deceleration a [latex]a=\frac{v^2}{2d}[/latex] a= rate of deceleration (ft/s2) v= the velocity at the point of impact (ft/s) d= deceleration distance (ft) Gforce conversion of rate of deceleration to Gforce [latex]G_{force}=\frac{a}{g}[/latex] force of impact fi [latex]f_i=\frac{Wa}{g}=Wg[/latex] Fi= force of impact(pounds force) W= object weight (lbs) a= rate of deceleration (ft/s2) g= acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s2) G= Gforce time to fall [latex]t=\sqrt{\frac{2s}{g}}[/latex] t= time (sec) s= distance (ft) g= 32.2 ft/s2 pressure of impact [latex]p_i=\frac{f_i}{A_i}[/latex] Pi= pressure of impact (force per unit area in lbs/in2) Fi= force of impact (pounds force) Ai= surface area of impact (in2)

Doppler effect is not a force now to be more clear here which mass are you referring to? inertial mass measures an object's resistance to changes in velocity m=F/a. (the object's acceleration) Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object. Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field. Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc²

Yeah I must have been half asleep I was defining the force of gravity which isn't the same as g force long work day wasn't thinking right lol (mind you the beer didn't help much)

a 1 kg object would fall at sea level to the center of mass of the Earth at 1 g. An object the mass of the Earth would fall towards the Earth at 2g much farther out than the radius of the moon. 1 g is 9.80665 m/s2 in terms of acceleration in terms of force Fgrav = m * g or force=m*a where g = 9.8 N/kg (on Earth) at sea level and m = mass (in kg) one of the fastest meteors on record hit the Earths atmosphere at 28.6 kilometers per second. this is far greater than 2 g. with an estimated mass of roughly 40,000 kg. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/20/california-meteor-broke-speed-record-for-atmospheric-entry/

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them now think of your question and ask yourself at what distance? then use the formula below [latex]F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, 6.67×10−11 N·(m/kg)2 or if you prefer one of the other forms see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centers of the masses Earths mass is 5.97219 × 10²⁴ kg don't forget to convert the units 1 g is 9.80665 m/s2 (at the Earths surface) in newtons units its determined by [latex]f=mg[/latex] 1 newton=1 kg*m/s2 On Earth's surface, a mass of 1 kg exerts a force of approximately 9.81 N (a rough calculation will show there is 19.82*1019 newtons of force between the Earth and the moon.) I'll leave it up to you to calculate how far a body the size of the Earth would have to be from the Earth to equal 2 g

agreed, for an introductory level it is excellent, much on par with Barbera Rydens book. Scott Dodelson's book requires some extensive math skills and familiarity with GR metrics

for extremely long ranges we can also use gravitational lenses this can greatly increase our observation range

The 1% Concordance Hubble Constant http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1718v1.pdf new value from collective data, best-fit Hubble constant of 69.6+/-0.7 km/s/Mpc. the tighter constraints are in excellent agreement with LCDM concordance model.

Ok one of the problems your having is that you need to understand how forces work. The other problem is that particles have both a wave like and particle like characteristics. In particles there are different forms of interactions. Electromagnetic, chromo-dynamics (color). flavor-dynamics. At the particle level gravity is minimal or near zero. How these interactions occur is well described by the various quantum field theories. QCD, QED,QFD. Gravity in the same metrics is geometro-dynamics. not to mention QM and standard particle physics There is numerous problems quantifying gravity at the particle level. However I would recommend spending some time looking at the particle interactions in the fields I just mentioned. for example take the case of a neutrino. The neutrino is weakly interactive. It can pass through a 1000 light years of lead without an interaction. Your model idea cannot account for this. However the known partice physics models can. Then the other problem is how your model treats relativistic particles, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, neither can particles. The forces are mediated from particle to particle via bosons, and the gluon. Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. Higg's Bosons give other particles mass via the Higg's mechanism. Their existence was confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013 so here is the question how is the force to move the particle in your animation applied in the relativistic case? none of these force carriers can move faster than the speed of light neither can the information of momentum be transferred from one particle to another faster then the speed of light. nor can any wave function (hint in the electromagnetic case this is easy ) however your animation has interactions that this isn't the case. (you have particles stopping and starting in a slinky effect) how is the forces being translated when the particles are stopping and starting? how does the lead particle drag the lag particle then you have the lag particle deflect the lead particle.) this type of interaction would be difficult to describe even at the classical sense say using billiard balls "Lets take a two atoms molecule and see what happens if it is accelerated and I am one of them. First, lets take for granted that I can see the other atom, and that if I can see it, it is because it emits light constantly in my direction, and that this light comes from its nucleus, whatever the way it is produced. Second, lets take for granted that I emit the same light, at the same frequencies and the same intensity, directly from my nucleus. Third, lets suppose that the two atoms can move independantly from one another to emit their light pulses exactly at the moment where they see the pulses of the other atom, so that because they are already at rest from one another, they can stay synchronized if they stand at the right distance, which means that this is the distance where they link together. Finally, let the other atom undergo a push directly in my direction and see what happens. As soon as it is pushed, the other atom will loose its synchronism with me, and it will thus resist to move, but since the push is strong enough, it will nevertheless have to move, so that as soon as the push is over, it will stop moving and try to get back to its previous position if it can." now take what I stated and apply newtons 3 laws of motion to it, you should at least remember enough of the maths for that easy step or if you prefer look over this visual tour of classical electromagnetism, then think of the field lines in your scenario http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/guidedtour/Tour.htm#_Toc27302306

transcendental meditation is best described as a relaxation technique, forget all the hocus pocus. An analogy when it comes to focus, think of a needle, Is it easier to hear a pin drop onto the floor in a silent room, or is it easier to hear it in a noisy room? Now apply that to thought, if your mind is fluttering from thought to thought how can you focus on a particular subject? In the case of relaxation, you want to clear your mind of as many thoughts as you can then focus on the feeling of relaxation. there is a variety of techniques, they essentially involve relaxed breathing techniques, tensing a body muscle for 5 to 10 seconds then release, then focus on the feeling of relaxation, for the visual aids one of the common one is to visualize a scene you find soothing, or concentrate on the light flashes when your eyes are closed then concentrate on the dark areas between them. Properly done, meditation can greatly reduce stress levels, this has the added benefit of better health. However there is some unusual feelings that can be associated with a meditative state, this is more or less the mind playing tricks on you lol. More advanced levels you can ignore all physical stimuli, and this feeling gives you a disconnected feeling. This is essentially your trance like state, its not that you don't notice the environment, your simply ignoring it as your focus is on the meditative trance. However I can safely tel you there is tons of hocus pocus pop culture misleads on its possibilities such as floating, astral projection etc. though you can really slow down your heart rate lol, I've managed to reach 10 beats per minute when I used to practice it. (had a bad anger problem in my youth) this helped me learn to calm myself and relax.

fair enough but you have to realize we have no way of knowing what level your math is at, you will have to help us, to help you by showing some math relations to your model, you can't expect us to translate your ideas by a verbal descriptive. Keep in mind doppler effects and measurements is highly tested. For that matter the doppler formulas aren't particularly complex for the situation between two particles. Part of the reason we stress do the math is that by doing it. You show you understand the basics and more often than not learning to do the math will often result in showing why a personal model is wrong to begin with. or at least help them understand why a model is described in the manner that it is. its always best to understand what is in the box before you think outside the box for example you mention doppler shift which type?? there is 3 forms of doppler type shifts in Cosmology applications doppler shift is due to motion gravitational redshift is due to particles climbing in and out of a gravity well cosmological redshift is due to expansion. each of these three has its own formulas. I assume from your descriptive above that this is standard doppler shift [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] c=velocity of waves in a medium Vr is the velocity measured by the source using the source’s own proper-time clock(positive if moving toward the source vs is the velocity measured by the receiver using the source’s own proper-time clock(positive if moving away from the receiver) this has the following relations [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] now think of this in your terms of an atom delivering a push in my direction. First off a photon moving towards me shows a blueshift, so it is gaining in energy and frequency (from my view point) now in order for that photon to push against me it must expend energy to do work. See the problem here ? first off why would the photon interact with me prior to arrival? secondly how do you propose to measure that loss of energy due to performing work? thirdly what type of force interaction? gravity, strong nuclear? kinetic energy? friction? at what range? this is why we need to see your math in regards to your model too many questions are involved in a simple verbal explanation

the early stars and galaxies wasn't packed tightly inflation had already occurred. Now as to why the universe expanded during the matter dominated universe, well the simple answer is that pressure is also involved. same with the radiation dominant era. The idea gas laws in cosmology has equations of state that relate the energy-density to pressure relations. This pressure relation acts in some ways as negative gravity in some textbooks (I personally don't like that way of explaining it) anyways expansion is due to an energy-density to pressure relation. the equations of state is covered here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 here is a basic article in regards to universe geometry and how it affects distance measures http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 is http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ -during the radiation dominant era radiation pressure dominated expansion -during the matter dominant era matter slowed down the rate of expansion however didn't halt or cause a collapse. The negative pressure relations is still slightly positive as opposed to gravity as a positive pressure now we are currently in the lambda [latex]\Lambda[/latex] dominant era (dark energy is one explanation for the cosmological constant lambda. these articles will show the eras and there expansion relations http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (full length textbook)

interesting paper, even though its based on string theory D-brane, and its a string theory involving a white hole, here is the arxiv paper from that link the main problem with this proposal is that there is no experimental evidence that string theory is correct. Also this paper does not support inflation where observational data does. for that matter the paper mentions that some observational data rules out aspects of this model in the conclusion. "As we pointed out, the simple model of cosmological perturbations, developed in Sec.4is already ruled out by cosmological observations at>5 sigma level, as it does not predict any deviations from scale-invariance" Out of the White Hole:A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487v2.pdf evidentally the model needs some work by the way the multimedia article had it wrong, its a 5D star collapse into a 4D BH I'm also not sure how they maintain the homogeneous and isotropic nature in our universe, its somehow related to the 4d perfect fluid with the 3d perfect fluid interactions, however my string theory isn't up to par to see the relation ( nor do I plan on learning string theory, too much conjecture for my taste)

You cannot transform rotation from one body to another without some form of force interaction. In gravitational bodies that force is gravity, [latex]F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation there is a known synchronous rotation due to gravity, of nearby gravitational bodies known as tidal locking Earth and the moon is tidally locked. However this is a very slow process that also involves conservation of angular momentum (it is an example of induced rotation between gravitational bodies) (however the body must be able to tidally bulge) http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/circus/media/uploads/pdf/SG8_angular_momentum.pdf in so far as the gravitational influence of a nearby body creates tidal bulges, those bulges causes the rotating body to slow down (think of a spinning figure skater) when she places her arms close to her body she spins faster, than when she stretches her arms. Tidal bulging has a similar effect on gravitational rotating bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking [latex]t_{\textrm{lock}} \approx \frac{w a^6 I Q}{3 G m_p^2 k_2 R^5}[/latex] now as to other rotating bodies influencing other bodies to rotate, you must have some form of force interaction. Friction is obviously one "Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of solid surfaces, fluid layers, and material elements sliding against each other." however you cannot induce motion from one body to another body without some form of force interaction see newtons 3 laws of inertia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

you don't seem to get it, any representation, whether its a graph, dots on a screen etc in order to be accurate inherently involves math. the last post is an example of one. In order to place any accuracy of doppler etc, the developer used mathematics in the first place, even to program such would require mathematics. If you choose to try and learn physics without the mathematics. You will fail plain and simple. If your trying to convince others your model is correct without mathematics you will fail. Its amazing how people cannot grasp the simple understanding that any relation regarding physics involves mathematics. I certainly will not pay any attention to any representation without the mathematical relations shown nor will any other physicist. but hey if you wish to continue to foolishly limit yourself, don't expect others to do the same or take any credence in any of your ideas. However if you want to learn the mathematics then there is plenty of people here wiling to help you however you will need to learn the existing models and mathematics first. I for one do not help people develop a model unless they are wiling to understand the models already present. (unless they are willing to make the effort to learn the math and existing models it would be a waste of my time)

yeah I fully agree "fields is a tough book, unfortunately most of my material is in the form of textbooks which I cannot post, the other concerns is QFT needs a good understanding of relativity and QM as well as a good math level. your going to need to be more clear on what you mean by flux densities that being said once your more clear on what your after the local group is well studied. So there will most likely be information your looking for. One think to keep in mind, most professional level papers do not restrict themselves to one field ie metric system. In other words, you will find that professional papers will have a mix of QFT, relativity, FLRW metric, Einstein field equations, QM particle physics etc, or they will use the various metrics involved in those areas. one paper which has information on the local group though indirectly I'll post as an example, its also a handy reference when it comes to the intergalactic medium, this includes our local group. You will notice that thermodynamics (perfect fluid and ideal gas laws) as well as particle physics plays a large factor in the densities of an intergalactic medium. "The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium" http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358 if you have the funds to afford textbooks, I wouldn't necessarily restrict yourself to just QFT textbooks, they would be difficult to understand without first understanding QM, particle physics (classical), relativity, and cosmology (for the cosmology related portions of QFT) as well as differential geometry and calculus. one way to think of QFT is relativistic QM. as far as cosmology books go some of my recommendations is "Introduction to cosmology" by Barbera Ryden she does an excellent job bringing new students into the FLRW metrics without swamping one with the more complex math forms. Her usage o the FLRW metric in terms of single and multi component universes is masterful (breaks down how each contributor ie dark energy, gravity, dark matter etc) influences the expansion history of the universe. "Modern Cosmology" by Scott Dodelson is also excellent. though a bit more advanced. Cosmology The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure by Peter Coles and Francesco Lucchin is also excellent An IntroductionTo Modern Cosmology by Andrew Liddle decent GENERAL RELATIVITY Robert M . Wald is good any books by David Griffith is extremely handy including his QED, and introduction to particle physics as well as his QM book Introduction to QM, Introduction to particle physics, introduction to electrodynamics etc he has several books all well written Quantum Field Theory by Mark Srednicki is also good "Towards the mathematics of Quantum field theory" Frederic Paugam is excellent now not to leave you hanging and wanting I have a website that I have numerous articles and in one case a free textbook for you. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde he has released this book for the general public here is some articles that are near textbook style http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~kirillov/mat552/liegroups.pdf Introduction to Lie Algebra my signature more specifically the cosmology101 link has more related material once your more clear on what your looking into on flux densities, I can probably help hope this material also helps

A better way to think of it is in terms of plausible theories, in other words the theory must conform or explain why they improve upon current understanding. Its not enough to simply propose an idea, without showing a solid understanding of the current understanding. Any theory undergoes numerous tests, against any related models already present. 1) define the problem 2) find a plausible solution to the problem (including the mathematics) 3) compare the solution to the other possible solutions to the problem 4) find evidence to support you model (mathematical and/or physical) 5) find ways to disprove your model 6) find way to improve upon your model and understanding 7) be prepared to accept and correct flaws within your model as new understanding develops 8) be prepared to have your model invalidated when that new understanding develops

the essential problem between classical gravity and quantum gravity is fairly straight forward. Classical gravity works great on the macroscopic scale, however it does little good in quantifying gravity on the microscopic scale. Gravity is such a weak interaction in the microscopic scale. that it is extremely difficult to quantify from a particle physics view point its a major problem in quantizing gravity, we can quantize the three other forces extremely well and describe how they relate to the standard model of particle physics, but gravity is the last ingredient towards a working theory of everything (though we are also working out all the dynamics of the Higg's boson as well) the quantum regime has done an excellent job in understanding the other 3 forces, however its met with extreme difficulty when it comes to gravity. some of the other problems are as follows (cut and paste from the first article posted) "We have so far not been able to directly detect gravitational radiation, much less the gravita-tional radiation from a quantum transition, or the even subtler shift due toquantized gravitons. The gravitational effects which hold the solar system together derive from the constrained part of metric. There is only indirect evidence that gravitational radiation exists and there is no evidence at all for its quantization" "The only difference between classical physics and quantum physics is what they represent. In classical physics the initial values are just numbers and each of them can take any value, whereas in quantum physics they are non- commuting operators which must obey the Uncertainty Principle." the last part is important, in a few ways, one in quantum gravity the minimal size is the planck length. however in GR the singularity is infinitely small ie much smaller than the planck length. Loop quantum gravity avoids this issue in the Planck stars paper (essentially bounces the singularity with a time dilation) see the second last article, so in this case there is no singularity. now the other question is the singularity point like, or is it solid ie a neutron star with an EH? we still don't know, neutron stars can have an event horizon the same as a BH. The difference comes down to in the BH case the collapse ends up to an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small point. however this is based in GR predictions, there is some disagreement on this with QM. in terms of the planck units. In the last article there is a proposed method the test via the accretion disk measurements whether a BH is solid or singular beyond the EH section 12.2 page 64/94 How Far Are We from the Quantum Theory of Gravity? http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4238v1.pdf loop quantum gravity review http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2008-5&page=articlese4.html Planck stars Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. section 12.2 page 64/94 please note this does not necessarily imply the graviton is necessary to quantize gravity, the graviton is only one possibility. The first article discusses some of the other methodologies

after looking over some of your ideas, and it has some merit in the sense that you've placed a lot of thought into this. I would recommend looking over the geometric aspects of QFT. When you get down to it many of aspects of particle physics, QFT, Cosmology, string theory etc can be described by geometric relations. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum field this article covers extensively the various coordinate systems used in various particle related fields. The first couple of chapters is devoted to global and local coordinates. in particular you should look extensively into the Hamiltonian mechanics, which is a canonical coordinate system describing interactions of various forms of interactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_coordinates when you get down to it string theory is also similar, people are often turned off by the terminology of dimensons ie 11+ dimensions but in truth these are describing various interactions in terms of differential geometry, some interactions have various shapes. or have distinct properties. the calabi-Yau manifold is one example. there is nothing wrong with describing relations in terms of geometry or wave-functions. Its done all the time, just most people don't realize that its going on at more levels and science arenas than they realize the fields book covers some of the aspects of string theory, another good example is the "Mexican Hat potential" used to describe SO(10) Higg's seesaw mechanism as well as inflation. also spontaneous symmetry breaking. see images on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking The Lagrangian formulation is also a coordinate system. The Lagrangian in many classical systems is a function of generalized coordinates qi and their velocities dqi/dt. These coordinates (and velocities) are, in their turn, parametric functions of time in regards to your post though many of the constants already have a coordinate representation of influence, you just need to dig for them and recognize which metrics are in actuality coordinate dependant and what coordinate relations are they portraying On visual representations of Lie algebras: the type Al between the old and the new http://www.ime.usp.br/~spjm/articlepdf/457.pdf Learning Visual Flows: A Lie Algebraic Approach http://people.csail.mit.edu/fisher/publications/papers/dhlin09cvpr.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_group http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/pjpmarques/Julia-Modeling-the-World/blob/master/Three-Body%20Problem.ipynb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gw_waves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#de_Broglie.E2.80.93Bohm_theory

that's one of the theories however we would also suffer the problem of being able to detect them as well as replicating it in the lab. here is an article covering a possible future experiment to decouple the hadrons. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-scientists-recreating-early-universe-quark-gluon.html a more technical coverage of QCP is http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~brovko/Quals/QGP_in_equilib.pdf

yeah I found a few errors in it myself lol, however it was enough to conclude my previous understanding was in error or at least lacking in some aspects atm I'm looking over this article, haven't drawn any conclusions as of yet "THE PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS" http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9708200.pdf

yeah I came to that conclusion but you replied when I tried deleting my previous post this article cleared it up. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BolesLectureNotesThermodynamicsChapter6.pdf

fine your proposing a speculative theory, can you show the math ? after all this is a special BH that doesn't exist in our universe so without supportive mathematics and peer reviewed supportive material your model proposal is meaningless. A straight statement is not sufficient. You've been a member of the forum long enough to understand the rules. While your at it explain how this can lead to a homogeneous and isotropic universe. An exploding, star etc is NOT homogeneous and isotropic. There is a preferred direction and location.