liarliarpof

I recall that the story went that when the hole begins to only radiate (in some uber-distant epoch, after it has cleaned out the pantry), as it 'shrinks', the emision rate increases at an increasingly accelerated pace, the smaller the hole becomes. When it reaches Planck Scale, ? Now you don't see it, now you don't!

You need only to go to the center of our very own galaxy, The Miky Way. The Astronomers say there's a really, really great big heap of the stuff right there!

Martin, Perhaps you should add "with sugar on top" to your plea for 'good measure'.

Doesn't matter. As long as GR 'holds', Natural Law remains Invariant wrt all FsOR. At the 'breakdown' point, the issues become moot from a physical POV, and all that's left is speculation.

The painfully slow emission of 'Hawking Radiation' is an accepted mechanism by which the miserly hole returns what has been devoured. And, yes, it is really, really, really slow process. See the book, "Black Hole Wars - My Battle With Stephen Hawking and Keeping The World Safe for QM" by Leonard Susskind. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, no spewing but perhaps the dry heaves which, like the Golem itself, would not be observable.

Quite right, Sisyphus! Say it's a rapidly rotating, supermassive hole. A whole heap of mighty hefty grav. waves would be generated. Say Gumby was the unlucky observer. He would be alternately stretched(radially)/compressed(transversely) and compressed(radially)/stretched(transversely) with each crest and trough. "Help, Pokey, Help!!" Bottom Line: It's a distinctly wavelike process which, to my knowledge, bears no direct similarity to cosmic expansion.

ajb: How about this - the 'primordial singularity' responsible for the 'blood-splatter' evidence at this crime scene we analyze, after delivering its cargo, began to contract at a rate ~ inverse to that of the erstwhile expansion. Then we could be facing scales of magnitudes(minitudes?) of negative googleplexes and beyond, but forever nonzero. Speculative of course and perhaps wacky, but the touch of symmetry involved I find intriguing.

Try going back to basics. What is the most problematic, yet ubiquitous and commonly experienced phenomenon in the known universe? I believe therein lies the answer. liarliarpof P.S. Watch out for that first step!

Astronomers can put a lower limit on the size but, if the expansion rate doesn't redline, what lies beyond that has yet to arrive. If the rate becomes to great, it is likely no signal from that realm shall ever reach us, and we will never know.

Regarding Completeness: You may try going to the source. Godel actually published (2) papers: 1) 'On the completeness of the calculus of logic (1929)' ; 2) 'The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic (1930)'. See 'Kurt Godel COLLECTED WORKS Volume I Publications 1929-1936'. Regarding The Continuum Hypothesis: As the story goes, Godel believed it to be false. In 1947 he published an 'expository essay' showing that the CH cannot be proved false. Curiously, he stopped there. One almost gets the sense that he did not attempt to prove it true, as this would contradict his intuition. Who knows? Cohen, on the other hand, proved that the CH cannot be proved true (1963). Though still debatable, the two results essentially showed the CH to be undecidable. Let me know if this helps. Good Luck! liarliarpof

P.S. Could be 'smoke and mirrors' or a coincidence wannabe, that persistently stubborn thorn in the side of physics. To paraphrase Feynman on that subject- 'I was standing by the freeway this morning when I saw a car with license plate # GWD-9708. I was stunned! What were the odds of ME observing THAT PLATE at THAT TIME?!' - have a think on it it and you may find it 'IN-ter-est-ing'.

Some years back, there was a 'Gnat-Fest' in Virginia. Hundreds orbited your head, penetrated Eye, Ear, Nose, & Throat. I saturated myself with DEET, puffed the most rank stogies I could find, but to little avail. My Girlfriend, on the other hand, appeared as if she had a 1' 'force field' surrounding her. She claimed it was her 'Aura'. Later, her sister confided in me that she strongly believed it was the effect of a relatively rare fragrance she applied.

I'll comment on the particulars of your theory later but, for now, just wanted to say you are correct in stating that the scientific community as a whole is disinterested in the ideas of 'outsiders'. More unsettling is that the scientific 'institutions' are flat out intolerant in matters of opposing viewpoints. I believe it was Lee Smolin that stated a few years ago that ~90% of Theoretical Physics Post-Docs are researching ST, and not all by choice. The remaining 10% have been effectively branded and, for now, have committed career suicide by daring to stray from the pack.

ajb, Thank you for for the explicit reference to perturbations. I am ST agnostic. Just wanted to quote 'Astronomy magazine' ed., David J. Eicher, from the recent COLLECTOR'S EDITION titled 'COSMOLOGY'S GREATEST DISCOVERIES'. The following is excerpted from the 'Editor's page': "...NASA astronomer Sten Odenwald poses the question "What if string theory is wrong?"(p.78), in which he outlines the widespread role the hypothesis plays in explaining how matter behaves. We need to remind ourselves that string theory is as yet an idea!"

Any practioner of 'good' science considers each example separately, and draws conclusions based upon individual merit. Looks like (2) 'handholds' to me but, of course, would require an experiment to confirm and at least (1) more to verify reproducibilty. Or, as Sir Isaac would have phrased it, "It must be 'demonstrable', or otherwise will lie in the realms of Philosophy or Theology". Purt near any realm'd work for me with this example!

Dear ajb, C'mon-"in principle testable"? Appears to me as a backdoor route to "Gedanken Experiment". Can we not hold to Newton's beautifully simple and unambiguous "Demonstrable"? Can you imagine a physicist's response to, "And what is your field, Sir?". "I'm a theoretical experimentalist. Or.. Wait a minute. Am I an experimental theorist?". Remember- You can't envision your bosons and eat them too!

The following entry is from 'Webster's Third New International Dictionary UNABRIDGED', Principal Copyright 1961 : "supernatural 1 a : of, belonging to, having reference to, or proceeding from an order of existence beyond the physical universe that is observable, and capable of being experienced by ordinary means : transcending nature in degree and in kind or concerned with what transcends nature." If QM proclaims to be a theory which explains any or all phenomena existent in the physical universe, any venture into the supernatural is strictly forbidden. If not, then either 'QM' or 'supernatural' must be redefined.

(True Story) A respected physicist visited the 'Master Timekeepers' (Burrowed into a mountain near Denver, I believe.) While touring, the physicist said, "So this is the apex of time measurement?". His host replied, "No, This is where we make precise measurements of something, convey the results to scientific community, which they then refer to as 'time'.

Good news! Now we are one step closer to fetching a large batch of moon rocks to sell to the uber-pikers that profited from this 'Great Recession' we now wallow in!

"She blinded me with science!" And hit me with technology....."Science!"

Find a friendly Moonshiner.

Bear in mind that Einstein's original intent was not to 'work' space nor time like a taffy pull. He simply picked up the problem of resolving the Michelson-Morley results with the fact that Maxwell's Equations did not obey Galilean Transformations. After all, the title of the 1905 paper was, "On The Motion of Electrodynamic Bodies". It is not as if he had an agenda, for Einstein's results surprised even himself!

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

Good! If infinities in nature are disregarded, we can begin to clean house. For starters, let's toss the 'multiverse' speculation and continue from there.

The evolution of the human brain lags behind the advancement of civilization. Consider obesity. There were no regular sources of food for early hominids. So, when found, they binged. That instinctual response has not entirely disappeared. Perhaps a similar line of reasoning holds for violent behavior as well. Violence was once critical to survival. Perhaps we have simply not yet 'outgrown' it.