jck

Farsight, I am happy to accept your views as they do not fundamentally differ from the total concept of mass. The tune may played in different ways but the melody remains. john jck

elas, As the notion of a big bang is theoretical many interpretaions are given. The idea behind scrapping all the theory and the universe and starting with space and energy was to logically follow step by step what would be required to create a big bang scenario. First I needed space so there was somewhere for the universe to exist then I needed energy to create the mass of the universe in the space. We were trying to establish a single fundamental energy particle and that would need to collide at a certain point in the space but as the single energy particle had to be the smallest particle that could exist it would have naturally taken an age before enough of this energy fused on the universal scale. So I have a very slow build up of energy to a critical point where the sheer volume behaves in the manner after the big bang. With the rest of the space and energy outside the universe I have that same energy flow passing through the universe in all directions still as gravity, a differential particle gravity. With space and energy before big bang there is no need for theoretical ifs and buts. With space and energy before big bang then gravity is a particle gravity. With space and energy before big bang the universe at its very beginnings is massively older than 14 billion years. With space and energy before big bang and repetition of the same series of events that created this universe there must be countless other universes and possibly remnant stars from an extinct universe in our universe somehwere. If one was found this would show the universe over 14 billion years by a wide margin. So the very essence of my solution is by working from space and energy before big bang you can obtain a certain logical reason for everything that is not possible with theories. The certain solution based on logic simply affords a new perspective to compare to theory. It is the only method I know that starts from scratch and comes up with an entirely new solution to the universe including big bang. Considering space and energy before big bang is almost odds on compared to no space or energy it makes one wonder whether the simply theoretical solutions that are not founded on space and energy are in fact worth much at all. If science fails to construct a certain space and energy foundation to compare to theory then it is basically gambling there was no space and energy before big bang. Seriously, would anyone having to bet on space or no space before big bang as if their lives depended on it choose the "no space" option? john jck

Farsight, I do not have anything as fuzzy. The clarity of empty space being absolutely empty allows no arguement for it to have substance or properties. As all particles and properties are energy based then it is only energy that can create mass, if the energy constrains empty space and the particle formed then has properties then it is the energy that is responsible. This of course is simply my solution which is logic based and requires certain definitions rather than fuzzy definitions so that the certain answers can be compared to the fuzzy ones. john jck

Time dilation: Twins paradox. Both twins play a one hour cd, one on earth and one in space. Unless one hears the cd playing slower than the other there can be no time difference. john jck

elas, You are the first person who has come anywhere near considering space before big bang as I have done so I am particularly glad to have this debate with you. I cannot agree to dissagree while the space issue is not resolved, my solution demands a certain empty space before particles can be considered. Absolute nothing is an impossibility...we totally agree on that point. So the least there must be is nothing with possibility, this nothing being empty space. Now that is not saying the empty space came first as it must always exist as nothing but in order to be absolutely certain it is the void of empty space it cannot have vacuum force at all in isolation. Vacuum force is a property of empty space with no explanation, empty space simply existing without any property needs no explanation. It is essential that the empty space is absolutely empty and has no properties that need explanation in order for me to proceed to the certainty that energy is required in the empty space making empty space and energy as constant at all times. Nothing is not a vacuum in isolation, it is only because absolute nothing is not an option that the absolute nothing of space becomes the default. The thing is the space we have now allows the removal of every particle and force leaving the empty space but this vacuum force of yours does not allow for the same certainty. john jck

Science is not about theory, theory is a collection of accademic explanations of observed and inferred data from all sources that conform to the set of criteria laid down by institutions regulating theories. Science is about understanding the universe in any way possible where no stone is unturned and no view is left outside. When questions are asked that theory cannot explain then other methods become just as valid, no answer from theory does not mean everyone sitting round for the next hundred years waiting for the theories to include an answer. Should I consider theory then everything is in order, within the scope of theory, so I do not question that fact. The space question cannot be answered by theory, I am at a loss to know exactly how space has conveniently been allowed remain uncertain before the universe was created. There is abundant proof that space exists and no proof at all that it could not exist at anytime or anywhere. Now while theory is restricted to the time after big bang what right has anyone to demand a proof of space before that time when it exists, there is no proof by theory that at anytime it can cease to exist except various theoretical solutions? Somehow science has managed to convey the idea that nothing at all before big bang is a possibility, a miraid of ideas, all theoretical again, show anything but absolute space. Theory has its place, it has no place before big bang as it can obtain no information before then so the status quo is that space existed before.The very unverifed scenarios that apparently any new theories are accused of run riot before big bang in the guise of theoretical models. I am adamant that the space we have cannot simply be construed as possibily not existing before big bang by science that has no information or any scientic method that would support no space before the universe. Space exists and as such the idea of no space is that which requires the specifications maintained by swansont regarding new theory. If the space existed and there never was any universe no one would question that it must have always existed. The constricted view that the universe is all there is has no base in fact and yet once again the idea that space does not extend beyond the universe is conveyed as a possibility. The space question comes before theory, it is here and as far as we know it is everywhere. The sole idea that space does not extend outside the universe or before big bang comes from within the science institutions simply to protect scientific method within the universe and after big bang. The space question is a seperate issue to theory which only deals within the universe and has no voice outside that limit. To have anyone try and use theory to prevent a perfectly valid space before big bang and outside the universe purely because the theory has no place at those positions is self preservation for those theories. Life is very simple, space at all times can be tested using the same physics as theory uses, in fact the physics being the same everywhere must include outside the universe and before the universe. Here again science maintains that as far as we know the physics are the same everywhere and use that to support data from billions of light years away but will conveniently prevent this being tested to the maximum by automatically considering space apart from the universe. E=mc squared tested to the maximum would have the same amount of energy required for the creation of the universe before that time but again science wants to control the use of this to within the universe where it suits the theory. Hardly a level playing field. Space is the only question, if there was space before big bang and outside the universe the theory cannot hold up. This is not a new theory, this is a solution to the dispute regarding whether space can not exist once it already does exist. The solution is certain space, a seperate perspective starting with space before big bang so that all the options are covered. At this time the only option is there was "no before" the universe, how very convenient for theory. There are theoretical models such as zero energy creation which imparts cause and effect at the same time and an immaculate conception scenario. This ludicrous idea that science is uncertain that space existed before big bang so no one can work out a solution based on space before then simply because that is the rules and will not constitute science is fine by me because something so restrictive to lateral thinking is not what I consider science. Not one accademic has even attempted to consider space existed before big bang and worked logically through the steps required to create a universe using the slogan it is uncertain and not science. Science is the understanding of the universe and how it came into being and how everything works the way it does, if anyone is not interested in the possibility that there was space before big bang fine they dont have to but do not insult everyone else by saying it is not science when theory has no answer to that question and has perpetuated the possibility that there was no space before big bang. Space exists and once it exists there is no longer any option that it might not have existed at anytime. You cannot remove space without leaving a space in the same space. That does not need any proof, it cannot be done. john jck

Further thought on the matter of black holes is causing all sorts of problems. Besides the idea that the mass would reduce equally and require curved space all around rather than any hole the reduction of mass is a worse paradox. Mass must be reduced to energy in a black hole right back to big bang scenarios therefore the very conditions for forming the hydogen atom before the singularity is reached leads to a star forming and not a dense singularity. The other anomaly is the energy can shoot straight out of the bottom of the black hole before any singularity forms to prevent it. These are considerations before working with my own differential particle gravity solution so I am not looking for theoretical fixes to explain these problems. I have not done a lot of thinking before on the black hole for they reduce mass back to energy which is required for my solution. Yet these questions can be asked of science, what prevents the energy passing straight through the black hole and why doesn`t the eneryg form hydrogen atoms insode the black hole? john jck

Farsight, This is not a simple explanation at root level, to do that only basic defintions can be used that anyone would understand without requiring to work through what is theoretical here and what is fact. I define empty space as empty with no properties t do anything until someone can show me some empty space actually doing something rather than infer attributes through other means. Given empty space is accepted as empty then all I have is energy to create any mass at all. So I have mass is energy. However energy can take many forms and what science considers mass consists of matter so it is the matter rather than the mass that needs explaining. I have taken on board your answer from another thread and feel it justifies the explanation of matter. If a quark or electron is simply an energy particle then what exactly is the matter they represent? Given only the energy and the empty space then it is the constraint on the empty space within the energy that constitutes the matter. Now with atoms all having empty space constrained within energy then the cannonball would be a massive amount of matter consisting of empty space constrained by energy, any other matter colliding with this would normally be repulsed but that depends on the comparitive mass of each object etc. Now energy constraining empty space may not seem like a particularly solid item but as is known the atom takes a little persuading to give up its energy protection of the space it contains. john jck

Edtharan, I agree with you completely about the nature of debate, it is not a matter of anyone being correct but sharing ideas and different viewpoints. If everyone agreed on here this site would soon run down. The issue of one observer comes from still frames of the universe where there is a place for every particle and every particle is in its place. Should any particle be in two places then the mass of the universe would be in turmoil and gravity would chaotic for it would not just be one such particle having a duality would it. Now granted a fairly stable gravitational force and the mass not swinging violently from one extreme to another each instant then I am confident the one observer case is correct. The illusion of the same thing being as many different things as you like can for those willing to look at things from that perspective seem viable. I am afraid I am even more sceptical when mathematics have to be deployed to support curved space, why not just show some space in isolation doing something for real? See the non euclidian geometry was first lines and curves on some paper then some models were made to explain the maths, so far so good as at least with models of something you can actually see what is being said in reality. Now translating this to empty space which is nothing at all the curves have to be imagined, well that is stretching my imagination too far. I still only get light effects and attributed geometry but no actual empty space doing anything at all because actually empty space cannot do anything can it? john jck

Skeptic, I have made it clear that within the limits of the theories I do not have a problem, they may well be extremely accurate. The problem is with the reasoning behind the consideration that there was no space before big bang, if we have the space now then unless someone can using scientific method show how space can be removed without leaving a space there is absolutely no reason to even consider space did not exist before big bang. The theoretical zero energy consideration has no foundation at all, this is not testable on a new universe somewhere else is it? Space is not theoretical, we actually have some in fact we have as much as we want. You say you do not know what was before big bang, I say you do know for it is certain you know no way at all the space we actually have could not exist except from the contrived zero energy theory which cannot be shown to be possible on a universal scale. The answer is simple, allow the theory to leave the space before big bang question as if there was any alternative to have the space and then make sure someone works from a certain space before so it can be compared. Only then has all possibilities been statisfied. Theoretically you can consider no space but the reality is the space we have exists and there is no way of removing this space ever without leaving a space at a universal level. Science not having any information before big bang in no way removes the space but does clearly indicate that science method leaves this huge gap in the full story of how the universe came here in the first place. If science folds its cards then the only players in the game are the ones using logic cards. Logic dictates the space we have cannot be removed when you run the universe back past big bang. Theory is blowing in the wind coming up with pure theoretical models for removing the space before big bang which cannot be shown as possible by scientific method. Scientific method shows it cannot be done. This idea of imagining there could be no space has no validity at all inside or outside of science. I am not placing the space we already have anywhere, it is here and there is no way to get rid of it so why would anyone consider it not being here. It defies logic. I am not going back before big bang and creating space it is already existing, but anyone going back and removing the space should show exactly how space can be removed without leaving a space by sicentific method for they are the ones changing the physics not me. john jck

I have this as a basic structure. Information feeds are moved from the original source to be stored and recognised in order for the information to become a concious thought that is understood. Anything that is not recognised is fed back and awaits further input. john jck

Skeptic, I am using the space we know exists and have no reason to suppose does not exist at anytime. BB brane theory is just that a theory that branes exist when there is absolutely no branes existing as far as we know. To have something that already exists, without any clear evidence that it does not exist at some point in time, questions who exactly has determined that the consideration that space did not exist is more valid than the space existing? Why is anyone making up theoretical means whereby space does not exist and energy can in fact create space when there is absolutely no evidence to support this except theoretical? Where is the logical consideration that space exists at all times and everywhere because that, as surely as space exists, is exactly what we can determine. It is no more than saying the physics are the same everywhere which science must otherwise all the data can be contaminated. If we were certain for example you would have no problem with space existing before big bang but it is beyond human comprehension to understand the idea that space as we know it did not exist at that time. Were it certain that space did exist then it is the simplist of logic to work out exactly how the universe must have come into existance providing the physics are the same everywhere, and if the physics are not the same before big bang then that clearly allows the physics in the universe to be different where we are trapped into data that relies on that being so. I say if the physics are the same everywhere then test that to the limit by placing space before big bang and if E=mc squared then test that before big bang and place the same amount of energy before big bang and consider the natural logical course things would then take. Science is very limited, it does not prove anything and it can obtain no information from before big bang or outside the universe or inside a black hole so if that does not spur a person to pursue a logical explanation of these things then you may be right, nothing will. john jck

Skeptic, Much of what is in theory can never be tested but that does not seem to create a problem for those who choose to accept only theory. Let me ask you a simple question: Was there space before big bang? I already know your answer, it is an uncertain answer so that covers an uncertain answer. It is now simple to create a certain answer by choosing the only certain answer available given the uncertain one has already been used. Unless the alternative possibility that space was certain before big bang is considered then theory has effectively wrapped itself in cotton wool. One thing is deadly certain, with space before big bang the theories cannot be correct. That I would say is a 50/50 chance and anyone not examining space before big bang as certain for one of the considerations is gambling. It is worse than that, the idea of space not existing has no validity at all and is not testable while space existing has no arguement. May I suggest that you are careful in future which way the wind is blowing. Space certain before big bang is not theoretical as with any other ideas before big bang because we already have the space right here and no one can come up with any way to get rid of space without leaving a space unless it is merely theoretical and beyond testing at all. There is no need to remove space before big bang, who exactly decided that? Science does not say there was no space before big bang, information can be obtained providing a certain space is given due consideration. The information then would result from a certain space so if that were correct then the information would be correct. The problem for theory is the theory cannot be correct if a certain space did exist before big bang. Heads the theory is correct and tails space before big bang is correct, most people are happy to gamble on heads while I am hedging my bets by betting on heads or tails, if that is not logical I do not know what is. john jck

Skeptic, The problems that arose from the last conference of leading scientists that Einstein attended resulted in have two theories, not by consent but because neither could fit all criteria. No one thought what a wonderful idea it was to have two seperate theories, it was a shambles and Einstein became a recluse determined to show that the universe was certain for the sole purpose of exposing quantum uncertainty wrong. Unfortunately for Einstein something that is inheritently uncertain cannot be shown to be certain due to the random nature of uncertainty in the equations. I do not have any theory. I do have a solution, start from scratch before big bang use logic and see what exactly would need to happen to create the universe. This has nothing to do with the theories, it is a method of comparing a logic based solution to the theory. Should the theories have naturally developed from this consideration I would not have a problem. The trouble is the theories run into difficulties right away, gravity naturally resolves as differential particle gravity. From this consideration the theories are fundamentally wrong so cannot be used to defend themselves. Even Newtons observational force is not the first cause of force in the considered solution so no wonder any particle gravity could not fit in with equations that are fundamentally flawed in the assumptions. I have a huge flow of energy, not just in the universe but flowing through it in all directions, mostly passing back out to the space outside but collisions that maintain gravity as fairly stable. I have mass reducing in black holes to energy and recycled back into the main flow to keep it constant. This situation where gravity is energy particles colliding with atoms produces another reason for the quantum effect being observed but the assumptions do not conform to the way the solution derives. This idea is to derive a logic solution form scratch and then compare that with theory which is all that I have done. It is a self contained certain solution so I do not need permission to use it. No one has to look at this consideration for if they do not wish to consider the effect of space and energy before big bang then there is no reason they should. I can agree that within the theory everything is in order and using the theory confirms it to be correct, should that alter the theory will alter to account for anything that is refuted. My solution is a consideration that there was space and energy before big bang and I have a logic based solution based on that. john jck

elas, I would not call that explanation simplistic,lol. I simply have the empty space and the known property of a partial vacuum. This space is empty absolutely to avoid contamination from theory and concepts. Furthermore everything in the universe is created from energy so providing the empty space vacuum is strictly empty then by default a single fundamental energy particle is required to create anything else. While I do not have to prove empty space and energy as they exist already the idea you put forward is theoretical and although this may be correct my solution is based on the logic of what we know and what we would need to create a universe based on substance as we do know it. Empty space can be called substance in as much as it must exist and the only other substance required is energy in order to create a universe. Infinity I have as a concept for there would be an infinity beyond any infinity which is not possible anyway. Empty space everywhere that exists is definite so there is nothing beyond that which rules out a conceptual infinity. So to recap I have empty space so that there is somewhere for everything else to exist, this is the vacuum of empty space. As the empty space vacuum must be absolutely empty to conform to a pure vacuum then energy is required in the space, these energy particles will accelerate into the empty space vacuum unless colliding with another energy particle. I have the space for a universe to exist, I have the energy particle to create the universe and I have a means to accelerate the energy particles (vacuum) and to fuse the energy particles. That is all that is required to create a big bang scenario and the universe and is based on the same empty space we already have and the energy we already have, I have not theoretically introduced any unknown quantity. john jck

swansont, I am aware of the theory, this is one way of looking at the universe only. It is not good enough. Einstein changed the equations slightly and everything worked out did it? Galaxies should fly apart but by working out the mass required to stop that happening the equations work do they, call that mass dark matter shall we? Gravity pulls mass together so when the galaxies at the edge of the universe are being pushed away from each other then simply insert a force that is the opposite of gravity and call that dark energy shall we. And what percentage of the universe does this dark energy and dark matter comprise of exactly? 95%... so science theory applies to the odd 5% and even that is mostly theoretical and infers. Call me skeptical if you like but I am hedging my bets and considering space and energy existed before big bang and if that is correct the theories are completely wrong as they cannot be right. Do you understand that? If there was space and energy before big bang the theories are wildly wrong? Now do you understand that unless someone looks at other ways of looking at the universe problem then everyone will be trapped into theories that could be completely wrong anyway. Look imagine no universe and no theory just simple basic logic and work it out yourself, you know exactly what you will need to create a universe, space and energy and that leads to differential particle gravity no matter what the theories say. On the other hand don`t consider space and energy before big bang and accept that the theoretical answers are all you will ever know. I wanted something to compare to theory and I have it, I use it and no one has to agree with it or use it. You have theory and you have nothing to compare that theory with so as long as you are happy then we are both happy. john jck

Hi bascule, I had read previously that light had been stopped but interesting anyway. I would say this is a step towards optical computing rather than quantum computers as they require an in-between-state to operate. john jck

swansont, If we move away from space itself bending and constantly refer to light bending then it is another thing altogether. No ether exists that is large enough to be detected as yet but does not altogether rule out that substance in the space affords the result. By the way we have to assume light coming from distance of light years away have not been contaminated and the physics operating at such distances maintain the status quo. If you start with space and energy before big bang you do not need theory as anyone can work out exactly how the universe is created from that scenario as I have done. This does not make the consideration correct or the theory wrong but is a valid consideration as much as anything else. The consideration gives rise to differential particle gravity so that certainly has not been addressed. Other forms of push gravity simply operate within the universe and not as a natural cause. Skeptic, I am more than happy to accept your post for I am not stating the method or theory is wrong except from the consideration of space and energy before big bang they would be wrong. I maintain that space bending itself cannot be proved anyway, not directly so unless something like dark energy turns out to be differential particle gravity then it cannot be refuted but as you say that is no reason to consider it certain. john jck

elas, I can be clear that when I say nothing it means exactly that and it does not exist, when I say empty space that is something that does exist. We can agree that empty space contains nothing providing we do not introduce anything else into that empty space. The vacuum force itself has no substance but can accelerate energy particles into the vacuum. It is with the empty space and the vacuum force an energy substance must exist. If you can agree to a single fundamental energy particle then we have a mutual foundation for what must exist as constant for all time and the means to create the universe and everything in it. john jck

Skeptic, Exactly! This is a test for light but with no actual test for the space itself as an entity. It is "if" space curves it could be shown by geometry to account for light bending. I am not questioning light bending, I am questioning space doing anything at all. The phenomenom is light bending not space curving. swansont, I do not understand what you do not understand in the first quote. Read the reply to Skeptic for an example of space itself curving having no data but the data for light bending is simply attributed anyway. I have not replaced any theory, I do not have a theory to replace any theory. What I have is an alternative solution based on space and energy existing before big bang with which to compare to the theories, as there are only two choices regarding space and energy existing or not existing before big bang it seems to me that both should be taken into consideration. Theory does not establish a certain space and energy before big bang, my solution does as if the theories are wrong about it then I will certainly be right. Anyone not willing to consider space and energy before big bang are gambling that there wasn`t or if there was it makes no difference. It makes a big difference, the theories cannot be correct if there was space and energy before big bang, anyone wishing to disregard this slight problem and accept the theories as absolutely correct are entitled to think that. john jck

First of all I am happy to agree that the problems may still have some other reason for not confirming relativity. Differential particle gravity however would have, at distance, objects either increasing or decreasing the rate they accelerate, they would also veer off course. DPG is a natural result of working with space and energy before big bang and that is my consideration, it has nothing to do with theory apart from having a new perspective which can be compared without contamination. john jck

elas, Nothing is nothing, now if you want something for your vacuum to exist then you need empty space. Empty space is something so you can have something existing in the empty space but nothing is nothing and you cannot have anything existing in nothing. Now if you decide that you actually start with empty space for the single fundamental particle then that is exactly what I start with but I do not start with nothing as that is all I would ever have. john jck

Skeptic, Then empty space in isolation can be shown to curve as accordingly it must be testable to be science? Swansont, Scientific theory has a multi observer viewpoint correct and a single observer viewpoint wrong. Scientific theory has particles popping in and out of the universe when no one knows what out of the universe means. Scientific theory has empty space curving when that can only be attributed via light deflecting and not the empty space. Scientific theory has mathematics that are theoretical and as long as no one can refute those mathematics they stand as science theory. All this may well be correct but unless attempts are made to formulate other means for comparing theory then it is a self preservation society. Insane, I fail to see why those who accept the theory is the only science they can understand would be on the speculation boards here? Either you accept the theories are 100% correct or you are looking for other possibilities which is all that I am doing. Theory can consider any other possibilities as wrong providing the theory can maintain that the theory is 100% correct, ideas will not suddenly remove the theories will they so why is everyone so concerned that others put forward other possibilities? Basically everyone is saying that only theory is allowed on the speculation boards? Anything that is not in full agreement with theory must be wrong and is not science? Then you are all entitled to that view which I respect but do not agree with at all. john jck

swansont, Science is not the theory or the method theory uses, it is the actual matter in the actual universe. Now science may claim to have the best answers given the observational data but if the very assumptions of that observational data is questioned it can hardly be questioned using the same theoretical assumptions that supports it can it? Take for example the space question? Science can obtain no information before big bang so you would expect science to keep out of that issue but no we find there are theoretical only explanations why there could be a universe without there being any space before big bang. Now I ask you what right has science got to decide there was no space before big bang, none at all thats what right it has. However it hedges its bets by stating that science does not state there was no space before big bang. Science also states that anything before the universe would be of no value as everything was reduced to energy at big bang anyway. That assumes that there is no space outside the universe, which again science cannot state with any certainty at all, leaving the possibility that the universe is simply a speck in an endless space outside and before big bang. Do you consider asking the question what was here before the universe as not being science? Do you consider asking is there space outside the universe not being science? That is science deciding what is and what is not science, not exactly healthy is it? There is absolutely space in the universe which does not need any proof and there is no way anyone can show by experiment how space can not exist without leaving a space. No one has ever created space using energy have they? Yet the theory has the energy at big bang creating the space? Is that science? So you see there is a lot to be desired for anyone actually trying to understand the universe that science has simply ignored or presented an unfounded theoretical solution to explain something. It is close to the opposite view, the more science relies on theory especially mathematical models the less regard it receives. You will find it is those studying theory for a degree or employed using the theory that support it without question, one cannot step outside the theory if it results in losing a degree or employment. The space question is science more than anything else, one might ask whether theoretical models are science or whether geometry is science. No one can ever prove empty space can curve, it cannot be done and yet that is so called science. So science is as far as the universe is concerned trying to find out what is correct and what is wrong and by blindly using theory to support theory I do not see what result that can have but to support the theory or alter the theory and then say it is correct. john jck

A central point in science is the existance of black holes. Using the logic so far obtained has the matter established in the universe with the energy from the space outside flowing in all directions as a differential particle gravity flow. Particle of energy would continue to collide with atoms and form the base for creation of new hydrogen atoms as there would be nothing to stop this happening. Assuming the bulk of the energy flow would provide gravity as standard then this relates to dark energy levels if correct. The fusion of energy particles would relate to dark matter if correct. Now as the universe formed so would an established fairly settled flow of gravity be established particularly where that flow meets with galaxies. The swirling could be attributed to the flow from all directions meeting the obstacle the galaxies present. That initial effect would produce a whirlpool at the centre of galaxies where the predominant flow would be from one direction in particular. However as in a supanova black hole where the matter condenses to a greater and greater density rapidly then a flow from one direction could create the black hole while the reduced matter could produce a singularity. That was my initial thought on this matter but just recently that has thrown up a problem. As the matter reduces in all directions at the same time the black hole would be a black ball! It would be similar to the so called curved space around matter. The situation then consider how an event horizon would infer anything as the event horizon would be all around the black hole. This is all deduction from the consideration there was space and energy before big bang so basically I have to work everything out as I go along, nothing is in the text book to help me out. My book on Certainty was written about 4 years ago and gave a general introduction but as I use the science forums it leads to greater thought about the theory and a more logical consideration. This may not be the correct logic but it is interesting to think of a black hole as a ball with a dense centre as a so called singularity as then it can be compared to the apparent single hole theory represents. john jck