Okay, scratch the above URL. The site has disappeared and the domain name is apparently for sale. 
By the way, what’s UBB code?
[ul][li]Non-Rotating Black Hole = Schwarzchild Black Hole[/li][li]Rotating Black Hole = Kerr Black Hole[/ul][/li]
Incidentally, the whole fly into a black hole and pop out of a white hole thing only applies to Kerr black holes. You should also keep in mind that Schwarzchild black holes are pretty much just theoretical models made to simply calculations. If black holes all formed from stars, then chances are they’ll all retain some angular momentum and will be spinning madly.
As for the oscillation theory about the development of the universe, it’s been around for a long time, but it still has quite a few problems with it, mainly because the Big Bang and Big Crunch are not just the same event in reverse. There’s that little problem called entropy you have to take into account for one ting. As far as we currently know, if the Big Crunch were to happen, then it would be The End.
And about that quantum tunneling, is that in reference to Hawking radiation or something else entirely? Current theories suggest that hungry black holes will radiate away their mass. The process speeds up as the black hole becomes smaller and smaller, and finally it just explodes. If I could make a guess, I’d say this is where the whole oscillating universe idea came from. As I mentioned above though, there are still some major problems with it, just like every other theory out there 
BlakJak, do you plan to get into theoretical physics? If you can sit in a chair and stare at the ceiling all day while thinking about black holes, you might have the stuff for it 
In the meantime however, you might find this relativity FAQ and this article to be of some interest. For more details, you’ll probably have to do it the old fashioned way; find a good college and study until you drop 
Ick! I reversed the links. It should be this ["]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html]]( [url=“http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html) relativity FAQ and this [”]http://www.sciam.com/0796issue/0796hawking.html]]( [url="http://www.sciam.com/0796issue/0796hawking.html) article …
And ** that ** is what we call UBB code, at least the messed up version of it 
Sic 'im, Jab!
Oddly enough, Zor, whilst I have the capacity to sit and ponder all this kind of crazy nonsense, I suck ass at physics. I had to drop it in Yr 11 because I just can’t stand all that “okay boys and girls let’s calculate how long a ball stays in flight if we project it at 65 degrees to the horizontal and at 6 m/s.” I’m not willing to go through that to get to the real theoretical stuff, no way.
Strangely enough, though, I love pure maths… first principles of calculus, logic, pure geometry, all that. I Don’t Know Jack about Chaos theory, but I think it may well be my sort of thing. Anyone got a good link to an introduction to Chaos?? I know the basics… tiny variations in a complex system can yield a general pattern, blah blah. I like fractals, too.
BJ
Sooooo, basically UBB is like HTML, except it uses square brackets instead of <> for its tags? A web-based text formatting language? K. Does it have any advantages over HTML, and if so, what are they?
Will a book do? James Gleik’s “Chaos” is considered to be a classic. (Penguin books, ISBN # ‘0 14 00.9250 1’ - that number doesn’t look right to me, but it’s straight out of the book.)
According to the theories though matter can never approach light speed because no matter (little pun) how fast your going light is still going to have the same speed compared to your reference point. You could approach the same speed from which light would go from a neutral reference point, however, it would be like someone measuring the speed of light in a Jet, it would still appear to be going the same speed. One major problem with the theory I see is at some point it would probably involve evolution which in and of itself is so improbable that( anyone who has ever studied statistics and looked at the subject on an open honest basis would tell you) its impossible. There is a point where the probably of something can become so unlikely that scientists will just call it impossible. I think it was somthing like 10^-67 or something. Evolution of DNA would be much less likely than that. Even if DNA did for the body couldn’t read it because its incoded it would be like giving a 5 year old a book written in binary code. The information would be there but the kid wouldn’t understand it. To say a book could be written in binary code in and of itself without an inteligent force would not work. I think your theory does have some interesting points and should be checked out as applying to the current expanding universe as compared to the condencing black holes as to when the universe would collapse in on itself if left alone or if it would continue its expantion. I don’t think any part of your theory would explain for the orgin of the universe or the orgin of life however. It is however a very educated report on gravitation of black holes. Thanks for sending it to the list.
Eric Wilson
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea. -Revelation 21:1
Another problem with the idea of things coming together in a black hole is that stuff doesn’t actually reach the center of the black hole; it just gets asymptotically close. So all the stuff in the universe wouldn’t be coming together; it would just be getting really, really, close.
BJ said:
What gaps?
My understanding is that the main advantage is that is has less functionality, which may sound like a disadvantage, but is an advantage in that: with less stuff to learn. it’s less intimidating; and it’s harder to use it to hack into servers that use it.
ERIC WILSON posted 02-25-2000 03:28 PM
At the risk of feeding a troll, just how does astrophysics involve evolution?!!! Are you insane?
Actually, anyone who’s studied statistics on an “open honest basis” will tell you that statistics can not be used to disprove evolution, and that anyone who says that it can is misusing statistics.
Considering the fact that we have nowhere near the knowledge needed to calculate the likelihood of something as complicated as evolution of DNA, you’re statement is totally unsupported by facts.
Yet another ignorant claim. Nonintelligent forces are quite capable of creating nontrivial information.
[/quote]
I don’t think any part of your theory would explain for the orgin of the universe or the orgin of life however.
[/quote]
That’s quite a nonsequitor. When did BJ claim to have explained the origin of life? His “theory” also doesn’t explain why the city engineers are tearing up the street that I would normally drive on, or why Clinton acted with such disrespect towards his family and the country, or why Jupiter is larger than Saturn. I really don’t see how any of this is relevant.
My goodness. ERIC WILSON, you have suplied one of the least coherent hijacks I have seen in a long time. I have no idea why youthought it necessary to inject your bias against evolution into a discusison on atrophysics and cosmology, but please do not do so again. It is quite easy to start a new thread if you feel the need to babble about things not being discussed in this one.
Now, to the OP. Actually, I think the OP has been pretty well covered. It really is just discussing a variation of the accordion universe hypothesis. At present, we have not found anywhere near the amount of matter necessary for the Big Contraction, though – so heat death seems to be the anser du jour. For myself, I always loved the Steady State Universe Hypothesis. I mean, sure, it seems to be wrong, but it has an intrinsic elegance that I appreciate. BTW, if you are looking for another good introduction to a few areas on the edge of science, I recommend <i>Paradigms Lost</i> by John Casti. (Might be two i’s. I don’t have my copy handy.)
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Yes it does reach the center and in a finite amount of time (as measured by the doomed stuff). What happens as viewed from outside the event horizon is that the “stuff” never crosses the event horizon it approches it asymptotically.
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix
These words are mine and they are true - Chief Meninock
I have wondered about this. I don’t see how your hint helps. The S-radius of a mass depends only on the mass (not on time), but how long since the big bang is not constant.
Please explain.
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix
These words are mine and they are true - Chief Meninock