There is no creation!

Check out this idea:

The energy cycle:

Matter falls into a black-hole. The information attached to that matter is smeared across the face of the black-hole. The matter is then destroyed as it approaches the singularity, and all that is left is energy. That energy falls into a wormhole at the singularity. This wormhole opens up as a white-hole spewing into the universe as pure energy with no information or matter. There is only one white-hole in our universe, and we commonly call it the big bang. That means that the energy that is in the universe right now will eventually fall into a black-hole and reappear at the big bang 14 billion years in the past.

This is one way that the universe could exist without ever being created. That would mean that the universe is a closed time like curve.

but who created the energy? 😎

Originally posted by red g jacks
but who created the energy? 😎

Energy is never created. In a closed time like curve, the cause for the past is the future.

i see. allow me to try again.

but who created the closed time like curve? 😎

Counter-intuitive as it may seem, energy can and does escape black holes. It doesn't just collect energy ad infinitum. So though it may take an insanely long time, the "heat death" expanding model of the universe remains the best model we have for predicting the universe's eventual fate.

The other problem is that the concept of black holes as gigantic space vacuums isn't true either. For example, Earth would orbit a black hole the same way it does the sun, provided both were of roughly equal total mass. We wouldn't be sucked in, and would eventually drift out of orbit (in billions of years) if something else didn't destroy the planet before that point.

I think that pokes a hole in your idea here, though I may be misinterpreting it.

....

@red g jacks - matter can be created from nothing. Again, it's almost impossible to conceive of as laymen, much less describe. And apparently even physicists can't actually conceptualize it but end up describing it in mathematical terms. But it's both possible and has been observed. So there's one potential explanation. Not necessarily the right one, but a distinct possibility.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i see. allow me to try again.

but who created the closed time like curve? 😎

There is no requirement for the closed time like curve (CTLC) to be created. It is counter-intuitive, but there is no time for a creation.

You need evidence that "white holes" even exist.
You need evidence that the singularity really exists, many physicists are extremely unhappy with the idea.
You need evidence that the singularity is a wormhole if it does exist.
You need to explain how a black hole can be constantly sending its mass backward through time but still gain mass like anything else.
You need evidence that multiple black holes can combine to let out through a single white hole.
You need to explain why the big bang was a sudden event rather than being drawn out over billions of years as matter leaked backward through time via the black holes that have existed across the lifetime of the universe.

Originally posted by Digi
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, energy can and does escape black holes. It doesn't just collect energy ad infinitum. So though it may take an insanely long time, the "heat death" expanding model of the universe remains the best model we have for predicting the universe's eventual fate.

The other problem is that the concept of black holes as gigantic space vacuums isn't true either. For example, Earth would orbit a black hole the same way it does the sun, provided both were of roughly equal total mass. We wouldn't be sucked in, and would eventually drift out of orbit (in billions of years) if something else didn't destroy the planet before that point.

I think that pokes a hole in your idea here, though I may be misinterpreting it.

....

@red g jacks - matter can be created from nothing. Again, it's almost impossible to conceive of as laymen, much less describe. And apparently even physicists can actually conceptualize it but end up describing it in mathematical terms. But it's both possible and has been observed. So there's one potential explanation. Not necessarily the right one, but a distinct possibility.

This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.
In the far future heat death, there will only be black holes in the universe. This time will exist forever, but will have no effect on the CTLC.

i thought the 😎 smiley following obtuse questioning would give away the fact that my questions were made in jest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.

The evidence supporting Hawking Radiation is vastly superior to the evidence supporting all the assumptions you've made so criticizing it for maybe being wrong isn't a smart move.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i thought the 😎 smiley following obtuse questioning would give away the fact that my questions were made in jest.

ha, ok.

Normally, yes, it would be a dead giveaway. The religion forum, however, often makes a mockery of such general rules. Thus my confusion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.
In the far future heat death, there will only be black holes in the universe. This time will exist forever, but will have no effect on the CTLC.

Sym's comment on this applies. However, I have to go wikipedia some physics articles or something, my memory is fuzzy enough that I don't want to continue at this point just from what I remember from textbooks and novels.

We seem to be squarely in psuedo-science at this point, so maybe my caution is unwarranted. But it can't hurt. I'll grant you that your theory is appealing in an emotional sense. I just don't think it holds much merit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

1. You need evidence that "white holes" even exist.
2. You need evidence that the singularity really exists, many physicists are extremely unhappy with the idea.
3. You need evidence that the singularity is a wormhole if it does exist.
4. You need to explain how a black hole can be constantly sending its mass backward through time but still gain mass like anything else.
5. You need evidence that multiple black holes can combine to let out through a single white hole.
6. You need to explain why the big bang was a sudden event rather than being drawn out over billions of years as matter leaked backward through time via the black holes that have existed across the lifetime of the universe.

1-3 See the theory of Relativity for the first three.

4 The next one, I have no idea other then it is possible because wormholes are able to have opening in different times.

5 The theory of Relativity predicts that white-holes should exist. The big bang is the closest thing there is to one.

6. How much time did it take? We have no way of knowing what a unit of time was back then.

Please note: I modified your post to make it easier to answer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The evidence supporting Hawking Radiation is vastly superior to the evidence supporting all the assumptions you've made so criticizing it for maybe being wrong isn't a smart move.

Until Hawking Radiation is proven, then other option are open.

Black holes aren't really holes in space are they? But just collapsed stars with hyper-extreme density and gravity, yes?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1-3 See the theory of Relativity for the first three.

Only the singularity is predicted by relativity and physicists really dislike it because it requires infinite density and ending up with infinity is usually a sign that the idea is wrong. Singularities are not even necessary for black holes.

No one has ever seen something that seems like a white hole or come up with a way that one might form. No well proven theory requires their existence to be complete.

Relativity absolutely does not predict that black holes have a wormhole at the center.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4 The next one, I have no idea other then it is possible because wormholes are able to have opening in different times.

That doesn't resolve the problem at all.

If you pile block onto a train while I remove them them from the train the pile of blocks on the train will grow more slowly than if I wasn't removing them. In the same way if the wormhole constantly sucks matter out of the black hole it should shrink or show a distinctly slower rate of growth than physics predicts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
5 The theory of Relativity predicts that white-holes should exist. The big bang is the closest thing there is to one.

Not it does not. Relativity gives the mathematics tools to needed to describe a white hole. It does not require their presence or even suggest that they might exist, let alone say that all black holes combine to let out through a single white hole.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
6. How much time did it take? We have no way of knowing what a unit of time was back then.

A fraction of a second. If you want to use the Big Bang to legitimize idea you have to actually accept the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Until Hawking Radiation is proven, then other option are open.

Not all options are created equal. The mathematical work Hawking did that predicted Hawking Radiation has been validated by experts. You have barely shown an understanding of the science you're trying to apply.

Originally posted by Robtard
Black holes aren't really holes in space are they? But just collapsed stars with hyper-extreme density and gravity, yes?

Well, according to the theory of Relativity, black-holes should connect to white-holes through worm-holes.

To be honest, my knowledge is limited in this matter. However, I this model was cool because it literally does not need a creation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only the singularity is predicted by relativity and physicists really dislike it because it requires infinite density and ending up with infinity is usually a sign that the idea is wrong. Singularities are not even necessary for black holes.

No one has ever seen something that seems like a white hole or come up with a way that one might form. No well proven theory requires their existence to be complete.

Relativity absolutely does not predict that black holes have a wormhole at the center.

That doesn't resolve the problem at all.

If you pile block onto a train while I remove them them from the train the pile of blocks on the train will grow more slowly than if I wasn't removing them. In the same way if the wormhole constantly sucks matter out of the black hole it should shrink or show a distinctly slower rate of growth than physics predicts.

Not it does not. Relativity gives the mathematics tools to needed to describe a white hole. It does not require their presence or even suggest that they might exist, let alone say that all black holes combine to let out through a single white hole.

A fraction of a second. If you want to use the Big Bang to legitimize idea you have to actually accept the Big Bang.

Not all options are created equal. The mathematical work Hawking did that predicted Hawking Radiation has been validated by experts. You have barely shown an understanding of the science you're trying to apply.

I am not presenting a theory. I am presenting a model that does not require a creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not presenting a theory.

you would be presenting a theory if you had observations

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am presenting a model

n-no you aren't

Originally posted by inimalist
...n-no you aren't

How would this model have a creation?

You remind me of a teacher I had back in college. I asked him about the new idea that birds might be related to dinosaurs. He swore up and down that there is no way that could ever be. Now, it is common knowledge.