From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:59:58 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > having to view this "sequentially"...   
   > at point A, big bang occurs, from common pinpoint.  (ok, so maybe the new   
   > theories are different, but bear with me here...)   
   >   
   > at a fraction past A, coming to point B, somewhere in the process, black   
   > holes form.  The Universe is now approximately the size of a basketball, or   
   > perhaps a solar system... machts nicht... it's an inflating ball.  Let's use   
   > a basketball for this illustration:   
      
   It's not important to your argument; but just so you know...   
   Apart from the more exotic theories of BH formation, the normal way   
   they're formed is via dead stars, for which you need hydrogen, clumping   
   and time.   
      
   Conditions weren't right for stars to start forming for hundreds of   
   millions of year after the BB.   
      
   > So, at point C, the escaped light / exiting energy from the singularity /   
   > unity of a black hole is seen at the outside edges of the universe, yet   
   > their massive black hole power plants are still near the *center*, where   
   > they are forever pulling in time, light, and mass....   
   >   
   > Thus, we see the quasars on the outside edge looking back, while the black   
   > holes are near the inside hub, forever looking ... out?  Remember the   
   > concept that, if you could live on the surface of a black hole (surviving   
   > the event horizon and crushing gravity) you would see light falling "into"   
   > it, although no light could ever get "out"...   
   >   
   > I know... this is realllly sketchy, but... there's a sense to it   
   > somewhere...   
      
   I think you're saying that Hawking radiation emitted by the BH could be   
   caught up in the expansion of the universe, until the distance between the   
   source and emitted light is significant.   
      
   I don't see why not, although I'm no expert on Cosmology; but, I think it   
   would be rather dramatically red-shifted, and extremely feint.   
      
   (The Hawking radiation that Black Holes emit as proportional to the   
   size of their event horizon, big ones are feeble, little ones are as   
   bright as massive explosions.)   
      
   >   
   > if one electron can be perceived in two different locations simultaneously   
   > (affect electron A, and electron B across the other side of the planet has   
   > the same effect)   
      
   Not the same thing at all.   
      
   > then it is quite possible that the light output of a quasar   
   > is actually the result of the black hole power plant located -- in some kind   
   > of proportional or inverse proportional location -- near the center of the   
   > universe.   
      
   It's possible, I think, that hawking radiation from BH's "near the centre"   
   could be perceived today; but quasars are not that phenomenon.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)