One aspect of my theory (which is built upon the not widely accepted views of the Gravastar Theory; Along with, several other theories including "String Theory"). This eliminates the singularity entirely.

I was looking at a glass of pure water (H2O) in relationship to matter and anti-matter. The Hydrogen being anti-matter (or dark matter) and the Oxygen being matter (disregarding the valence shells, atomic weights, ect.). It's claimed when matter and anti-matter collied they annialate each other. What if the bonds between the two different atoms acted as a substrait to prevent them cancelling each other out? Basically a referee standing between two fighters in a boxing match. I imagined this taking place in every form of matter/anti-matter. This would take into consideration all the known "forces" of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear).

The battle for supremacy between matter and anti-matter in the universe: I looked at it from the perspective of a corporation. If one shareholder owns 50.1% of the stock, that person controls the company. The rest of the shareholders can pool and concentrate their shares and wait for an opportunity to attempt a coup.

I don't know if I would flirt with myself per se... I'd probaby just say "Ya know, if you had a goatee, a camoflauged hat on (with a giant fishing hook on the brim), and a flannel shirt with the sleeves cut off... you could pass for Larry the Cable guy's older and smarter brother".

Instead of "Git er done"... it would be, "accomplish your task".

Operating under the premise of two points with no dimension never meeting (though they occupy the same space). Say we push the two singilarity points together (to a location where matter of the individual black holes (BH's) make physical contact), perhaps in the "spaghetification" stage. In a sense, pushing the imagined bowtie closer to the middle. My inital (and completely wrong) belief was something that would resemble a configuration like "wormhole" creating a bridge in the same dimension where two singularities would perhaps reside side by side. This is impossible I believe- since the singularity is infinite (yet a point)... unless we have something I would name a "super singularity". (Typing outloud/side thought): One other consideration... the rotation of opposing BH's perhaps cancelling each other out?

Several theories suggest that every galaxy has black holes of different sizes (from super massive to nano-sized). Envision a super massive BH basically absorbing a smaller, weaker one; However, could two (or multiple)singularities? The way to envision this- is something like a muti-vortex tornado. So hypothetically, one super massive BH could contain an infinite number of
other BH's all leading to different infinite singularities.

For several years (on and off) I've been working on a quantum physics paper to sumbit to a physics journal called "Physical Review D" with a theory disproving the existence of "Black Holes". I tend to "gravitate" towards the "Dark Matter/ Gravastar" theories. While my undergraduate work was in biochemistry and physics (pre med), I make no pretenses of being in the same class or even remotely close to Newton, Einstein, Hawking, et al. This paper is a result of several niggling questions I've had that have never been answered by a few friends and theoretical physicists I'm aquainted with. Who knows, someone here may have the answers or help me (and all the other geeks who come here)to look at this theory from a different perspective.

I'm not going to get overly detailed (as in getting into all the math), or speak in ultra-scientific/physics/quantum mechanics terms or go into any great detail about my theory. I would like to approach this topic from a creative/imaginary perspective of readily understood models by everyone. For example: Thinking of a black hole like a the vortex around a bathtub drain when the water is being let out. My apologies in advance if I start inserting occasional musings that make no sense.

The "singularity" is one of the biggest questions I have concerning the black hole theory. The bottom of the bathtub drain where everything comes to a single point. It has no dimension (as in length, width, height). Envision a bowtie (like the type Pee Wee Herman wears), and the middle of the tie being the point where two opposing singularities meet (which would be inevitable if this theory is correct). Amended assumption- the black holes are of equal size, strength, ect.. What would you envision happening?

Incidently, I vow to cyber-strangle the first person who says "They exercise their free will and determined to head to the closest galaxy for a beer"

If I had only known nobody would post on this topic...

How about changing the first quote to "Houston, we have a problem"

The only thing to crash and burn quicker than this topic thread was the Hindenburg zeppelin.

Ok, tis appears this topic has run it's course for me... a little too heavy on the Democritus of Abdera and a little too light on the tensor field calculus. "Aut disce aut discede".

Being too lazy to scroll through 53 pages to see if this game already exists here, I decided to post this and let the chips fall where they may. The rules are simple. You post the name of the movie the person above you is quoting followed by your movie quote.

Example: Above poster quote-"Rosebud"

Next poster answer: Citizen Kane
Quote: "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine?"

To perhaps make it fun,I would respectfully request to keep it limited to English speaking movies.

Ok... let's see where this goes....

Quote: "Here's looking at you kid"

You raise an interesting point. While I understand and mostly concur with your comment, I was pondering how would you factor in the variable if one does not make a choice (which is also considered a "choice"/option)- from an individual perspective. In a binary system of 1's and 0's one is provided with two options; However, if neither is selected would your simulation stop or go into an infinite loop at the point a choice (between a 1 and 0) wasn't made? Perhaps making no choice at all would be the only example of "free will" (as per your given model)? Even though I believe that "no choice" by the individual would be cancelled out by inertia (the decisions/choices of others).

In regards to going back in time: I returned to this forum to view comments. Noticing in re-reading my previous comments that I had misspelled the word "existed" several times (which I have no excuse for, other than sheer stupidity). Obviously the desire to edit was overwhelming; However, the "edit" icon had disappeared... only to prove that time travel is possible and unfortunately limited here. Where is Sam Beckett (the main character from the television show "Quantum Leap) when you need him in puting things right that once went wrong?

I can safely say my odds of meeting someone special here have significantly and exponentially increased. Having tried one other dating site and with no luck what-so-ever; However, e-hominy.com does has some great recipe ideas though. Now if I can just get a refund for my hooked on dyslexia tapes I'd be set.

*DISCLAIMER*
For those diehard grits and hominy lovers... e-hominy.com really doesn't exsist. Sorry, just in a punny mood (and hoping I haven't committed a major faux pas by posting a non-existent site).

Yes, the "free will" belief. I apologize for not being specific. Let's see if I understand this now.

I'll start with "imagining something that doesn't currently exsist in the universe". Ok, If we go back in time, the day before I came up with the idea of an invention something that never exsisted in the current universe. We'll call this item "X".

Next, "the imagined thing is not in any way dependent upon anything physical". If I am understanding this correctly, this would be the actual idea or abstract thought in regards to item X?

"The decision to imagine (item X) it is the exercise of free will- the cause". Say I come up with the idea for item X (which never exsisted before in the universe)- just out of the blue? I didn't make a decision to think about it, it was without cognitive effort (intent), and it's not based on any other variables from other sources for the idea of item X (E.G. the idea for a gasoline powered vehicle evolving from the horse and buggy). Basically a "Eureka" moment.

"The act of imagining is the effect of that decision, just as the imagined thing is the effect of the action of imagining". If I comprehend this accurately, you're conveying this as a converse theorem; However, I'm still having difficulty factoring the "decision" into the equation (based on the previous paragraph).

Am I close here to what you're saying?

Kudos to Nathan (and secretly cursing him under my breath for for bringing up the "chaos theory" first ). This was going to be addressed in my next comment along with "the butterfly effect). Being new to this site and too uninterested to peruse all the rules, I don't know if it's acceptable to post links or not. The following is from a website at thinkquest.org (just type in "chaos theory and entropy" in a search engine and it should appear). I believe this gives the best explaination for clarification.

"After discussing sensitive dependance, we are ready to summarize the qualities of a chaotic system. A chaotic system has these simple defining features:
Chaotic systems are deterministic. This means they have some determining equation ruling their behavior.
Chaotic systems are sensitive to initial conditions. Even a very slight change in the starting point can lead to significant different outcomes.
Chaotic systems are not random, nor disorderly. Truly random systems are not chaotic, chaos has a sense of order and pattern."

SkyHook- If you could provide an example, hypothetical model, or mathematical equation of your belief, it would be helpful to me. I'm not dismissing your assertions but still require more clarification.

SkyHook- I've been pondering your "free-will" versus the absolutes/finites of "cause and effect" post for the past forty-five minutes, correction, make that an hour and a half now. You've really opened a can of worms . I'm not attempting to change your beliefs, just tossing this out here for consideration.

I've been trying to come up with an example that would support your belief in the exclusion of "free-will" in regards to science but I can't. Using technology as my model: 15 billion years ago the computer did not exsist; However, all the elements required to make one exsisted. Through a series of sequential events via human free-will choices (including accidental discoveries), the computer came to be. Personally, I've never seen a contradiction or the exclusion of free-will when dealing with finites of human endeavors with finite resources.

"For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction". This too, I believe would include the use of free-will and limited by the finites. One would only be restricted to the resources present (and that always have been). I believe one (using and old adage) can make "a silk purse out of a sow's ear". It's just a matter of reorganizing the molecular structure through technology that simply hasn't been discovered yet.

The "beeorganic" ID is rather simple to explain. "b-e-e"= the first three letters of one of my favorite classical musical composers (Beethoven). "o-r"= the abbreviation of the state of Oregon. "g-a-n"= giant axonal neuropathy (gigaxonin) a/k/a the gan gene. "i-c" (I see)= the reply I would expect to receive upon explaining this ID.

Then again, my ID could just be a combination of my two favorite hobbies/interests- beekeeping and organic vegetable gardening but not as interesting to convey as the first explaination.

The fundamental principles of the first law of thermodynamics/conservation of energy (matter not being created nor destroyed)go way further back than Einstein.

I tend to believe/adhere to the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" idiom in regards to this topic.

"Where does a newborn baby's first energy come from? A digestion process from nutrients fed to the fetus from the umbilical cord from its mother's diet". While true, those nurtients are taken from other energy sources. A very simple analogy: Energy released from the sun, grows crops (photosynthesis), is ingested by the mother and converted into a different form of energy. This energy is subsequently transfered to the fetus. This would apply to all "living" organisms regardless of their physiological, biochemical, biological composition.

When we or any other lifeform expires, the energy from us is transfered to other organisms that digest and breaks down the body back into the basic elements, and becomes a part of something else. As per reincarnation/ressurection- not in the sense I shall be exactly as I am. Our bodily composition is merely bits and pieces of someone or something that exsisted before us (in sticking with the laws of thermodynamics). The following generations will be composed of bits and pieces of us and/or other things. To put it into perpective, each one of us has at least one carbon atom in us that came from the last breath of Julius Ceasar.

True story, perhaps one of those "you had to be there" kind. When I was 18, my grandmother and her 2nd husband wanted/needed me to drive them for a day trip to an Amish community called "Rockhome Gardens" in central IL. It's a place that has craft shops, various demonstrations of Amish living, livestock exhibits, and such. We had stopped to take a break from touring the grounds and were stand in a triangular configuration conversing about all the neat things that were there. While standing there, behind my grandmother I noticed a gal about my age working in a shop that sold things like apple butter about 20 yards away. My grandmother looked behind her back to see what I was oogling at. "Oh, she's a cutie and she's looking at you too" she said. I replied "Yeah, she is hot". While this gal and I were basically staring at each other, my grandmother all of a sudden blurts out " My God, look at the size of tits on her". I broke of eye contact with the gal in the shop and glared down at my grandmother with a look of shock. I said "Grandmaaaaaa"!!!! I didn't notice she had turned back around and was looking at something else. She pointed over to a nanny goat(female goat) who had recently given birth. Her teates were swollen and almost dragging on the ground.

All the talk of romance and relationships at this site...I simply have to convey this. Tonight, I had hottest date ever in my life. The sad part, it was the kind of date that is located in the cupboard next to the raisins and prunes which was microwaved for 25 seconds (15 seconds too long methinks). da da tish (rim shot)

I met the most incredible person here! Not that great looking; However, has a great personality, intelligent, ambitious, and very talented. We have the ability to converse for hours, never running out of anything to say. Unfortunately, since I rarely receive a reply from any other person that I may be interested in (and have e-mailed)... I've ended up talking to myself. (looking for the "smiley" that indicates "insanity").

Side thought here- As a newbie... what a way to introduce myself