Black Hole exploding is a Big Bang?

I am trying to think of any existing experiments that might contradict
my theory below. Can anyone think of any?

If we could show that photons had gravitational interaction with
other photons, that would cause problems with my exploding black
hole theory. But the forces would be so weak I am sure we could not
detect the effect.

It seems like normal matter (non-photons) particles (electrons,
positrons, etc) could be made from a standing wave. So the idea
that at some density normal standing-wave matter can no longer
maintain a standing wave seems plausible. It also seems plausible
that only standing-wave matter generates gravity.

If there were some violation of conservation of energy/matter
then that would be a problem for the theory, but it seems things
could be such that they work out.

We know that photons are attracted to gravitational bodies, so
it seems reasonable to assume that such bodies are attracted
to the photons for conservation reasons. While it is reasonable
to guess that photons have gravitational interaction with
other photons, it does not seem like this can be concluded
for sure. If they don't, then it seems a black hole could
explode. And if they do explode, it seems like it would be
a Big Bang.

-- Vince

(Vincent Cate) wrote in message om...
on sci.space.science "Purpose of a Black Hole in an Organized Universe"
Space is infinite in size and goes back infinitely in time. Our
"known universe" is the result of one big-bang but there are
an infinite number of others. Black holes are natures way of
fighting entropy by concentrating matter and energy. A black hole
collects until it reaches a limit where matter and gravity break
down and the energy explodes outward making another "universe".
When we get telescopes good enough, we will see the other
universes nearby ours. Because of this black-hole/big-bang
cycle, entrophy does not equalize everything in space even over
billions of billions of years.

-- Vince

* (Vincent Cate) schriebt:
I am trying to think of any existing experiments that might contradict
my theory below. Can anyone think of any?

If we could show that photons had gravitational interaction with
other photons, that would cause problems with my exploding black
hole theory. But the forces would be so weak I am sure we could not
detect the effect.

I didn't read further than here, because it's trivial to show gravitational
interaction between photons. Consider two very light spheres inside which are
confined by some kind of force two very great masses. These two spheres are
gravitationally attracted to each other. Now let the masses blow up, say, by
way of hydrogen fusion as in a hydrogen bomb. The gravitational attraction
between the spheres cannot simply disappear, hence those photons attract.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

(Alf P. Steinbach) wrote in message ...
* (Vincent Cate) schriebt:
These two spheres are
gravitationally attracted to each other. Now let the masses blow up, say, by
way of hydrogen fusion as in a hydrogen bomb. The gravitational attraction
between the spheres cannot simply disappear, hence those photons attract.

My theory is that the gravity for the matter that was turned into
energy does disappear and that is why a black hole can explode,
because nearly all the matter converts to energy in one Big Bang.
So imagine that we turn 1% of a bombs mass into heat, are you sure
the gravitation is not reduced by 1%? Why? There is 1% less mass.
How can heat generate gravity? (Don't think in photons, imagine it
was an underground test where all the photons were absorbed by the
walls and turned into heat.)

Probably what you are getting at is that one could make energy by moving
toward the mass before it disappeared and then away after. But maybe
this is the same energy of the blast, just a different way of looking
at it.

-- Vince

* (Vincent Cate) schriebt:

How can heat generate gravity?

Consider that heat can be turned into radiation, which in turn can be turned
into ordinary mass, which has gravity. Essentially your question therefore
shows the pure Newtonian picture to be incomplete, and leads to General
Relativity or something like it. Which I think is on-topic in at least one
of the groups posted to, or at least not completely off-topic, but that's one
darned complicated theory that probably nobody understands in full, so don't
expect full, clear & illuminating answers...

A short short answer to one aspect is that even in Special Relativity when
you expand the formula for energy for an object as a series the first two
terms turn out as E = m*C^2 + 0.5*m*v^2 + ..., where the first is the
energy/mass-equivalence for the object at rest relative to the chosen
coordinate system, and the second is the ordinary kinetic energy, relative.
So assuming the two or three basic premises of the theory to hold wrt. to
reality the math, as just a logical consequence of those premises, spits out
that motion is energy and energy is mass. So far there is every reason,
including a large number of very fine measurements, to assume that is so,
but even with all that confidence there are still very expensive experiments
being undertaken to further verify it or disprove it (one such, a space-based
gravitational probe, is scheduled for the 17.th of April this year, IIRC).

A short short answer to another aspect is that I have not the foggiest idea
how radiation is converted to and from velocity (which heat is all about).
That is, the physical mechanism -- and I suspect nobody understands that
in full, either. This little conversion at least _seems_ to lie squarely in
the extremely poorly understood gray zone between GR and quantum mechanics,
e.g. consider a 5 meter wide photon from Andromeda as an electromagnetic
wave that suddenly, at some point in the middle, interacts with an electron.

Perhaps some of the experts can help out.

I'm just a newbie relying on common sense & old high-school-level knowledge.

- --
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?