The Universe+ Hypothesis v1.020

rewritten on June 14, 2005

Please understand that this was a first effort and has
been corrected (mostly) and replaced with the chapter
eight (8) version.

Abstract:

This paper sets forth a hypothesis that postulates a model 
of the initial conditions of the universe that contained and 
contains as its common citizen, billions and billions (my 
gratitude to Dr. Sagen) of hypermassive and supermassive 
black holes that exist distantly, at the edge of our visible 
cosmos while the big bang (distribution) event occured.
And there are many, many, billions more black holes within
our cosmos, albeit, a lot smaller.

These as yet unnumbered and for the most part, currently 
unlocated hypermassive black holes constitute the major 
population of the "Universe+" then and now, and probably, it 
was from this population of invisible hypergravity giants 
that was responsible for, and the source of, our visible 
universe's "big bang birth". 

                      What can we see?

Most of these other invisible hypermassive black holes are 
too distant to be ever detected currently by any known 
means, and so far, exist only in the inferential deductions 
of this hypothesis.

                         Source material

The original thoughts are below on 'The Universe+' 
hypothesis and other somewhat related subjects that were 
rewritten above.

Imagine if you will, collecting all the matter in the 
currently recognizable universe, both the "invisible" or 
dark matter, as it is currently called, and the "visible" 
matter, that is the light and/or radiation emitting matter 
into a big ball.

We are talking about a theoretically really big ball here.

But for our simple temporary purposes, let us presently 
assume that our theoretically constructed object is just a 
really, very massive object (VMO) or if you prefer, a 
radiation retaining hypermass. (rrh)

Let's call this theoretical object a "hyper-massive black 
hole" (HMBH) or "hyper-massive dense matter" (HMDM), 
whichever you prefer. Or to coin a new term if you will, 
hyper-gravity mass (HGM) comes to mind. Another good name is 
a Radiation Retaining Object (RRO). It's your choice in the 
alphabet soup.

In any event, whatever the solar mass sum (sigma) of our 
object turns out to be, divide it in half for starters, to 
end up with a probable sized very common universe object. 
(VCUO). i think i have  been eating too much Campbell's 
alphabet soup...

We are talking about something around 10 to the (sum of 
solar masses+/2) power solar masses here (plus or minus a 
couple orders of magnitude).

So now we have imaginarily just collected all the matter 
(energy) in the universe everything and wadded it up and 
divided it into two huge (RRO) balls to get our VCUO and are 
now holding one in each hand.

What we see now is all the matter of our known universe in 
each hand. Sort of like two really big black bowling balls 
right? Now the Universe+ theory is a concept that postulates 
that we have at least around a trillion, trillion (1.0 x 
10^24th) or perhaps an infinite number of such balls (VMO's) 
of approximately the same or varying RRO mass distributed 
randomly (perhaps in a fractal pattern) in some unknown 
fashion in what we currently believe to be infinite space.

The essence of the Universe+ concept is that there are just 
a whole lot of very massive VMO's which are RRO's populating 
space and Time.

No, let's leave out Time for now, things get too messy with 
Time. (At least they do if you are talking out of both sides 
of your mouth at the same time regarding physics as well as 
the metaphysics of human designed parallel universes)

In any event, restating: The Universe+ amounts to about say, 
ummm, 1 x 10^24 universe-sized objects of say, 1 x 10^20th 
solar masses distributed fractally in the theoretical 
Universe+ space. And that is just for starters.

               Bowling Balls of various sizes

Are the RRO's all the same size?  Of course not.  Like our 
visible universe, their size goes all over the place and are 
spaced and configured probably in the same manner as radial 
galaxies, clusters and all the other what have you.

                Probable Distribution models

Now, the question arises, just how ARE they distributed in 
space?

Well, there are several guessable models to choose from, and 
since we can't see any of them, or confirm anything at all 
at this time, one guess would appear to be as good as 
another for our purposes right now.

Remember after all, that this whole thing is at this point 
at best, just a very wobbly tentative hypothesis.

Are these giant "bowling balls" of matter distributed across 
space like a gas?  Or more like a "Liquid"?  Maybe even like 
a lattice? "Crystalline solid"?

Well, there is another model that comes to mind, and this 
one seems to be as "good" or "comfortably intuitive" an 
initial guess as any, and it would be the distribution 
pattern modeled after the concepts around the presently 
popular "Fractal Geometry of Nature" pattern.

That is, the big hyper-gravity RRO's in the Universe+ 
concept are in a similarly configured distribution pattern 
that mimic the much smaller galactic distribution pattern in 
our own universe.

Taking the fractal thing a bit farther, you could equate 
each sun/star position with each massive RRO so that you 
would have all manner of shaped galaxies and whatnot in our 
model of the universe plus made up of the hypermassive 
RRO's.

These hyper-gravity RRO's have to be placed somewhere in the 
(x,y,z,t) universe so that's my best guess for right now. As 
I understand it.

The current cosmology in political fashion would have us to 
believe that there was a "big bang" from a "hot singularity" 
and that the beginning of the universe was the beginning of 
our time and our universe.

That is, Time, Darkness and Light and Mass all had a 
"beginning". Well, talking out of the other side of the 
mouth again maybe two-legged darkness is gravity or two- 
legged gravity is darkness. Your choice.

In all, well, the hot singularity concept is hard to swallow 
to say the least.. The Universe+ concept fixes that. (note: 
i was going to omit the above paragraph as irrelevant but my 
obvious confusion might promote discussion and thought of 
what is being discussed, so i decided to leave it in. 
...sorry)

Anyhow, back to the big bang. The Big-Bang concept may not 
be inaccurate, but I propose that it needs to be re- 
understood. 

Apparently, after the "big bang" comes the big "fog out" 
where the universe just sort of dissipates or evaporates 
into elementary particles once again over time.

The universe may or may not undergo further possible 
accretion for an eventual restart as a big-bang again if you 
wait around long enough and hope to find the rest of the 
necessary mass.

Except the physics theorists have proposed, and they 
maintain that they have proved, that there isn't enough 
matter to restart anything!

And that is the end of that.

The beginning and the end of the universe, a one-shot deal.

Not bad. Kablooey, then a fog out. simple. Summing up: Pop! 
Fog! Gone!

The only minor problem with the entire big-bang premise or 
modeled scenario is trying to figure out how the "bang" came 
to be "banged" in the first place. The Universe+ concept 
fixes that. The nature of darkness - (a view from a rowboat 
dangerously overloaded with books)

But before that, let me digress for a moment into my 
favorite side area of search, snooping and investigation, 
attempting to understand the metaphysics of the black hole 
body politic. The institutional two-legged black hole, if 
you will.  Now that is darkness!

As a metaphysical aside-aside, the eternal presence of "two- 
legged darkness" in our life doesn't occur apparently to 
many physicists or if it does, they prudently remain silent, 
their fundamental science and sciencing compromised by the 
powers of the institutional body politic.

This essay isn't short of mealy-mouthed issue avoiding 
sentences either. So you will just have to read between the 
lines.

It is a sad state of affairs for humanity and the scientific 
community, but perhaps arguably a necessary one, given the 
raw material, given the problems, and the solutions to the 
problems that mankind does have some sort of control over.  
That common sciencing of this type can be so corrupted and 
pumped full of deceit and lies for the "greater good of 
humanity" is a bit perplexing.

Before I get too far, remember that "those who love and 
practice deceit" are one of the great six classes of post- 
judgment humanity that remain outside the gates (rev 22:15 
if memory serves me correctly) according to Christian 
Tradition.

It is among these six classes of exclusioned people that we, 
as pilgrims in our lifelong journey to the local "Superman", 
have our sufferable daily interaction.


Learn to always automatically make the six-way litmus test 
to all those around you. The universe+ concept understood 
metaphysically, fixes that. And you have to admit after all, 
that mankind's problems are sourced to some degree, speaking 
euphemistically, within himself and augmented by the 
alternate institution.

It is going to be a long hard journey upcountry to effect 
significant moral change in a competitive humanity. A very 
long march upcountry, if i may borrow a sentence from 
Xenophon's Anabasis (March up Country.)  

And if I may insert a very personal note, I experienced most 
of my childhood in a Catholic orphanage, and as a result of 
that, I am not optimistic about man's prospect's or even his 
proposed solutions to his problems. Of course, the problem 
is my finite mind. I don't have any better ideas. I don't 
know what doesn't work. Indeed, i cannot even tell spiritual 
light from spiritual dark. I am not alone. But those who 
have been working on the problem for centuries do know what 
doesn't work. Because of my personal limitations, i just 
pray. Even then, we have to ask the question: Is personal 
prayer a form of idolatry? Does it accomplish anything? Or 
is it just an act that ranks right up there with 
masturbation in effectiveness with respect to promoting the 
common good?  Forgive my lack of answers...

Is prayer just a sort of a "spiritual relieving of tension" 
so to speak. A simple device to relieve pressures on the 
autonomic nervous system. Are those who just pray consigned 
to the six excluded classes as an idolater? Is prayer 
without worth? Is anyone really listening? I have seen and 
lived with the "Lord of the Flies" humanity, that sample of 
humanity that will make up our future leaders. I personally 
don't see how we can get there from here. But forgive my 
doubts and bad vision, as i am again, a little short of 
brains. So i just pray.

Fragile we are, even just an asteroid a few miles in 
diameter hitting the earth will blow out everybody's candles 
and there isn't a damn thing anyone on earth can do about 
it. Or maybe even just a nice homegrown 40 by 60 mile long 
exploding caldera in Yellowstone park would create 
unmanageable congestion at the funeral parlors..

Since we are not at the top of the physics or even 
metaphysics food chain, it would seem like the best we can 
do and most prudent thing that we can do is just prep 
humanities earthly nest and take care of what we can take 
care of during our species mayfly existence here on earth.

Looking at the "big bang" premise metaphysically, or from 
the point of view of the institutional high priest or scribe 
with golden and white flowing robes, one thing that should 
have occurred to them, but apparently didn't, or if it did, 
they remained tactfully silent viewing it as irrelevant (a 
favorite activity...) is that under the current "big bang" 
premise, God can make light only ONCE. Just once.


And then the light just gradually goes away. Which sort of 
seems like a politically arbitrary or theologically 
artificial limitation on God's power. Which smacks somewhat 
of some unnamed metaphysical heresy to me, if you are into 
that sort of thing.

Seems to me that God should be able to make light whenever 
or wherever God wanted to make light. Sounds good? If he 
wanted to make light for us cretin sinners, is it 
unreasonable for him to want to make light for others?  You 
do agree that he can make others and light for them, don't 
you?

Or is he again just limited to making us humans. Just what 
constraints are your concepts placing on God? Seems like he 
could make a two legged hairy zebra if he wanted to. Heck, 
in another couple of decades, man might even be able to do 
that.  Come to think of it, seems like i saw a...

Anyhow, you get the idea, now put away your bundles of 
firewood please. Don't get you ass in a sling by doing the 
Joan of Arc thing. The sticks and tares are selected, bound 
and burnt by God and not us, according to our favorite 
"readsay" document.

Those creatures who are VAIN enough to attempt "God's work" 
and take on "His Identity" get their brainless asses in a 
sling fast enough without any help from us.

Speaking musically, and borrowing from Ferde Grofe, you get 
a free donkey ride down into a very deep valley but there is 
nothing said about coming back out while you await the 
storm. And even Toscanni said about Grofe's opus, "The storm 
was the most terrifying thing he had ever heard." Trust me, 
that last bolt of lightning has your name on it and will hit 
you right in the ass. God doesn't fuck around.

Even if we, as a member in the corporate body of the 
sorcerer's apprentice, or as zombie apprentices stitched 
into Dr. Frankenstein's organizational creation can hardly 
do anything else but create organizational havoc..

The heavenly choirs always look on, and make their 
recommendations. And with the Judgments being made, the 
ropes are lowered from the heavens (or the alternate 
institution) for those who are among the elect for binding 
and destruction for their sins, arrogance, pride, and 
presumption of taking on God's identity.

From a religious point of view, I recommend that you just 
pray and not partake. Or stated in another way, "don't touch 
divinity with a ten foot pole." Just pray.

Trust me you wannabe godlings, just pray... unless you want 
to end up stitched into the institutional body of your local 
Frankenstein or his bride.

Speaking poetically, "Decline the invitation to the Dance", 
"Don't go to the Cabaret, my friend". Life isn't just a 
Cabaret my friend.

Dodge "Cupid's arrows like you would the sting of an asp." 
And if stung, "do not go gently into that good night."

Don't play in black holes children.

Hamlet's question, "To be or not to be?" is not a valid 
option. We are not. It is as simple as that.  Okay then, 
what are we?  Well, a simple one word answer is, "thieves".  
Collectively, we are committing waste upon the earth and 
destroying everything that your own children will need to 
survive, say, five and onward generations from now.  Your 
"to be" god (lower case deliberate) is as myopic as Mr. 
Magoo.

I Think, therefore I AM is the biggest bunch of bullshit 
ever presented to/by woman. Descartes better sentence would 
have been, "I think, therefore i am not." and "I better get 
down on my knees and just pray because i am not!" or I 
understand, therefore i am.  At least here you eliminate all 
the other mammals that show some evidence of "thinking".

It is only a drooling institution of Darkness upon the earth 
that is offering us eternal life here on earth and not in 
heaven.. The dead entombed. The false easter of Nimrod.

The organization of Dracula and Frankenstein are political 
organizational realities and not fairy tales. Just ask any 
of their dead. Or, as stated in our first horror novel, "let 
the dead bury the dead."

It is not earth that we want to inherit, it is heaven, to be 
with the Father of Perfect Justice.  (You may not like to 
endure perfect justice by the way, but that is another 
subject.)

Perhaps the phrase,
 "Where there is no Good Friday, there is no Easter Sunday."
may mean something to some of you. It was written that the 
Stations of the Cross should be a living reality for every 
true Christian (and i might add: "in all times for all 
times").

No spiritual, or better said, metaphysical event in Christ's 
life, no matter how small, will be missing from the true 
Christians.  That's why the stations of the cross are in 
every Catholic Church. They are NOT wall decorations. They 
are the Christians metaphysical/spiritual reality. 

Cheery news, what? Have a nice Calvary, mystical body Jesus.

So "who are you?" said the caterpillar to Alice?

Are you the soldier holding the scourge?

Are you jeering and throwing stones at the little man on his 
journey to the place of the skull?

Have you stepped out from the shadows to wipe his brow?

Are you the soldier with the lance?

Have you thrown lots for his garments?

Are you among the weeping women beneath the Cross?

Are you shrieking to free Barabbas?

Have you moderated a Trial at night?

Are you the one who has given Jesus a kiss?

Have you been addressed as "Peter, son of John"?

Have you been told that your son is "John"?

Have you been told that your mother is "Mary"

But before you go crucifying yourself to some cross in a fit 
of theological ambition, let God decide who his son is, if 
you are it, you will feel the hatred, the ridicule, the 
scourging, the nails, soon enough. If not, just pray.

But watch out for the ropes raised from hell or lowered from 
heaven that bind and consume. They are the most dangerous 
things on earth.

I suspect that "Success in life" is defined as belonging to 
that organizational body who can, at his (not her but his) 
last judgment, show the Father of us all, the nail wounds in 
his arms and feet, the lance wound piercing his side, the 
marks of the scourge on his back."

And a big smile while entering the halls of His Perfect 
Justice,
His 4th dimensional theoretically perfect Justice.

And now, late in life, I would add:  But be very, very 
careful. There is a mimicking system composed of darkness to 
capture the ambitious, the fraudulent, the vain, the proud, 
and those who like little boy's pee-wees."

My recommendation, fellow sinner is to ever get out of our 
playtime sandbox until recess is finally over and then only 
when they have to haul you out by your feet.

Thus endeth the metaphysical, poetical & theological sermon 
portion of this essay on the Universe+.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to real-time physics speculation:
The expanding universe and its cause, the "Big Bang" is 
premised, if I understand correctly in part, on some sort of 
"red-shift" light phenomenon from existing galaxies.

That is, if it's "red" it is going away. If it is a "blue 
shift", it is honking our way.

What if the "red shift" is due to say, the effect of sodium 
ions in space that the light passes on its way to us? Can 
you "slow down the speed (better said, the energy 
(wavelength)) of light" to the extent that it mimics a 
Doppler effect? If so, how far? If that is so, then the 
whole "exploding universe theory" goes away, and with it, 
the universe+ concept.

We are then left with a normal, but eternal universe of 
stars and matter as viewed from the eyeball and its aids. 
Explain then, the "Great Attractor"

But let's put aside my ignorant questions for a second and 
assume that there WAS a monstrous "big bang". Have to keep 
this essay on track.
----------------------------------------
the following is a delete candidate.
or a rewrite and replace 
----------------------------------------

Oops! but just yet another metaphysical digression... What 
on earth?... well wait a minute, what in the universe can 
cause a "big bang"? (for sure, nothing on earth can cause 
one.) We are just a pimple on a pimple on a pimple on a 
pimple. We are four magnitudes down and maybe even more in 
the cosmological order of things. But the limitless vanity 
of the philosopher makes him state: "I think, therefore I 
AM!" Ha-ha-ha-ha... aaaah... mankind. such worms.  Well, 
wait a minute.  In all fairness, even worms need a culture.  
Plenty of coffee grounds, some water, maybe a screen to keep 
out the predators...  have fun burrowing kids...  

And just count the war dead alone in the 20th century, many 
of whom were just innocent flowers, cut down. And then there 
is the collateral damage.  I AM? Am i? And this 21st century 
has gotten off to a nice start as well... Descartes' much 
better sentence would have been: "I think, therefore I AM 
NOT."  Or, I think, therefore i am a murderer!  Examine the 
stomach contents for beef, chicken, lamb, pork, turkey, 
rabbit, venison, and etc. - 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow back to the subject of real physics: If you wad up 
all the mass in the universe you get something like a 
lebenty-leben solar mass object which we will assume to be a 
massive RRO "black hole" or at least a whole lot of matter 
(energy/mass) in one place.

I think the physicists call it a "Very Massive Object" or 
VMO for short. Can anyone figure the general escape velocity 
from such a mass? If it is a multiple of c are we going to 
have centrifugal problems? along with a conservation of 
angular momentum issues? 

Test #1:  Okay, now divide big ball up into two, or maybe 
even more, masses. Recalc the escape velocity. Hold them at 
arms length and then let go.
24  What happens?

1. ka-blooie whamo! pieces of universe all over the place or

2. muusssh! just one big ball now, no explosion, no 
emissions. 

24  What was their impact velocity?
What would be the optimum velocity v that the two objects of 
mass m hurtling towards one another could achieve from 
distance d?

Test #2:
For an alternate scenario, assume the two or more masses 
pass near enough to one another to start in a closing binary 
or higher orbit and during their orbiting status, all VMO's 
might pick up mass falling in from other tag-along matter. 
With escape velocities well in excess of probably many c's, 
what will happen to the outside most of the binary system as 
that matter (energy) approaches c or even exceeds a critical 
gravitational value? 

Explanation #1
The centrifugal force upon the mass of the rotating bodies 
will be so high that part of the outer mass, that with the 
highest centrifugal force applied to it, will be "ejected" 
outward in huge flow of chunks of matter. The matter will 
have five* vectors, an X,Y,Z,V and a T with respect to the 
center of mass of the binary Very Massive Objects and would 
continue with those vectors. Complicating the issue is an 
additional set of the same vectors concerning the movement 
of the source energy (mass).

* five vectors! where did i dream that one up? what i meant 
was, that the binaries are moving through space at the same 
time that they are divesting themselves of mass so it's 
probably (X1-X2,Y1-Y2,Z1-Z2,T1-T2 ) or something mathy like 
that... Hey look, give me a break, its been over 50 years 
since i had long division...

After the initial tearing apart of the binary or trinary or 
higher VMO system the conservation of angular momentum will 
slow down (wrong! sigh...) the binary or higher objects and 
ejectiva will be at slower and slower rates as the binary 
object looses mass and rotating velocity. This appears to be 
accomplished with one or two revolutions if you look 
carefully at most spiral galaxies !

This will appear then to a viewer as two or more spiraling 
arms coming from the binary object as most of the galaxies 
indeed do. 

The same physical events would hold true no matter what the 
original value of the solar masses would be in the VMO's. As 
mass is "transformed" and becomes "ejectiva" (thrown out) 
the physical conservation of angular momentum event slows 
down the rotating objects (wrong! wrong! wrong! some other 
term is needed here.) and therefore mass, chunks of mass 
(energy), begin to be thrown out at slower and slower 
velocities until all ejectiva is ejected, seemingly within 
one or two "yearly" revolutions of the binaries most of the 
time.

The resulting ejectiva some of which too small to 
gravitationally hold the light from escaping, seems like it 
"ignites" (allows mass to escape via radiation and photons) 
That matter "ejected" that is large enough to contain its 
fusion emissions is sent on its way at a velocity that is 
commensurate with the remaining mass of the hyper-gravity 
masses.

The dark matter is hurled into what looks to an outsider to 
be a spiral nebulae, except in this "big bang" case it is a 
spiral universe with trillions of smaller black holes now 
going through the same process, some creating light emitting 
milky ways except on a smaller scale. What remains inside 
the now defunct "big bang" is dense matter that no longer 
has the mass to bring matter to the velocity of c, and 
therefore transform it as galactic ejectiva. So what is left 
may just clump up.

A few minor nagging physics problems remain with this 
Universe+ concept: 1. If not previously undergoing fusion, 
what "ignites" most of the ejectiva to its fusion process? 
2. What physical processes are responsible? 3. If the 
temperature of a hyper-gravity mass is near Absolute zero as 
some maintain it is with smaller "black holes", can fusion 
occur? Can the ejectiva "ignite" itself?

If fusion wasn't in effect within the hyper-gravity mass 
before the "big-bang", why should it start later with even 
less mass? How can it start anyhow if it wasn't already part 
of the condition/nature/physics of a hyper-gravity object?

The obvious tentative suggestion is, that with any hyper- 
gravity mass, fusion must be always occurring, albeit 
internally constrained, as the mass is so great, that no 
mass (light or radiation) escapes except solely thru a zero 
(equal) gravity port.

Visible evidence of fusion must only occur when the mass of 
the fusion object is so little such that (energy) products 
can escape from its gravity as the escape velocity of the 
mass in question is less than c.

The temperature of the existing universe+ under this 
"internal temperature and pressure" hypothesis would be 
higher than generally thought now. The black holes aren't 
really black, they are just real hot little bastards just 
containing their light from being visible on earth. (Umm, 
sort of like the choirs of some sort of naughty angels, if 
you like...)

                      clean this up a bit...
As another aside, IF Gravity has a propagation rate, and 
therefore implies or permits or allows evaporation of its 
mother mass, then it too must be subject to recall by the 
forces of gravity within the hyper-gravity mass since it is 
exhibiting the emittive properties of mass (energy).

Does this concept of 'gravitational wave retention' create a 
hyper-gravity mass that has NO APPARENT GRAVITY because of 
the gravitational "recall" and "rebending" of the gravity 
"waves"!?

With no "gravity", the hyper-gravity mass won't collide or 
be drawn to another mass and therefore will not be capable 
of initiating a "big bang"! It would appear to be a hyper- 
huge "no-mass" object in space!

Clearly under this hypothesis, gravity (gravitational waves) 
do not propagate, and is not a propagating force in this 
scenario, or there wouldn't have been an original big bang 
under the above premise in the first place.

oh shoot! the following below is all wrong and needs to be 
completely rewritten as gravity appears to tag along and 
"goes" with the "evaporated mass (energy). That is, it 
(warped spacetime) (neutrino density?) leaves the zero 
gravitational port as radiation.

the rewrite goes here: Possible Conclusion: Gravity does not 
propagate. Gravity follows Mass, declining mass, declining 
gravity, declining magnetic fields.  Gravity is. Time is. 
(warped spacetime is?)  getting a little out of my league 
here... <---- wrong, wrong, wrong (aug 18, 2005) see
 Gravity waves and the 
 Snot Standard Model
If we allow light & radiation to conceptually propagate or 
"evaporate" its mother mass thru time. Let me suggest then, 
that Gravity "leaves" its mother mass thru time.  Spacetime 
warpage decreases.

Hypothesis:

Gravity, that is, warped spacetime does NOT propagate!

Contra:  Well, we can safely ignore this hypothesis for 
sure...

If we could test the propagation of gravity, a suggested way 
would be to place a new (unpropagated) mass 100 miles from a 
gravitational source and another 1,000,000,000,000 miles 
from the same gravitational source. release both at the same 
time with your fingers and look at your pocket watch to see 
if one started to weigh something before the other.

Contra:  sigh... (Yiks!  My head is soaking wet here... 
sniff... see gravwave for update.

Well, that is not going to work because there is no such 
thing as a "new" mass.  And, ALL the mass that does exist 
has finished 'propagating' its warped spacetime (gravity) 
eons ago.  No, eons and eons and eons ago.

Contra:  it's true that there may not be any "new" mass, but 
there are new mass conditions which will generate a gravity 
wave propagating out at c.   oh well, nobody said this was 
going to be easy...

Even a nova with its spectacular 'explosion' simply 
readjusts its center of mass.  hmmm, and that may decrease 
its gravity somewhat.  So the new lack of spacetime warpage 
may be able to be detected, or may not, depending on how far 
away it was...  notice i did NOT say gravity wave.

Contra:  I sort of changed my mind on this a tad so see my 
new gravity wave restatement.


v1.001 added bug zapper analogy
v1.002 added cluster issue and minor rewording.
v1.003 added item 32 and minor rewording.
v1.004 went to HTML & Front Page Express
v1.005 added fonts, superscript
v1.006 spell checked doc. (lots of mistakes!)
v1.007 rewrite hypo 1 through 7 on 2/17/01
v1.008 corrected errors, changed wording, added a little.
v1.009 same as above, added green cheese
...
...
v1.020 redid whole thing.  deleted some, added some.  :-)
v1.021 reformat spacing, rewrote paragraphs
v1.022 split universe+.html into two files.
v1.023 "adjusted" univers2.html to two voices.


    the voyage

A single person sailing
in a very small boat
upon a vast indifferent sea
depending on the winds
of the Heavens
while listening to
the growling down below


Final comments
                   Yet Another Modest Proposal
                                or
                     The Universe+ Hypothesis
                    v1.022 - a careful rewrite
                                                               
Summary Abstract:

This paper set forth a hypothesis that postulated a model of 
the initial conditions of the universe that contained as its 
common citizen, billions of hypermassive and supermassive 
black holes.  These as yet unnumbered, and for the most 
part, unlocated hypermassive black holes, constitute the 
major population of the universe and are responsible the 
universe's events. Most are too distant to be ever detected.  

                            Detection?

However, some sort of detection may be possible from 
backlighting by galaxies showing a small circle, which would 
be the event horizon of the hypermassive object.  Stars 
would appear in front as bent light from star that are 
behind the hypermassive object.  

These same stars would appear to move to the perimeter of 
the event horizon of the backlite hypermassive object as 
they approached the hypermassive black hole from behind.

Perimeter stars should be tracked first as those may be the 
closest and moving the fastest towards the object.

Blue shifting may be visible and detectable.
I'll leave this to the experts...
                                                           
i'm outta here...