Thommo, I thought it was obvious that I had actually answered your question about evidence for what you term "extra-dimensional black holes", by saying that all black holes that happen to be close enough in the hyperspace continuum show up in this universe, (just like most black holes in the galaxy, formed from collapsing stars). They would probably be mainly the supermassive black holes thought to be at the centre of most galaxies, and which astronomers and cosmologists alike admit that they cannot explain. My answer is that they were formed in a sister universe that overlaps us in hyperspace.
If you think they have explained them, please supply a link.

___________________
On the question of conservation of energy, it would depend on whether you include the energy of space in the equation. If you do, then the accelerating expansion of the universe implies that energy is, indeed, being injected into the universe.

DavidMcC wrote:Thommo, I thought it was obvious that I had actually answered your question about evidence for what you term "extra-dimensional black holes", by saying that all black holes that happen to be close enough in the hyperspace continuum show up in this universe, (just like most black holes in the galaxy, formed from collapsing stars). They would probably be mainly the supermassive black holes thought to be at the centre of most galaxies, and which astronomers and cosmologists alike admit that they cannot explain. My answer is that they were formed in a sister universe that overlaps us in hyperspace.
If you think they have explained them, please supply a link.

Why would you think it obvious you answered?

This was the question:
"If there is evidence of extradimensional black holes existing outside our known cosmos, what is it exactly?"

So unless you think that paragraph is evidence, it's obvious you haven't answered it. If you do think that paragraph is evidence, then we've got a pretty fundamental problem on our hands.

DavidMcC wrote:___________________
On the question of conservation of energy, it would depend on whether you include the energy of space in the equation. If you do, then the accelerating expansion of the universe implies that energy is, indeed, being injected into the universe.

That's also not an answer to the question. You said that violations of conservation of energy must be "gradual", I asked you what source or reasons you had for that. You then seemed to confuse violations of conservation of energy with violation of the statistical properties of entropy and had a mini-rant.

I'd still love to hear those reasons, if they exist.

DavidMcC wrote:Thommo, I thought it was obvious that I had actually answered your question about evidence for what you term "extra-dimensional black holes", by saying that all black holes that happen to be close enough in the hyperspace continuum show up in this universe, (just like most black holes in the galaxy, formed from collapsing stars). They would probably be mainly the supermassive black holes thought to be at the centre of most galaxies, and which astronomers and cosmologists alike admit that they cannot explain. My answer is that they were formed in a sister universe that overlaps us in hyperspace.
If you think they have explained them, please supply a link.

Thommo (and others) have asked for you to supply evidence for your notions by means of reputable sources and links. Instead, you retort with yet another brain-fart and accompanying stool sample.

For example, which other cosmologist or group discusses “mother” and “sister” universes like you do? Where (at which url) can a new researcher find rigorous definitions for such terminology? Perhaps you are just making stuff up on the fly?

Interpretting your question as "wha

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Thommo, I thought it was obvious that I had actually answered your question about evidence for what you term "extra-dimensional black holes", by saying that all black holes that happen to be close enough in the hyperspace continuum show up in this universe, (just like most black holes in the galaxy, formed from collapsing stars). They would probably be mainly the supermassive black holes thought to be at the centre of most galaxies, and which astronomers and cosmologists alike admit that they cannot explain. My answer is that they were formed in a sister universe that overlaps us in hyperspace.
If you think they have explained them, please supply a link.

Thommo (and others) have asked for you to supply evidence for your notions by means of reputable sources and links. Instead, you retort with yet another brain-fart and accompanying stool sample.

For example, which other cosmologist or group discusses “mother” and “sister” universes like you do?

None, because I am the originator of my cosmology.Nobody else, AFAIK, has even thought of this.

Where (at which url) can a new researcher find rigorous definitions for such terminology? Perhaps you are just making stuff up on the fly?

You seem to missng the fact that I am the originator of my cosmology, so I cannot be expected to refer to prior publications, can I?

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Thommo, I thought it was obvious that I had actually answered your question about evidence for what you term "extra-dimensional black holes", by saying that all black holes that happen to be close enough in the hyperspace continuum show up in this universe, (just like most black holes in the galaxy, formed from collapsing stars). They would probably be mainly the supermassive black holes thought to be at the centre of most galaxies, and which astronomers and cosmologists alike admit that they cannot explain. My answer is that they were formed in a sister universe that overlaps us in hyperspace.
If you think they have explained them, please supply a link.

Why would you think it obvious you answered?

This was the question:
"If there is evidence of extradimensional black holes existing outside our known cosmos, what is it exactly?"

So unless you think that paragraph is evidence, it's obvious you haven't answered it. If you do think that paragraph is evidence, then we've got a pretty fundamental problem on our hands.

If you had read my cosmology articles in the LQG thread, you would know that it depends on piecing together a whole range of otherwise inexplicable astronomical/cosmological observations.
I note that many of these questions could have been asked without even reading my cosmology articles!

EDIT: Having said that, the fact that astronomers cannot understand how the supermassive black holes at the centres of most galaxies could have formed in the time available is perhaps the strongest strand of the evidence for them being in other universes (thatn happen to be nearby, but shifted slightly from us in hyperspace.

DavidMcC wrote:...

EDIT: Having said that, the fact that astronomers cannot understand how the supermassive black holes at the centres of most galaxies could have formed in the time available is perhaps the strongest strand of the evidence for them being in other universes (thatn happen to be nearby, but shifted slightly from us in hyperspace.

Or not...
The Formation of the First Quasars in the Universe
Suggests that stars (very large stars) helped.

Here's a related write-up at space.com entitled:

Breaking the 'Speed Limit': Simulation Shows Monster Black Holes' Rapid Growth

and concludes:

...
"This was largely unexpected," Smidt said. "I thought this idea of growing a massive star in a special configuration and forming a black hole with the right kind of masses was something we could approximate, but to see the black hole inducing star formation and driving the dynamics in ways that we've observed in nature was really the icing on the cake."

The new work has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal, and it is currently available online at arXiv.org.

DavidMcC wrote:If you had read my cosmology articles in the LQG thread...

I did*, actually.

*Allowing for the fact they weren't articles, they were posts and they didn't answer any of these questions either.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:If you had read my cosmology articles in the LQG thread...

I did*, actually.

*Allowing for the fact they weren't articles, they were posts and they didn't answer any of these questions either.

In that case, perhaps you could put forward your own, conter-hypothesis in a scentific manner, rather than trying to nit-pick mine.

I don't know what, if anything, explains the big bang. I also lack the hubris to assume I know better than professional cosmologists.

And you can complain that I'm nit-picking, but I'd point out that the question you've been dodging was regarding evidence for these extradimensional black holes, which was an exact mirror of your criticism of branes. Still, I'm not sure what mileage there is in attempting to shift your burden of proof.

As far as I know, professional cosmologists have nothing that explains the big bang other than flimsy hypothesis that might ultimately be unfalsifiable.

My layman's intuition tells me that it was likely an ordinary event as every time we try to place ourselves in a special place in the universe it turns out we are quite the opposite. I imagine there are big bangs all the time in a broader multiverse, possibly an infinite number of them.

Like soap bubbles randomly bursting and expanding into 'nothingness'.