alternate big bang theories

[altezon]

like the patch theory or the multi black hole universe theory.

Aren't those part of the same theory? Obviously conflicting theories can't be resolved without evidence for either, unless one or the other depends on bad math.

holding newtons chair just shows his stupidity, most would have sat in it

Aagh!

isn't hawkins theory unverifiable as well ????isn't that why it's a theory ???

Apparently, the existence of Hawking radiation near a black hole hasn't been verified, since I can't google it. But that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. The existence of black holes has been verified, and radiation is a detectable phenomenon (unlike "causal patches").

your ? about singularities not forming; i wish i could explain it but i'm not a physicist.

Well, neither one of us is, but you've misunderstood my question. If black holes are defined as singularities, then it makes no sense to say that a black hole "forms" a singularity. If it weren't a singularity already, then it wouldn't be called a black hole. You don't need to be a physicist to see the problem here.

all i know is that the people proposing theory are hoping to prove it.

Are you sure about that? It is possible to pose a theory while recognizing that it presents no opportunity for real-world verification of its consequences. For instance, if I knew enough about math and physics I could hypothesize events leading up to what we call the Big Bang that could make sense to other physicists. But I couldn't show that it actually happened the way I've postulated because none of the pre-Bang information has survived the event to be detectable now. The same is true of "causal patches" forming in the distant future, isn't it? Of course I'd be aware of that and therefore would recognize that my hypothesis is unverifiable and unprovable. So I'd write a science fiction story to entertain the people who don't have time to be physicists.

one of the sticking points in physics is that time can only flow one way. it should be able to flow all ways and with this theory it's allowed to. or is that the patch theory ? anyway. if we look or go back in time all we see is entropy. with the theory in question we can go back and forward without seeing entropy.

Time "should" do only what the real world allows it to do, and my demands have little effect on the nature of reality. It's an interesting subject, more philosophical than physical. As for entropy, I'm not sure it's really any more of a law than the "conservation of matter" used to be before the discovery of nuclear processes. I've seen some discussion whether entropy is an outmoded concept, but it's been a while since I've read about it.