"It's all or nuthin with me ..." From "Oklahoma". Lol. Well, again I must plead insufficient knowledge to construct a viable alternative should my 'theory' be falsified. I have considered small variations of this model, of course. In the beginning I thought it was possible a collision (inertia) of the final black holes could be the mechanism for the bang, but the general uniformity of the universe we observe today seemed to preclude such a mechanism. Still, I felt strongly that whatever the bang was, it had to conform to the laws we know to be the same throughout the observable universe, despite mainstream's penchant for invoking imaginary constructs. A spinning black hole seemed the only remaining (logical) possibility. No gods, magic, 26 dimensions ... Well, somewhere along the way you asked me to let you know if there was anything new. Ok. Here's something. First a little refresher. If you have read my model, you know that I argue against mainstream's (in my view) arbitrary limits to the mass of black holes. Over the last 15 years or so, they have (in keeping with the theorized hierarchical evolution of galaxies/black holes, theorized state of matter immediately following the BB, etc) set limits on how big they can get, and further, how big they could have gotten by now. First it was 10 million sols, then 50 million, 100 million, 1 billion. Their arguments/evidence/math have always been quite convincing. Yet every limit they have set has been shown to be incorrect. From 2008 ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080909095133.htm Upper Mass Limit For Black Holes? Sep. 10, 2008 — There appears to be an upper limit to how big the Universe's most massive black holes can get, according to new research led by a Yale University astrophysicist and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the Universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centres of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. That was another convincing argument. From Dec. 18, 2012 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121218143000.htm From Super to Ultra: Just How Big Can Black Holes Get? Some of the biggest black holes in the Universe may actually be even bigger than previously thought, according to a study using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Astronomers have long known about the class of the largest black holes, which they call "supermassive" black holes. Long known? Don't think so. Typically, these black holes have masses ranging between a few million and a few billion times that of our sun. This new analysis of the brightest galaxies in a sample of 18 galaxy clusters suggests that the masses of at least ten of the supermassive black holes in these galaxies are ultramassive, in that they weigh between 10 and 40 billion times the mass of the sun. Astronomers refer to black holes of this size as "ultramassive" black holes and only know of a few confirmed examples. "Our results show that there may be many more ultramassive black holes in the universe than previously thought," said study leader Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo of Stanford University and formerly of Cambridge University in the UK. That's such bullshit. They didn't think these things existed at all. "Our next step is to measure the mass of these monster black holes in a similar way to M87, and confirm their existence. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up finding the biggest black holes in the Universe," said Hlavacek-Larrondo. "If our results are confirmed, they will have important ramifications for understanding the formation and evolution of black holes across cosmic time." Yep. Still can't get off the hierarchical theory. I asked Nicholas Suntzeff (you remember, High-z Supernova Team, an expert on black holes, and who argued with me against the possibility of such ultramassives existing ... "James, if they existed, we would have found them by now.") if black holes couldn't be both products of the bang (my centrifugal release) and hierarchical. He couldn't disagree. So now we appear to have evidence of black holes that should not exist. And once again, we have scientist's ignoring the possibility that the BB was something else. And that there might be much much larger black holes already in existence. In any case, this potential discovery (as usual) is predicted by my model. And NOT by the standard model. Or any string model.