It is one thing to document something mathematically. It is quite another to prove something mathematically. It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics. After awhile, mathematics turns into a huge shell game.
And yet the subject of quantum mechanics is so weird it can only be understood by humans (insofar we can understand that subject at all) by the application of mathematics.
Mathematical modelling of QM shows such horrors contrary to common sense as the statement that a fundamental particle can never have both position and speed known - not because of our lack of measurement but because it is inherent in the physics. That light is both particle and wave, that particles can suddenly tunnel through solid barriers without apparently traversing the distance (the tunnel diode exploits this phenomenon).
Common sense says all these things shouldn't happen - maths shows exactly how they can ......and do.
Are you aware that the mathematical predications behind QM are the most accurate science modelling EVER achieved? The mathematics has been born out by the experimental data from accelerators such as the LHC and the accuracy of the results have been likened to predicting the width of North America to the thickness of a human hair!!
That's the power of mathematics for you.....some shell game!
Take a round sponge and run a pole through it. Now soak the sponge and spin the pole. You will see the water come out at the equator of the sponge and it will come out in the shape of a spiral. The sponge is the super massive black hole and the water represents the stars.
Let me get this straight - you are comparing centuries of work done by scientists in astronomy from Copernicus through to Einstein, Hubble, Schwarzschild, Dirac, Penrose, Freeman, Hawking......
....and you are saying all these great minds have got it wrong because they failed to stick a wet sponge on a stick and spin it round?
Do you not think you could be just a teeny weenie bit wrong here???
So far, all this and we haven't moved an inch. I have so much more to reveal but you have not shown me you are ready to understand it.
Not wishing to sound mean - but do you really expect much excitement from debators here to a chap who would like to challenge orthodox astronomy using his 'science' as coming from spinning a sponge on a stick?
If you are then I have to admit you do a bloody good parody.
If not then ......well I assure you with all the muster I can generate that Hawkings would not have changed his cosmology stance of the strength of a theory advanced by someone with no working math who thinks he can model the universe by spinning a sponge on a stick.
I'm sorry bud you have no idea how way out of it you are (way out as meaning utter nonsense rather than merely revolutionary).
When all the world's renowned experts go one way and you go another there is a tiny chance you are the lone genius (Einstein comes to mind here) or - as far more likely - you haven't the foggiest notion of the principles under discussion.
To give you a clue about which is most likely - Einstein used A LOT of math in his formulation of Special and General Relativity.
And you have?........a sponge spinning on a stick !! Get it yet?
I do have to applaud an accomplishment on your part. You managed to draw a response from Son Goku, one of the resident physicists. If you can manage to formulate questions that get him to respond, you might well learn something.
If he can elicit a response from Cavediver then he will really hit the jackpot. (I doubt he'd like the response however!)