Education dumbs people down. That is what I mean
when I say you have lost your common sense frank!
You've traded it in for the security of a sheepskin.
Most intellectuals, you included, are compensators
compensating for some inferiority by doing what they
think will make them superior.
So you make yourself smart.
I know that I am not smart. But I want to know what is!
Most people who don't have at least a Bachelor degree have a similar attitude. I'd have to say Nick that with all your posts on this board I think your trying to prove something here. But it will never compensate for that sheepskin...
Nick go to school and get that sheepskin you'll be glad you did.
You can't start the universe
out at one point with an indivisible mixture of matter and
antimatter. Only more light would come out!
Why not? Obviously, there can be no matter and anti-matter at one single point. But what about energy? And what about wave-particle duality? If we consider the mass/matter as waves then they can accomodate any amount of space, large or small.
I believe that there are no black holes but there is an extreme of gravity of which we are oberving at the center of all galaxies.
Can I ask why you don't believe in black holes?
From your other posts I'm getting the impression that you see black holes as wells of infinte gravity, and maybe this is why you don't believe in them?
Black holes don't have infinte gravity. Nothing has. To have infinite gravity requires infinite mass. However, there exists, like you said, extremes of gravity; in some of these cases, the strength of the gravity field is so strong that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. This is a black hole.
Black holes aren't (to an extent) the strange, mystical objects that many people perceive them to be. They're simply the end product of very high mass stars. With even very little knowledge of physics it's possible to see how black holes are created; in fact, it's almost common sense!
In general, I prefer to know or not, by direct experience, rather than believe.
Have you ever seen a hole that had any specific colour being reflected from the nonexistent absence and emptiness? Black is our perceptual sensation of the absence of light and holes were never expected to reflect, absorb or emit light, and that is why the name "black-hole" is extremely ridiculous (for starters).
Now let us examine the "wanton physics" of the relativists.
Firstly, sound is a wave that must be propagated by matter, while light is also a wave that must be propagated by the background of matter that we call vacuum.
Please notice that both Yin and Yang are media and we can selectively choose one of them to be the foreground when the other is the background. While sound has a constant speed for every stationary medium, light too has the same; and while the speed of sound can be exceeded by trajectories propelled to supersonic speeds and braking the sound barrier, the speed of light too can theoretically be exceeded by trajectories propelled to superluminous speeds and braking the light barrier.
Magic is a word telling one his ignorance, and nature has no such word among its vocabulary.
Nature's best known phenomenon is that of cycles, beginning with time and ending with the universe.
As Nick says, gravity extremes exist, and that should have one meaning; that nature can allow that much mass in one place and can allow no more. Pressure and temperature rising at core of mass under self-gravitation dictates a density and a volume as a consequence; then exceeding thresholds should cause a supernova or cause a superluminal leakage of matter along the axis of a swirling super-stellar mass.
In other words, the relativistic silly "black-holes" do not exist as predicted, and not even close.
What was found is a completely different phenomena that should have been called the galactic recycling centres.
All elements and intergalactic radioactive dust is generated by those GRC.
Just like water vapour condensing into droplets of water in cold atmosphere and falling as rain, the cosmic condensation yields young stars burning brightly within the newly born galaxy that was recycled.
I think it is about time to declare the fallacy of the so called black-holes. _________________ Hemetis
the speed of light too can theoretically be exceeded by trajectories propelled to superluminous speeds and braking the light barrier.
Can you show this, please?
HEMETIS wrote:
Pressure and temperature rising at core of mass under self-gravitation dictates a density and a volume as a consequence; then exceeding thresholds should cause a supernova or cause a superluminal leakage of matter along the axis of a swirling super-stellar mass.
Your description of rising pressure and thus temperature is considered standard for the death of stars. But why whould there be a "superluminal leakage" of matter? What causes the matter to travel faster than light?
Light speed is a universal speed limit.
He is wrong about superluminous speeds conor.
If you caught up to time/light time would stop all the way.
But there are no ends to time; not even so in a
"black hole."
Time continues. It may slow down in motion and
gravity but it never stops!
This is the very continuity of physical law.
End time and you end everything else.
And this simply doesn't happen.
If you don't believe me you can believe what the
first physicists to solve the equations for black holes
saw. They saw matter literally dropping out of the
universe. But we are looking at black holes at the
centers of galaxies and they are stable.
The fact that black holes are stable; that we do
not see galaxies unraveling from their centers disappearing;
is evidence that time never ends.
I believe that there are no black holes but there is an extreme of gravity of which we are oberving at the center of all galaxies.
Can I ask why you don't believe in black holes?
From your other posts I'm getting the impression that you see black holes as wells of infinte gravity, and maybe this is why you don't believe in them?
I gave you what you need to know on your other post about
the universe being infinite. Black holes fail by predicting
infinite waves emitted at their event horizons. IOW there
is an infinite gravitational redshift to light emitted there.
General Relativity has this prediction of energyless light
at the surface of a black hole.
Energyless light?
PoppyCock.
As Hawking said GR predicts its own downfall by predicting
infinities. This is the death null for any theory.
But he did not go far enough. He saw the problem at
the singularity and not an equivalent one at the
horizon.
Black holes are the very failure of the General Theory of
Relativity. There is only a finite strength to gravity as you
suggest. But this means there can only be a finite redshift
to light emitted at the extreme of gravity. They ought not
be called "black holes" but dim holes. All light comes out
but it can come out very redshifted.
I am overlooking the fact that "black holes" eject.
So in that sense they are not what is implied.
I do not believe black hole "ejection" is fully
understood.
the speed of light too can theoretically be exceeded by trajectories propelled to superluminous speeds and braking the light barrier.
Can you show this, please?
HEMETIS wrote:
Pressure and temperature rising at core of mass under self-gravitation dictates a density and a volume as a consequence; then exceeding thresholds should cause a supernova or cause a superluminal leakage of matter along the axis of a swirling super-stellar mass.
Your description of rising pressure and thus temperature is considered standard for the death of stars. But why whould there be a "superluminal leakage" of matter? What causes the matter to travel faster than light?
Conor
Both of your questions, dear Conor, can be answered by the same one answer.
The physics of the "galactic recycling centres" AKA GRC is quite peculiar and like nothing we can replicate on earth. They are wrongly thought to be the mythical and ridiculous black-holes that were invented before even looking for evidence of such a thing.
Theoretically, it was believed that the maximal density of matter was that of the atomic nucleus of any atom, thus, a star is called a neutron star because it must be neutral at the macro-scale, hence, it should be assumed to be made of condensed neutrons. I shall not elaborate on neutron decay within a gravitational gradient as it would take us off topic. No other form of matter can be denser than neutrons and be yet stable over long periods of time.
There is a critical density (deformed neutrons are almost pentagonal-dodecahedrons) beyond which the topology of matter that causes mass-gravitational-function breaks down (wave-function-collapses). When this happens, a spontaneous chain reaction takes place above the critical mass threshold and the gravitational force that was originally holding the star together breaks down with increasing core pressure inducing further breakdown and a supernova is the result. Notice that in case of a supernova the topology of the chain-reaction at the core is spherically-cosy-static.
In a GRC, we have a curl function and we can usually see many spiral arms around that galactic core.
This means that we have a dynamic divergence similar to centrifugal forces found in any spinning set or group of elements. That divergence has a spinor configuration space, the direction of which is radially away from the GRC axis of rotation. The consequence then is that we have pressure superposition gradient in the same direction, which allows for a new phenomenon to take place.
The Zero Point Fluctuations in vacuum may not allow for electromagnetic frequency to exceed the metaphysical carrier, but along the axis of a GRC matter can vibrate at higher frequencies than the upper-bound of vacuum.
Since the wavelength may not be a Zero with an infinite frequency yielding undefined propagation speeds, the energy-blue-shift at the core of a GRC along its axis of rotation violates covariance in principle. Most probably a minimal wavelength (proportional to Planck's length) exists, and when combined with that increase of energy-density, which is proportional to the increase in wave frequency a very ordered topological relation emerges, in which the gravitation of new-matter is in the plane of rotation and tangential to the imaginary circular orbit defined by the distance of each particle of matter from the axis of rotation, such that we have a product of a curl and convergence; at the same time old-matter, which was extremely deformed begins to leek along the axis of rotation at superluminal speed. This topology is almost identical to the magnetic field of a two rod-type permanent magnets, placed in opposition with like-poles directed towards the core. That is why matter is very strongly repelled along the axis of rotation and extremely attracted along the orthogonal plane (in which the GRC rotates) but tangentially to avoid violating the magnetic interaction field. That is why spiral galaxies are spiral and rotate in the first place. Of course this also means that the core of the GRC takes the shape of a doughnut surrounding a double spiked (conical mountains) shell and an absolutely empty central space.
You can find many references on this, including very recent work by Wheeler and other prominent cosmology theoretical physicists. In fact, the upper class of theoretical physicists began to reject the classic hypothesis of spherical black holes. The Schwarzschild radius is not even close to applicable. _________________ Hemetis
Wow,
It's like reading an argument over whether or not the earth is flat!
Quote:
Are you saying that it does not bother you that the original claim is that all the matter of the universe was confined into a dimensionless singular point!
Are you saying that it (it's) fine to neglect the gravitational power of matter and allow such incredible mass to expand out rather than fall in like assumed to happen with black holes that are predicted by the same theory that predicts the big bang!
It does bother me; furthermore, I don't think (for reasons I can not say) matter could exist without any form of deminsions
I know of another theory which predicts black holes and the big bang, and it makes sense. But until I get a grasp on mathmatics I cannot share it with you.
Quote:
By GR that would make the Big Bang
a Black Hole and there would be no possibility of
expansion. I don't believe in black holes so the
Big Bang's gravity is not a problem for me.
This reminds me of the fruitless argument that evolution is not real.
There is as much evidence for black holes as there is for relativity and evolution. Scientists can see them indirectly, through viewing them in binary systems. What this is is gases being sucked from one star by "nothing", and the star that you can see appears to orbit "nothing".
Frankinstien is right, you should go back to hi-school.
It also appears that you guys have no idea what the big bang/expansion of the universe actually is. Let me enlighten you.
I will start with the expansion.
A common miss consumption is that matter is accelerating from one another, this is not so. What is expanding is space-time. Think of the universe as if it were a balloon. Inside the balloon are rubber bands. One end is fastened to the outer membrane, while the other is fastened to a center point. At the middle of the rubber bands are tiny balls. Once you begin inflating the balloon, the rubber bands stretch, and the balls separate.
If this were not so, there would be an ever growing "hole" in the center of the universe where matter is leaving.
The Big Bang was the result of space-time's sudden explosion, and had nothing to do with matter. The "black hole" inside what was before the Big Bang would have crumbled, and formed quasars, and other high energy objects.
Quote:
But do you really think a mindless lump created
the universe?
What in hell is that supposed to mean?
Quote:
After all where would the original singular matter
escape to? There's no where for it to go since
the space-time would be singular to!
If you still don't know the answer to this, reread my post.
Quote:
Reading books can only take you so far.
After that something else must happen.
You are right about that, but nothing has happened for you.
Quote:
You talk about education? You got it backwards.
Einstein said: Education is what is left over
after you have forgotten everything you ever
learned in school.
Education dumbs people down. That is what I mean
when I say you have lost your common sense frank!
You've traded it in for the security of a sheepskin.
What Einstein meant was that you learn stuff, and what ever you don't forget is your education.
I find that hard to believe, since you are the dumb one here.
Quote:
Have you ever seen a hole that had any specific colour (color) being reflected from the nonexistent absence and emptiness? Black is our perceptual sensation of the absence of light and holes were never expected to reflect, absorb or emit light, and that is why the name "black-hole" is extremely ridiculous (for starters).
Black is the absence of light; you said so yourslef. Black holes neither emit nor reflect light. Thus, light is absent. Quite frankly, you talk in circles. It is a hole because it is a hole in space-time. It sucks everything into the hole, thus, it is a "black hole".
Quote:
Firstly, sound is a wave that must be propagated by matter
Actually, sound is the compression and expansion of atoms (don't be confussed, the atoms themselves do not compress or expand), which is why if a super nova occurs near earth, we would never hear it.
Quote:
Please notice that both Yin and Yang are media and we can selectively choose one of them to be the foreground when the other is the background. While sound has a constant speed for every stationary medium, light too has the same; and while the speed of sound can be exceeded by trajectories propelled to supersonic speeds and braking the sound barrier, the speed of light too can theoretically be exceeded by trajectories propelled to superluminous ([b]super luminous) speeds and braking the light barrier.[/b]
Actually, this is not so. Once you reach the speed of light, time stands still relative to you, your mass is infinite--provided you started out with mass--and you have to have an infinite force behind you. It is impossible to exceede the speed of light because in order to do so, you would have to have an infinite+ force pushing you. And since there is nothing greater than infinity, that won't be happening anytime soon.
I am looking forward to a serious ass chewing.
Ta, ta _________________ If we do not learn from our mistakes, there is no point in having them.
A common miss consumption is that matter is accelerating from one another, this is not so. What is expanding is space-time. Think of the universe as if it were a balloon. Inside the balloon are rubber bands. One end is fastened to the outer membrane, while the other is fastened to a center point. At the middle of the rubber bands are tiny balls. Once you begin inflating the balloon, the rubber bands stretch, and the balls separate.
If this were not so, there would be an ever growing "hole" in the center of the universe where matter is leaving.
The Big Bang was the result of space-time's sudden explosion, and had nothing to do with matter. The "black hole" inside what was before the Big Bang would have crumbled, and formed quasars, and other high energy objects.
A 'hole' in the center of the Universe?? Hang on now. By hole I presume you mean an empty space, free of matter. Why would there be a hole?
First of all, there is no unique center to the universe. Take the balloon again and draw a load of dots over its surface. The surface of the balloon represents the universe. Now blow it up and you will see the dots move away from each other. Where's the center? It's nowhere: you can select any dot on the surface and you will see all the other dots move away from it. In effect, everywhere can be considered the center of the universe. Furthermore, if you increase the rate by which you blow air into the balloon, the balloon expands faster, i.e. any dot is accelerating away from any other dot (a change in velocity).
Also, I refrain from using the word 'explosion' when talking about the Big Bang (from the GR persective). 'Explosion' makes it sound as though matter spread out into space that was already there. Rather, it was the expansion of space itself that was the Big Bang, an expansion we can still observe today.
First of all, there is no unique center to the universe. Take the balloon again and draw a load of dots over its surface. The surface of the balloon represents the universe. Now blow it up and you will see the dots move away from each other. Where's the center? It's nowhere: you can select any dot on the surface and you will see all the other dots move away from it. In effect, everywhere can be considered the center of the universe.
The balloon expands from a single point, that is its center. If the balloon deflates to the point were it's an infinitly small dot, it is at its center. _________________ If we do not learn from our mistakes, there is no point in having them.
The balloon expands from a single point, that is its center. If the balloon deflates to the point were it's an infinitly small dot, it is at its center.
Were dealing with the surface membrane of the balloon only, not anything inside or outside the balloon. Granted, it only gives a 2D representation of a 3D system, but the analogy still holds.
If, as you say, the balloon were to deflate to an infinitely small point, then the entire balloon is in this point. Apply this to the universe: if the universe were an infinitely small point - and this point was the 'center' of the universe (by this I mean the point from which space expanded) - then it follows that everywhere in the universe is the center point. If everywhere can be considered a center point of the universe, then we should see objects moving away from this point in all directions, with their velocities equal at equal distances from the point. And ya know what? We can see this!
Now, if we take your idea and apply it to the universe, we should be able to see objects in one direction move away from the point slower than in the opposite direction - from the viewpoint of one of the balls on the elastic band the membrane of your balloon would appear to be moving away from the ball faster than the center point appears to be moving away from it. If we could see this effect, then we should be able to pinpoint where in the universe its unique center is; but we can't!
I'm not here to wage a debate over whether or not the universe has a center. All I am saying is that if space-time at one time occupied a small area, someone outside of our universe could see it as a little ball. And if it expands, it will--appear to the onlooker--to be expanding from a certain point--a center. I am not saying it has a center, all I am saying is that to the on looker it does. _________________ If we do not learn from our mistakes, there is no point in having them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")