jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (101 posts)

Some scientists believe that the black holes are doors to new realms

  1. illogical pine profile image61
    illogical pineposted 6 years ago

    I wonder if it is true (hmm

    1. bsscorpio8 profile image61
      bsscorpio8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How would they KNOW for sure? It is purely speculative.

    2. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A scientist who understands General Relativity will know anything that gets too near a black hole will be spaghettified with most all the properties of matter in it squished out of existence and never escaping it's gravity.

      Is that the realm other scientists wonder about?  smile

      1. bsscorpio8 profile image61
        bsscorpio8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The realm of nothingness!

        1. pisean282311 profile image58
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol..

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        actually they are debunking the concept of singularities. Inside a black hole is another version of the same universe.

        http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/w … 30917.html

        the math holds though.

        1. Beelzedad profile image59
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, I don't get my info from pop sci websites or from pop sci writers who are not scientists. smile

    3. RKHenry profile image78
      RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Only if......

    4. Shahid Bukhari profile image59
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Scientists ... Do you mean Theoretical Physicists ... ?

    5. munirahmadmughal profile image62
      munirahmadmughalposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      munirahmadmughal

      They believe and you wonder. Both have the right to do so. Who is correct will be judged by logic, reason, consistency, and proof by evidence (admissible, relevant and true). Scope for wonder is lesser as the scientists are after the truth and reality and they do not speak unless they have undergone many test and trials. When man is the crown creation and creator has blessed him with all the faculties to explore the hidden treasures of things not unknown and idea thrown by the scientists should not be seen as causing  wonder, rather it should be wonderful.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    I am going to attempt to post a pic of:

    "A Visual Representation of the Theory of Parallel Universes."

    This may take awhile, so please be patient.

  3. Richieb799 profile image62
    Richieb799posted 6 years ago

    It falls into the same category as the 'hidden world at the centre of the earth' categories

    1. optimus grimlock profile image60
      optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the center of the earth theory is trippy when you think about it. How many people have been to the poles 100 or so and how many of those people explored more then a couple miles.

  4. WizardOfOz profile image62
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    its true.  I went for a ride through a black hole.

  5. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    Here comes my first attempt. It is a .gov pic. So go for it as far as saving it is concerned.

  6. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    I got into a black hole once and though it was a new relm for me it felt like the same old same old.

  7. WizardOfOz profile image62
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    did I say black hole.  I meant K hole.  sorry, my bad.

  8. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    Preview does not show. So here is first shot.

    <img src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3355248_f520.jpg" style="display: none;" border="0" height="100%" width="100%">

  9. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    2nd attempt:

    <p align="center"><img src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3355248_f520.jpg" width="100%" >
    A Visual Representation of the Theory of Parallel Universes.</p>

  10. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    Third...


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3355248_f520.jpg

  11. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    I’m sorry about amateur hour. Am living and learning.

  12. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    well there is mathematical basis...so what's in the equation is out there in the universe in some form. You can believe it. Doesn't mean you'll live to see it though.

  13. Len Cannon profile image89
    Len Cannonposted 6 years ago

    Some is not a lot, though.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      its not about how many. it's about who got it. You could be one scientist and if you prove to be right while all the rest are wrong, well you're right.

      1. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, just like when Einstein came up with General Relativity. smile

        1. WizardOfOz profile image62
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Like Einstein.  And, nobody else.  Funny thing this science smile

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            and Benoit Mandelbroth and Pascal and any other mind that changed the way we think of reality...that includes capernicus and ptolemy as well as Johanes Kepler.

      2. WizardOfOz profile image62
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Until you're wrong.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you're long dead by then wink

  14. Daniel J. Neumann profile image61
    Daniel J. Neumannposted 6 years ago

    If they never find a white hole, then it's likely it does lead somewhere.

  15. ss sneh profile image58
    ss snehposted 6 years ago

    Hi!

    Singularity theorems and many world theorems are not science but hypothesizes that are yet to be proved practically.
       
    These are just interpretations of some partial equations which are not complete and hence don't describe reality.

    It's better we treat such hypothesizes that can never be proved as some intellectually stimulating science fiction.

    A scientist's belief in a mathematical equation doesn't make science. -- Thanks

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really, your stand is not to bother. Then lets all pack our bags and go home then.

      General Relativity was just proven this year and at the time, they didn't know how to prove it.  You need a theory to devise an experiment. Theories are there to be tested. You can't have knowledge without working knowledge.

      1. Beelzedad profile image59
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is incorrect. General Relativity was shown to be dead accurate back in 1919 with the perihelion precession of Mercury and later with the deflection of light during a total eclipse. Please try to do your homework before making false claims.

        1. ediggity profile image59
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          General Relativity is still not "dead accurate" to this very day.  Which is shown by your own equation.  Looks like you have a lot of homework to do Mr. Einstein.


          

          [img]http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/einstein.gif[/img]

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is hilarious to me that people who read books about science think they have command on e subject matter.Newsflash if its in a book it is atleast 2 years old.

            1. Beelzedad profile image59
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What's funnier are those who pretend to know what they're talking about. smile

          2. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, it is dead accurate. This has been verified by experimentation. To date, no experiment has yet falsified it. smile

            1. ediggity profile image59
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Verified using assumptions in the Tensor equation to conduct the experiments.  Keep studying..

              1. Beelzedad profile image59
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have no idea what you're talking about. What does my study have to do with anything, or is that an ad hom in place of something to say?  smile

                1. ediggity profile image59
                  ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Ad hom in place of something to say? I now realize you really do not have an idea of what I'm talking about or TGR.  As long as you believe it's true, that's all that matters.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image59
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That is precisely the problem. It would have to do with the fact that you are not communicating in any known fashion that would allow others to understand what it is you're talking about. You never explain yourself. smile

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My dear, it was proven this year. It was big big news. I dont know where you get your sources but i get mine from nature, jastor ans elsevier. I have an account and the raw data is sent to me every monrh. I however was informing you of the news  source of is forum which you are apparently clueless about.

          1. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            General Relativity was demonstrated to be dead accurate many years ago. I have no idea what you're talking about.



            The news source was a pop sci website, no one cares what they think. smile

        3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/ … 862a.html. Dont get snooty on nature as it is the journal scientists use as a resource. They do not release data to just anybody. You have to be qualified. Darn it i cannot even link the exact page. Just search 2010 feb general relativity proven

          1. Beelzedad profile image59
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe for medicine, but not for astrophysics. Try here:

            http://arxiv.org/



            roll

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with cecilia - we couldn't prove man could fly until the Wright Brothers did it.  Someday we'll understand black holes and their singularities.

  16. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    http://www.pimpmyspacecodes.net/Images/Female_Celebrities/Halle_Berry/images/Halle_Berry_0330.jpg

    That's the only black hole I care about!

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      She is a little bit in some other universe dont you think. I mean i appreciate the humour but shes rather old and in need of serious therapy. But yiu know what the say your craziness should be proportional to your hotness and i guess yeah, shes forgiven forgive my ipad spelling

  17. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 6 years ago

    This sounds quite interesting! My dad is a physicist and I just talked a little about it to him. He certainly didn't immediately scoff at it (he already knew about it) and started talking about theories of multiple universes and the math. Ummm, I'm NOT a physicist so I'll just have to go read more about it. My 15 year old is interested in all this too so reading it here gives me a heads-up on what to show him.

  18. profile image0
    Anouserposted 6 years ago

    Sounds more like speculative science fiction.

  19. Uzdawi profile image39
    Uzdawiposted 6 years ago

    I think the so called scientist who believe that,should to some reading about black holes( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole), i see that the article is from 2003 so maybe those "scinetists" didn´t have access to wikipeida:P, although this is very nice theory, this theory will remain science fiction and it´ll never turn in to a science fact.They should to the math again.

  20. ediggity profile image59
    ediggityposted 6 years ago

    That's just it, anyone who understands TGR already knows what the assumption is in the Field Equations.

    Lastly, those were not ad homs.  They were true.  You do crack me up, and if you don't understand the equations you should study them. I only threw in Einstein because you have him as your picture.  I find it ironic that a person with Einstein as their picture doesn't know what the assumptions in the Field Equations are.LOL.

    1. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's it? That's all you have to support your argument? The argument from authority fallacy? You don't point out the blunder you claimed? You don't provide any explanation whatsoever? No math? Nothing? Nada? Zilch?



      Ah, but you have plenty of time, energy and resources to attack me personally with ad homs? Well done, sir!

      1. ediggity profile image59
        ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The equation with the discrepancy is right in front of your face.  I can't help if you don't understand it.  You're the one with Einstein on your picture not me.It's like you speaking to me in another language, and if I didn't understand it, told you that you were attacking me.  LOL, you're funny no matter which name.


        Here is the support for my argument.  It's called Math and Physics.  It's another languange, and if you comprehended it you would understand. 
        http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/einstein.gif

        1. Beelzedad profile image59
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Again, please show me exactly where you see this discrepancy? Yes, you can help me to understand it if you point it out.



          Okay, I'm funny, so what? Can you point out and explain your claim or not?




          You already posted that but you didn't point out your claim. You keep telling me I should be able to spot your claim, but I can't read your mind nor do I have the foggiest of what your talking about?

          If you can't explain what it is your talking about, why are you posting here? Just to tell me that I'm funny?

          1. ediggity profile image59
            ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not the one who claimed General Relativity was "dead accurate", you did.  If you make a claim like that at least have an understanding of the fundamentals. It's not "dead accurate", as shown by Einsteins Field equations, and anyone who uses them already understands this.  It never can be "dead accurate" until physicists/mathematicians confirm the discrepancy.  I'm done, you believe what you want.  Good luck Einstein.

            1. Beelzedad profile image59
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You're done? What did you do exactly? Let me recap.

              You claimed "General Relativity is still not "dead accurate" to this very day."

              You posted a formula and then proceeded to claim there was a blunder and that everyone knew it. You didn't point it out when asked, you didn't explain yourself when asked, you did absolutely nothing but make the claim and then ran away laughing. 

              Am I missing anything here? smile

              1. ediggity profile image59
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, you are missing a lot of something. LOL

                1. Beelzedad profile image59
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I get it now. You found this website and are obsessed with it even though you don't really know what he's talking about.

                  http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html

                  You're confusing the Cosmological Constant with General Relativity. It's an easy thing to be confused about when you don't understand the theory.

                  There are plenty of anti-relativists who are as deeply confused as you simply because they have no understanding. I think they are called woo-woos.


                  Perhaps, you're far better off sticking to the bible. smile

                  1. ediggity profile image59
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    How can one confuse the Cosmological Constant with TGR?  That doesn't make any sense.  I got an idea, tell everyone what the value of the Cosmological Constant is, and problem solved.  It was actually Einstein himself who said the constant was a mistake, not me, or the dude on the website.  Looks like you should stick to COD, LOL.

  21. LeanMan profile image81
    LeanManposted 6 years ago

    I hope so, otherwise they will have to redo all the films where we go whistling through the black holes into another dimension or elsewhere in the universe... But I think more likely that we would just crushed into a very small space until everything floats together and we have another big bang...

  22. mega1 profile image80
    mega1posted 6 years ago

    take, for instance, my relatives -  since they are always changing and cannot be depended on, there cannot be a true equation that will pin them down as defined and absolute.  One just accepts that. 

    as for the black holes as doors to other realms - probably, but since they have built in protection that destroys whatsoever trys to enter, that means we will never know.   One just accepts that.

    barbecue is often very good, but who likes their ribs rare? 

    And is it really possible to eat just one potatoe chip?  I'm currently in the market for a million dollar grant to study this phenomenon.

    1. ediggity profile image59
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Built in protection? It's probably a giant laser.


      I like fall off the bone ribs. Sounds like you want to study the General Theory of Taste-buds.  If you supply the chips, I will participate in your study.  You won't need a million for me to prove that, no, you cannot just eat one potato chip LOL.

  23. Flightkeeper profile image80
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    If black holes are doors to new realms, that would be very cool.  Too bad we don't have the technology to be able to determine it.

    1. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We do, they're called telescopes. There isn't much difference between a star and a black hole other than many of properties of matter in a black hole have been squished out of existence, because a black hole used to be a star that has burned it's fuel and the degeneracy process has been overcome by gravity.

      Going into a black hole is the same as going into the sun, without the sunburn. smile

  24. Beelzedad profile image59
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    Can you also explain the direct verifiable evidence of GR with the discovery of Pulsar 1913+16?

    http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ … sr1913.htm

    And this evidence which shows GR to be "dead accurate" for photon deflection and the perihelion precession?

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403043

    And here with GPS units requiring GR corrections

    http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

    Can you explain any of this with your belief system?

  25. Beelzedad profile image59
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    One more thing, don't forget to login to Wiki and change the article to your belief. We wouldn't want people to think, but instead believe, right?  smile

    "General relativity's predictions have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest  theory that is consistent with experimental data."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

  26. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 6 years ago

    If they do lead to other places, whatever gets pumped out of that "white" hole on the other side will be shredded and squished by the extreme gravity of the "black" hole. And no Heisenberg compensator to put it all back together!

  27. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    One of my favorite games of all time is called "Alpha Centauri".

    In it, there's a quote: "what events actually transpire beyond an event horizon? Well, decent people shouldn't think about that..."

    Translation: Even if there is a "gateway to a new realm"... you won't live to see it.

  28. M'Lady Grimm profile image60
    M'Lady Grimmposted 6 years ago

    Based on the Theory of Parallel Protogenesis, black holes are remnant pools of compacted antemater which atomic matter cannot penetrate. The sheer density of this "quark" solid does not permit the expanded neutron fabric upon which atomic matter allows dispersion of energy, therefore the concept of a black hole "swallowing" expanded matter is a misnomer. Rather, for unknown reasons, the expanded neutron fabric begins to compact, energy is wrung out of the fabric in the release of electrons and protons, and the quark substances of the neutron fabric collapses back into an antemater solid.

    If there exists a dimensional reality based on the framework of the quark solid,it is most likely based on an energy dimension very unlike our own; one transfixed beyond our concept of Time.

    1. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's odd, black holes are supposed to be the remnants of stars in which gravity has overcome the process of neutron degeneracy.



      huh?

  29. Idude607 profile image60
    Idude607posted 6 years ago

    More like doors to straight Oblivion! Blackholes are the most powerful entity we have known, not even light can escape it. Makes me wonder how these "scientists" come up with such findings.

    1. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Scientific Method.

      http://www.scientificmethod.com/

      Hope this helps. smile

  30. gogetter4u profile image60
    gogetter4uposted 6 years ago

    yeah..please go to books and literature post and click on "let's write a story..people are adding to the story and it's funny..good way to get known...keep adding to the story to see how far it goes...

  31. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
    Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years ago

    A black hole is the very opposite of the science fiction idea of a door or portal to a new or parallel universe. A black hole is the densest, most solid object conceivable; an object in which everything - even atoms - has become squashed out of existence. If you enter a black hole, the last thing you can do is go through it, because it isn't a hole.

    1. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I guess if you become squashed out of existence you do enter a new realm - the spiritual realm. hmm

  32. dutchman1951 profile image59
    dutchman1951posted 6 years ago

    of that realm is a smarter one, send me, I am tired of this world.  smile

 
working