Our Universe, A Black Hole
72
A black hole is caused when a neutron stars mass becomes so dense that it collapses in on itself.
A neutron star is an extremely small star, maybe a 10 kilometer radius, whose density is about 100 million tones per cubic centimeter. They very, but this is what a neutron star is like. So you can imagine how dense this tiny star is, and how much power this compact little itsy bitsy star can generate.
The Event Horizon is the line of light outside the black hole in which we are able to see the black hole as it is gobbling up everything in its path. It's the lights wall of death, turn right and get sucked in, nothing escapes a black hole.
Black holes are said to be round and do not orbit other celestial objects so they free orbit space itself collecting whatever comes into its gravity field which changes according to its mass. The more it collects the more powerful it becomes.
Our Universe must be an extremely dense black hole that has collected all of what we know about space itself.
|
Black Holes: And Other Bizarre Space Objects (Science Frontiers)
Price: $5.11
List Price: $8.95 |
|
National Geographic: Monster Black Holes
Price: $13.95
List Price: $19.98 |
|
Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy (Commonwealth Fund Book Program)
Price: $8.10
List Price: $18.95 |
|
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries
Price: $7.30
List Price: $15.95 |
My theory of the Universe
Our Universe is round, more likely a black hole.
The theory right now is that the Universe is expanding and the farther out we go the faster it seems to be expanding. I personally disagree.
I believe that our Universe is a black hole and to the contrary, I believe that when our singularity of a neutron star collapsed, it didn't actually explode or implode. Instead the weight became so massive and hot that it simply started to sink into the fabric of space-time.
Our Universe is interconnected by strings in every which way, like taking a piece of cloth and putting it in a cup and dropping rocks into it, the more weight that gets adds, the more it pulls the fabric down with it.
So the Event Horizon isn't so much the line between life and death, but rather light cones that are connected to the fabric of space itself that is being pulled down like a magically extending string of light that was always attached to the neutron star.
Our Universe is not expanding. Think of it as our Falling Universe, a black hole in which case the father we fall the more massive our gravity becomes sucking in new celestial objects which gives us the appearance of an expanding Universe, but what we are actually doing is becoming more massive, more dense. Or in other words, our Universe has always been retracting. All that has been connected to our universal plain will always be attached to it. So then the more massive we become the faster we fall, which creates the illusion that the further we look into space, the faster it seems to go.
Of course there is dispute of absolute infinity but to find an end to the means of space...I think we are better off concluding that the Universe is a black hole and we are continuously being refined and recycled into space.
So if you ever wondered what was on the otherside of a black hole, we look at it all the time. If I had to guess, I would say that the black circle shown by the Event Horizon puts a twist on space fabric, as though there are many lineages of space fabric and the only way to connect to another parallel is to become so heavy that it will pull space fabric down to it.
Our Universe is falling and the matter attached to our fabric sheet is attached to every partical, every matter, every light cone, like an intricatly woven pattern, nothing lost, nothing gained.
While we are spiraling down the worm hole of our Universal black hole, I would expect that at some time in the extremely distant future, that everything will eventually again become even hotter and more dense and rip once more into our space maze.
I would say we need another name for the Universe, if in fact; we are sitting in a black hole. Or we could call it, The Universe Absolute Constant or TUAC.
The black hole settles
Our Universal Black Hole settles down on the next plain of space fabric. As it settles it gets laid out in the order of which it was sucked down.
Now imagine that cloth that was held over a cup that had the rocks dropped into it finally reaches the bottom and the fabric starts to unfold or sprawl out to into its original shape, like a tablecloth... an added layer of space.
As it settles over the next Universal plain of fabric its weight comes over a less dense part of the fabric and then it stars again, now pulling both plains with it. Like water, it dips down according to its weight, absorbs its surroundings and becomes the surface.
- Meade ETX 125 Telescope
My boyfriend got me the Meade ETX 125 telescope for my birthday and anniversary. It's nice to know that he was listening all those times I had my head tilted towards the stars rambling on and on about our...
- Black holes are cosmic factories for building galaxies, scientists believeDaily Telegraph19 hours ago
Research may help explain why large galaxies have black holes at their cores.
- Do Black Holes Build Their Own Galaxies?redOrbit29 hours ago
Notes[1] Supermassive black holes are found in the cores of most large galaxies; unlike the inactive and starving one sitting at the center of the Milky Way, a fraction of them are said to be active, as they eat up enormous amounts of material. These frantic actions produce a copious release of energy across the whole electromagnetic spectrum; particularly spectacular is the case of quasars ...
- A new big bang in the making as binary black holes races towards a collision – an advanced extraterrestrial experiment ...India Daily2 days ago
Scientists have found binary black holes racing towards each other for massive big bang alike collision. A new universe is in the making. Our Universe has some natural ability where an event horizon is always associated with a singularity.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Internet baby! It's easy to find these pictures when you know what to look for. Thanks for reading LisaG. x's
The NASA site, or other astronomy/space website?
Doyee, what was I thinking. Thanks Walker. :)
I knew it would be interesting. Thanks for the trip through, the Black Hole.
That was great, and loved the pics.
These theories are very difficult to understand atleast for me.i cannt understand.
I've never heard the 'universe as block-hole' theory before. Interesting. I know that there are supposedly millions of black-holes IN the universe.
Some astronomers believe the universe to be shrinking, due to the existence of black holes - as they're absorbing everything around them. This makes sense to me. If you follow that theory to his eventual conclusion, you wind up with one giant black hole, sucking in the whole known cosmos, black holes and all. The mass becomes so incredible that, what do we have? Another Big Bang. The birth of another cosmos. Then the whole process starts all over again.
It boggles my mind to wonder; How many times this must have happened: Billions, trillions, numbers we cannot fathom. How many more times will it repeat?
Deep stuff.
Walker: I wonder how many times this has happened too. It really woudn't in the slightest suprise me if we have lived all over the cosmos but never knew it.
If there was a way to determind which way was exactly up, in the Cosmos, we could probabaly see which lineage we are going to next. It's pretty a pretty increadable place we live in though ehh? Thanks for the comments.
And thanks for reading everyone, hugs and blesssin's.
Your theory is certainly very original and since nothing is really "carved in stone", as they say, who knows?Personally I still favor the current evaluation of an accelerating universe. That includes all the galaxies, black holes, neutron stars and everything else. It falls in very well with the laws of thermodynamics and the inevitable heat death that must result from maximum entropy.heat death The eventual dispersion of all of the energy within a physical system to a completely uniform distribution of heat energy, that is, to maximum entropy. Heat death for all macroscopic physical systems, including the universe, is predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.As the universe continues to expand, all the matter and energy will move toward a state of uniformity. It will eventually become inert. A preponderance of evidence gathered by highly trained specialists over a long period of time really does indicate that the universe is still expanding and at an accelerating speed. Having said that, of course tomorrow, new evidence may be found that gives credence to your black hole theory. That’s the beauty of science; while remaining open to the spiritual and able to change when reality requires, it seeks truth in the form of FACTS rather than the blind immovable dogma of organized religion.
True, I think the second law of thermodynamics will still prevail, I don't really see a way to dispute it, but maybe it will happen just a little differently.
I also figure if the Universe is actually falling, it could be the cause of dark energy. I think it would also give some insight as to why space itself stays at a -450 c.
-450C?
Please check here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/secti
As of this time there is no consistent temperature of space. Once maximum entropy is reached that may be a different story.Well not according to what I have read and understood, but I did make a mistake it is -450F, or -270C apx.
But this temp. would be in dead areas of space, where the only thing colder then space found this far is the boomerange nebula which is about -457F or -272C.
But hey, if this is true then someone should really alert the the writers of the Universe and let them know that they are giving out false information.
Anyways, it's ok to be good on your theory or the general consensus. I can resolve the universe the way it seems to make more sense to myself. But if you have any ideas of your own, please share, I could be willing to change my mind if you throw something new my way that would make me think.
You seem bent on entropy so of course my idea goes againts the grain. I was hoping I would get a hubber such as you. Thanks.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-temperature-in
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer
All these links are talking about either an average temperature or the temperature in one very specific area of space.
Ergo, there is no one temperature which can be catagorically applied to the entire universe.
Yeah, it's called space. lol.
What you are talking about is the radiation changing the temp of space in different areas of space. Ergo, I see why you consider there isn't a space temp. uniformity.
I sometimes refere to the Universe as chaos, and what I theorize is that this illusion of entropy you consider is or was already uniformed.
Your a Hawkings fan huh?
Oddly enough, entropy is a component of chaos theory. So, I guess, essentially we have a very similar view of the universe in general.
It's likely. Thanks for posting with me though, I enjoyed it. :)
ColdWarBaby is clearly is scientist... or should be, And amen to your comment regarding religion.
Not a scientist...but I do love science!
Thank you!
Oh gee thanks, I guess I am just chopped liver in my own darn hub. lol
I don't think chopped liver is at all applicable. Your thought process, creativity and originality are clearly exceptional. Maybe filet mignon. Just kidding, I truly appreciate the opportunity to share your thoughts.
So, what's wrong with chopped liver? Some sauteed onions, not over-cooked, please. Some nice seasonings. Maybe with some mashed potatoes on side? Yes, please. Green beans? Oh, I don't know. Are they fresh? I don't really like canned.
Wait a mintue... who was chopped liver, again? Oh, that's right. Well, why is she chopped liver? I don't get it. Of all the things someone could be, why chopped liver? Why not a nice princess, or something like that?
Oy, kids these days...
It's been nearly fifty years since I was a "kid"!
Oy!
Kidding aside; Sandra, are you a scientist, astronomy hobbyist?
naa, I just have an ego, lol.
Wow, awesome hub. I heard one theory that the universe is continually expanding so if our universe is a black hole that would make sense. If our universe is a black hole absorbing everything yet falling through that means it is constantly changing itself and probably as a means of self renewal.
The black hole settles picture resembles a chalice. Hmm...That chalice reminds me of something, the Holy Grail. That chalice had inexhaustible life force.
Thank you Sandra. I really enjoyed reading this hub. :)
Intriguing! it may be true that black holes are entrances to other dimensions of time-space or and/or to other galaxies or universes. In fact, that is what our pastor bneleives might be what believers have termed heaven and hell, among other places.  it also goes well with the Asian Yin-Yang representing opposite magnetic poles and the earth flipping poles every so many 1000s of years. :)
The scientists on staff at church - yes, we have professionals of many fields :) -  think that over HALF the mass of our universe is already "down the drain" of a black hole (5 years ago, in fact) and that we will slip all the way through in our lifetimes. Much excitement! Â
Yeah, I can possibly concieve of that. It is a bit exciting. Thanks Patty.
good theories
nice theory, shame it is limited to a 2 dimensional model. But I can understand the complexities of imaging a 3 dimensional representation of such a model. Can I ask you this? If a star which is free moving in space, collapses and eventually becomes a 'black hole', where is the connection through which the material passes thru to the other 'universe'. I find this impossible to imagine as it is all rhetoric and theoretic.
What if you imagine something like 'bubble wrap'? Where all the bubbles (which represent each universe) are interconnected by a 'black hole'. and when the pressure in one hole decreases enough it sucks the air (or matter?) from all adjacent bubbles. Is this a possible 2 dimensional model which can be extrapolated easily into a 3 dimensional model. (even if you implement the 4th dimension of time, the model still seems to work?????
Bounce that one around ur head for a bit......
squizzyfish@hotmail.co.uk
First, let me say Nick, we can think of as many deminsions as you would like to, my theory here isn't suggesting two demensions, it suggest an unsaid number of demensions starting with two or one, whatever floats your boat.
Second, in my theory the star does not actually explode or collapse it just gets so heavey it sinks. So I couldn't say for sure which way up or down is, but that it just sinks down.
I am thinking about your bubble wrap analogy and I see what you mean according to a string like theory, however I can only imagine that if a sheet of bubble wrap was our model for a black hole, the air that escaped from one bubble being popped would make our black hole lighter, when nothing can escape, also with black holes they can only become more dense, so the release of anything goes againts the rule.
So I say, that if another piece of space fabric became so heavy it weighed down on one bubble of our bubble wrap universe, then that would be the position of a less dense portion of fabric where the hole cycle starts again.
However I can imagine a redefined bubble wrap universe. So let's say that the other Univrse hold was so dense (and so small infact, or unimaginabley large) that it could fit into one bubble of our bubble wrap universe, what we have created is a multi dimentional model, with one constant. TUAC.
Or maybe I missunderstood your analogy. Love to discuss this more with you. Thanks for reading.
PS. Incase I didn't answer clearly enough...the star would be so small which equals extremely dense, that it could pass through without becoming altered. Space is much, much larger than we can actually put our minds around, so too can something be so small we can not wrap our minds around it, except to say anti-matter, which would or could be what actually happenes to the star when it becomes a black hole. If a star explodes or sheds anything I think it would be a nebula.
I am not suggesting a hole in the exterior of the bubble wrap, more to the contrary, a hole into an adjacent bubble. You say the release of anything from a black hole goes against the rule??? this assumption is based upon the extremely small timespan that black holes have been studied. how can a positive judgement be made on one small analysis. EG. for centuries scientists believed the earth was the centre of the solar system, and someone (ptolemy??) created a working model which accurately portrayed the movement and could predict the future positions with a huge degree of accuracy. Even though the model was completely wrong. Until copernicus created the currently believed model.
Is it posible that our current analogy of the universe is like an early geocentric model whereby it is close but not quite correct?
From my 'bubble theory' (LOL) the black hole would release matter into the next bubble (Universe) and from the adjacent bubble all that would be seen is an explosion of matter being released into that bubble.
Is it not possible that a black hole is not a hole?
That it is purely a physical 'description' based on appearance when in actuality due to the event horizon blocking the reality, a black hole is simply a super-mass. I understand that scientists and writers like to add a level of mysticism? or just to glamorise it into something which it 'could be'.
Well, whatever be the case, in my mind. All that is here will always be here. Nothing gained nothing lost.
Soooo...I guess my P.S wasn't clear enough for you to understand. No offense, but you sound like a dingaling.
whats a dingaling?
i never discussed this before with anyone see.... thats why its random...
does anyone truly understand what a black hole is? lol
I was kidding about the dingaling thing. I just thought it sounded funny. I am sorry if you took me seriously. I appologize. On a serious note I am interested in what you have to say.
Some minds are too boring. Not yours!
A black hole would be pure mass. Like a rock in the bucket weighing it down.
Nick. We don't fully understand black holes, as we can only study them from afar ...I mean aFAR, and speculate, but here's some of the few things we think we know about black holes:
i cant fathom the fact that such gravity would collapse the nuclear structure within the atoms to such a level. it must totally change the qualities of the substance. it would probably deviate from the standard physical laws we take for granted as there would be no chemical bonding, just forced bonding of protons, neutrons and electrons. is it possible the force would not only squash them together but permanently bond them together in some way? creating a new form of matter?
given the gravity associated with this matter would it be possible to actually hold it? given that the gravitational attraction between 2 objects is based on multiplying the two masses and dividing by 4*pi*mu 0*r squared where r is the distance between them because wouldnt it simply suck u in... lol. weird to think about such a substance knowing we could never poke it, prod it or assess it closely...
I see what you are saying Nick. You are right. It doesn't actually collapse but is forced bonded by gravity. Like a neutron star. It has been compressed so much that it is essentially one element that is so small about a mile across but with a mass of something like a million tons per cubic centimeter.
So the general theory is that a neutron star is just shy of making itself into a black hole.
trying to fathom how a cubic centemeter can weigh a hunderd million tons is insane.
Your ideas have not deviated, they have already been calculated, however I do believe you are on to something, so keep talking until we can identify what you are trying to say.
So far I you are saying that the sheer force of gravity creates a bond, not a chemical bond, but it does. Everytime we breath we create a chemical bond. Our brains secrete chemicals as well so.. Like nuclear fusion. The elements were already present at the time of the big bang. But the density of the matter together in such a small "thing" created a bang.
Which we could very well be sitting on the otherside of an implosion. You see what I mean? But my theory about what came before the big bang (nuclear fusion) is cold fussion. The complete opposite. With cold fussion, I can imagine it being like water tranforming to ice. Water weighs less in the liquid form than it does as ice, or less as gas as it does to water or ice.
So I think you are describing the big bang.
I greatly enjoyed the article and all the comments. Just my personal opinion - I feel that the universe is constantly reborn and it all stats over again - maybe some day we will know the answer - but in the mean time it makes a great discussion.
i do agree whole heartedly that there would have been an implosion prior to the big bang, all the matter we have around us needs to have come from somewhere. perhaps there was not the same ratio of elements due to the super compression and bonding but most likely the same number of protons neutrons and the like, perhaps just jumbled up in a different way.
When i said about the compression forming forced bonding not chemical bonding i meant that for instance where water is concerned the electrons of the atoms link and bind the molecule, but i would imagine that if it were possible (???) the compression would compress the molecular components to touching point, physical touching point. possibly more, if it were possible to break down a proton, these would probably be the extreme situation where it would happen.
What would happen if there was no electron movement? would the electron 'crash' into the nucleus? (sorry its 2.25am and i am being eaten alive by midges....:(..)
what would a mass of electrons/protons/neutrons look like if they were not in their usual state but just squashed up together???? i really dont know!
PS!
2 electrons were walking down the street when one bursts out crying.
the other one says 'whats wrong?'
the first says...' I appear to have lost an electron...'
the second one says...' are u sure..?'
the first replies...'yeah! Im positive!'
Funny joke, ROTFLMAO. Right now I am busy packing for a move, but I will be back later to really get into what you wrote.
Peace!
Glycodoc, that makes perfect sense. Big Bang, the cosmos form, small-ish black holes suck up everything around them, larger black holes suck up small-ish black holes, mass of the entire cosmos compresses into one small area, finally explodes, Big Bang, the cosmos form......
Nick, I'm rolling my eyes.
Sandra, you'll laugh at anything said by a half-naked guy.
Walker....
And what is your point? I find it amusing that half naked guys can tell an joke?
I laugh at you and you are fully clothed. LOL!
besides. the joke was funny!
Nick,
Well my only thought about what you said above, is that in my mind, we are looking at the smallest and largest of all things all the time. Where your brain is to see it is another story.
So, when you are talking about what would happen if an electron stopped moving, well I would say, it probabaly already happens, but I wouldn't want to be the guy who discovered how to pop a whatever is smaller than a quark if you know what I mean. LoL.
If you wanted to think about it, popping a quark could be the pin hole enterence into the next parell and what would be the difference? The difference would be the thing small enough to pop it. Then you would have to ask the question...
Was this already here, or did I just make it? Either way, all that exist always existed and will continue to exist. I can not fathom a new element that has not been already created, only a new element left undiscovered. :)
very true. I think humans are too insignificant to create new elements/particles. we are only using what already exists to make something WE havent seen yet.
I am not sure what you mean when u say we are looking at the smallest and the largest things all the time. are u talking micro/macroscopic?
I believe it is possible to break something down an infinite number of times, it is also possible that an atom is a tiny universe of its own with its nucleus appearing not dissimilar to our own sun if viewed from the orbiting electrons. and hence we are probably a part of something much bigger ourselves. but, we shall never know I guess.
Exactly! Big and small, Though we don't acknowledge we see the Universe, aren't we actually looking at it everyday? I can not say I have ever actually seen a quark but aren't we essentially looking at it everyday, every hour every moment our eyes are open?
I think we already know the answer to the question about life, it just is not good enough for us because when you know the answer, we are trapped like rats and humans feel the need to be superior and knowing that all we are is just another cosmic element in the Universe, we are so insignificant that it is really humbling. Yet, what we are very special.
I believe this; without us, humans, what would mean anything at all? We are the observers. It's like the riddle, if a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it, does it make a sound?
Well, if we did not exist, do you believe the Universe would? Some would argue that it would, but I argue that in order for something to exist it has to be acknowledged, thought of or otherwise observed first. Like a baby that has not yet been conceived.
Did it always exist? Either way I think it first takes a thought. Which makes humans so unbelievably important. One day people will get it and stop with the violence and nonesense that we live in.
I believe like you, we could brake something down infinatly but after a point, which I couldn't even begin to guess, it could be a slice into a pie so large there would be no point in trying to get to the beginning or the end. Everything we do here is just to pass the time away. What else would we do?
As for black holes, who does actually know? No one, and no one has the capability to know for sure so speculation is fun for the brain unless you become obsessed with it to the point it causes you suffering like knowing we are trapped like rats.
:)
Wow, your black hole universe theory is quite mind-blowing, and I think its probably more accurate than the standard, the universe is expanding into into some sort of densityless nothingness. I think, that when talking about the universe, sometimes the easiest way to describe it is with a metaphor. I think "falling" into time and space is a good metaphor. My metaphor for the universe is that it is a "bubble" of space, time, and energy, that was either blown or sucked into this existence from somewhere, with a sort of straw-like connection to the other side of existence. The bubble of the universe can behave with a certain degree of independence, but it is not totally independent, since it is bonded to its source. Eventually, the entire thing, like an air-bubble floating towards the surface,will break the threshold of time and space, and rejoin with the source.
I think your metaphore is fantastic as well. Breaking the threshold of spacetime to rejoin the source. If only we could define the source. LOL. I do have a question for you.
If a "world" (for lack of better word) without time existed, could we move, could it move?
It's a weird thought since everything we do and know now is measured in time, I breath it takes time, I walk it takes time, I sleep it takes time...
Or would it be like dreaming; being unconscious of time but still conscious of images and movement etc. ? hmmm... Like in a dream that seems to last a hole day but really you have only been dreaming for ten minutes.
i reckon time is a bad word to use, since it was defined by us in terms of our need to coordinate events. I think a better term is progression since the word time to humans is pretty much a one way thing.
I like the idea of going back in time, but if u did go back in time would u also go back in terms of planetary progression? ie their progressive movement in relation to time? therefore if u went back in time by one year, would you also move physically in relation to actual position that the earth was a year ago? or would u be in the vacuosity of space? or stuck with ur arm in a passing meteor that happened to be at that coordinate of space at that particular time?
What if???
if u were at the boundary of our universe, the actual outside point per say (if there is actually one) and u went back in time by 5 years, since the universe is expanding, would u not be outside our universe? how would u define that position?
you crack me up nickdevalda, I don't know. I would imagine that if you could "progress" backwards five years if you could possibly define the boundary of our universe that you probabaly would have only moved less and a centimeter, if even that! LOL. So if it could happen, I would imagine your arm would still be in tact.
Also, our atomic clock slows the further away from the Earth we go, but is not to say that the atomic clock on or near another planet wouldn't be faster, so for arguements sake....
In my mind I would imagine that traveling to outer limits of our Universe, at some point time would be void. How slow do you have to go before time doesn't exist? I wouldn't have the faintest idea.
Personally I don't think it is possible for a "human" to travel back in time because any progression forward or seemingly backwards is an advancement, meaning you are still moving foward. Even the act of walking backwards is considered an advancement, or progression foward.
I like the question about the planets though, would they be little mini balls of whatever? Probabaly not. It would be more likely that you could see them from a distance but by the time we reached them they may fail to exist all together, dead and gone.
Or you could say that a glimmer of a planet from a distance is fairly new and by the time you reach it it could be extrodinarly old so I am not sure if that the saying that the further into the Universe we go, the further back in time we go, is accurate, but at least I understand what they are getting at, as in "history".
What if you could find the boundary, if there is one, and once you stepped accross it, everything stopped existing all together. Would the human mind (assuming we could survive for some reason) be able to comprehend what was going on, or would it take centuries before we could recognize our first thought? LOL.
The illusions of space are delicious aren't they?
Another silly question.
If we decided that leaving Earth at the North Pole was foward, and the South Pole was backwards. And two shuttles left the Earth at their points at the same time, with the exact coordiantes, the exact time and so on...
Could we consider there meeting point the center of the Universe? Would they never meet up altogether because space is weird and every direction seems to have it's own ups and downs and so on? Would they evetually make it right back to Earth?
If they did end up back on Earth, would they end up at opposite end then were they started from? Of course presuming that someone did the math right and theoretically they could make it back at a time when the possition of the Earth was exactly as they left it? (or close to it)
Would they both continue to travel foward forever and ever? Could there be proof that the Universe is also round or in some way a sphere? Would it prove to be one plain?
LOL.
how would u know u are travelling in a straight line in space lol. this seems impossible as even tho u may only provide forward thrust, the gravitational effects of everything would have a seemingly small effect but extrapolate it to universal proportions and integrate it with the other effects of other masses and wow! where do u end?
whats the other option?
a beacon on earth that you keep at a fixed position behind the space ship? but the earth is rotating, orbiting round the sun, the solar system is presumably rotating thru the milky way, the milky way is presumably rotating round whatever it is a part of.......etc. OUCH! where do u start because thats not an option.
if u could go in a straight line from the point of origin, with the expansion of the universe wouldnt the actual path of the object appear curved/non linear?
hey u wrote this.... 'you crack me up nickdevalda, I don't know. I would imagine that if you could "progress" backwards five years if you could possibly define the boundary of our universe that you probabaly would have only moved less and a centimeter, if even that!'
are u saying that if u travelled outwards (!!!) at a speed of more than 1cm in 5 years that eventually u would surpass the boundary of the universe? lol
i couldnt believe that for a second! lol :o)
No, I am saying that if you could travel fast enough, (faster then or at the speed of light???) and made it to the invisable line that marks the boundry of the Universe, after traveling for five years at whatever speedd which is really fast...(after you had reached the boarder and traveling at the same speed for five years) you probably would have only made it a centimeter into the "unknown" region outside of our Universe.Â
Here let me be more exact.
Starting at the boundry of the Universe traveling five years at the speed of light, you would prbably only have traveled a centimeter.
I disagree (did u expect that lol) because......
if a fish can swim.... say? 20mph. (or a ship can travel at nearly the speed of light)
but it is in a deep river that is flowing at say 26 mph... (or an expanding universe that is expanding at the speed of light...)
the fish will in effect be stationary with relation to another fish next to it and the water surrounding it. ( the ship will appear stationary to everything around it (planets, other ships etc.))
then if the fish swims downstream at 20 mph it will in the big picture be travelling at 46mph( if the ship travels 'outwards'(!!!) at the speed of light it will be travelling at twice the speed of light from the central stationary point)
ie the fish is travelling faster than the water.. (the ship is travelling outwards faster than the universe in expanding and should at some point overtake the outside)
UNLESS!!!!! (OMG)
Unless the outermost point of the universe is defined as not the point at which the furthest object from the central point of the universe lies, but.....
the furthest point that a single point of light from ANY object within the boundary of the physical universe is. If this is the case.... the physical universe is expanding at the speed it is, but the boundary of the universe is expanding at that speed PLUS the speed of light......
Not only that!!! but what chance have we of reaching it when it has such a headstart on us. IE. travelling at the speed of light plus the speed of the universes expansion since the dawn of time!!!!!
Mighty slim methinks.
Well...
what would you suppose there would be if anything were able to travel faster then the speed of light? My guess...nothing but darkness.
The Universe seems to be expanding or whatever theory works for you or whoever else...faster than the speed of light and the only thing that comes before light is dark. The only thing that comes before time is no time, so if the Universe is all there is, and there is nothing before it, then travel would be impossible in a place that does not exist.
I see what your thinking though. My thinking, if I can paint the right picture for you is this. We cannot actually comprehend how large the Universe actually is, if the Universe is smaller than something we do not know of yet, the light speed doesnt mean sh*t, but if there is something physical, I would guess then spacetime is a component of that place, but if it is then whatever can travel faster than light (my guess, dark matter) then you would be stuck between the two elements.
So we take you fish example. If the fish is swimming 20mph and the river is flowing in the same direction at 26mph, together the fish (only the fish) is moving at 46mph, however...
Now lets substitute the river for the Universe, and the fish for light. Even though the fish is traveling incredibly fast, the Universe is faster (so fast infact, that the speed of light is like a turtle with no legs), now say the fish jumps out of water onto land going the same speed, how far do you think the fish would go and for how long?
Hence, it would maybe only have travelled a centimetere. Probably much, much,much less though.
On the other hand if the fish built up enough momentum and just so happened to hitch a ride on the dark matter extra-univresal freeway, it may think it is travliin really friggin fast, but if there is no destination ahead how could it travel anywhere?
Have you ever paid attention to a reflection in the mirror? If you put your fist through a mirrir, where would your fist be? Right back were it belongs.
In the quantum realm of thinking, remaining staitionary is like moving at the speed of light. Here I am, there I am, there I was, and here I am again. This all happened and happens and is happening faster than you can think.
You can use your example to think about this. Its fun, when you get you get it. :)
why is the speed of light deemed a constant?
if light can curve due to gravity, then the model assumption that it has a mass seems correct. I understand that light has both qualities of a particle and those of a wave, but it cant be a wave as it IS affected by gravitational attraction.
since it is affected, and in the case of black holes with the event horizon being the boundary at which light is pulled back to the core then it seems obvious that it is not constant. for example, if light is travelling at (!!obviously!!) the speed of light towards a black hole. Doesnt it seem apparent that the light would accelerate towards the black hole as an effect of the gravitation of it?
Why is it that light can decelerate but not accelerate past its assumed value? There seems to be no frictional effect on light in a vaccuum.
What do u do for a living? Are u a scientist? or just interested like myself?
Well, I am pretty sure the theory is that light keeps going forever. I don't think it decelerates, more like spreads out. Like a flashlight, when you turn it on, light is emitted instantly (almost), when you shut it off, the light is not sucked back in, but is still traveling on and on until the particles are so spread out you cannot see them anymore with the naked eye.
Similarly, like heat, which is like light, when you put the fire out, the heat is still there but it continues to spread out until it seems cool again.
When it comes to blackhole (though I am guessing) I would think that light is being transformed however I don't know what is in a blackhole, which seems to be nothing or everything in its' path maybe a blackhole is not dense at all but the opposite and everything that comes in contact with it is making its adjustments.
By that I mean, heat emitted from a fire lit in the center of a very large room cools faster than one lit in a confined room. How the blackhole seems to be extremely hot is a nomaly but I would guess and say that the heat being emitted must be surface temperature only. It could very well be that blackhole are the link between light and darkmatter. It may have little to do with gravity at all but more like a void that is being filled in.
Let's take a sheet of paper for example. A black one for that matter. Now you have some crayons and you start to color it in. When you have finally filled in the entire sheet of paper, certainly you have created some heat just from coloring, but turn the sheet of paper over, and it is like nothing ever happened. How do you fill in the both sides at once?
Well, you could burn the paper, then we are back to the surface heat that spreads out to fill in the emptyness around us.
2. you could shine a flashlight right through the paper, in which case nothing has happened to the light really, but the surface temperature of the paper has changed, and the light continues on like I normally would.
I don't know if you had or have read about anti-matter, if you haven't I recommend it otherwise what I suggest may not make any sense. Or it may, I don't know.
Back again...I was just looking around and I came accross this http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_hi
Of course the differences between their theory and mine is that a blackhole may be way less dense then they image, so think about it when you read this. Anyways, enjoy!
according to my theory black holes must be cold.
my reasoning behind this is that light comes from heat, eg a sun, a heated element, the heated coil in a lamp. so therefore by default it must be cold.
it fits my model if you consider that when an atom heats up, its electrons move faster, and if u crush something to an extend that there is no space to move, ie all electrons/protons/neutrons are touching physically then there could be no heat. no heat equates to no light and wham! you have a BLACK hole.
The black hole would have a positive/negative charge depending on the mass it had acquired during its lifespan. ie if it had a majority of electrons, it would be negative, and vice versa. so therefore it you had 2 black holes with a large equal charge, it may be possible for 2 black holes to co-exist in close proximity.
lets say then that all the matter from the universe had collected into 2 or more co-existing black holes in close proximity, perhaps in a mutual orbit around each other?
if one more piece of material tipped the magnetic balance then they would surely collide as the balance would be lost. would this collision have enough significance to create the big bang?
I see we aren't that different in out thoughts. I could buy that! Like I said, I would think that the heat is surface temperature only. So it is upon impact that there is so much heat being generated, and also like you I would think it to be void. (or cold as you say)
I don't know if you had the chance to read the article or read up on anti-matter, essentially, you have the same idea. I don't think however, that if two black holes colided that it would be enough to cause a big bang. But...that is not to say that enough matter could not be collected from all the blackholes that it couldn't create an "inverse" bang.
I still happen to believe that what came before a the big bang was cold fusion, which is much harder to create than nuclear fusion, actually to my knowledge it has not yet been done and there is probably good reason for it. :) so if the only thing faster than light seems to be darkmatter, you know the invisable stuff that space is made of and since it is cold, then it would make more sense that everything had been compressed to the point of explosions, and then of course this explosion was a force of friction which generated heat, which eventually gave light, and will eventually happen again.
As in my theory that the Universe is a blackhole, when it all settles back into one space, capow! So like the previous example of a fire lit in a large space or confined one; when all the light and heat is settled back into one confined place, it will cool very fast. Have you ever heard of Norse?
I don't think there is a "magnetic balance" as you put it, to blackholes. I think they are free moving because they are circles not elipticle, however the galexey that form around it may elude to an elipticle shape because the material has something to rotate around, but a black hole doesn't.
ok! I see where u are coming from with respect to two black holes colliding not having enough energy to create a big bang! makes sense to me too from the way u explain it.
if u consider a black hole to not so much be a hole.... but a rock? a solid mass of unmoving sub atomic particles? presumable they would no longer be connected in a logical sense, as in a if a hydrogen atom got stuck to the outside of a black hole 'rock' there would not necessarily remain a bond between the electron and the nucleus. ie you would have a mass of electrons, protons, neutrons and whatever other sub atomic particles fell into it each with no relation to the surrounding particles.
these would not so much be dead, but perhaps dormant?
what effect would a massive dose of gamma radiation have on them?
presumably (from my understanding) there would be absorption of heat energy?
would this cause a slight expansion between the particles that may (or may not) be enough for re-bonding of the particles?
and since there is no logical order of the particles held in the BH'Rock' there are no laws to say what elements are created and how they would react to each other.
maybe this occurrance could reiterate a million times, and for those 1 million incidents the elements created would be docile in effect, and no reaction would occur other than cooling and the BH'Rock' would assume its BH state....
but what if on the 1 million and 1 time, the reaction made a combination of elements that were highly reactive?
reactive enough to cause a catalystic effect on the surrounding elements and compound the reaction to such a level that the BH'Rock' could not hold its stable form?
would that not be comparable to the big bang?
Hope that makes sense to u as it does to me? :)
Let me see if I understand you correctly. What you are saying is, the blackhole is essential a solid mass of "nothing". I assumed you had used a "rock" to indicate that the void is essentially "space, darkmatter" so tightly packed that it would "mute" all incoming particles?
That is an interesting thought. So, basically I am getting that everything that goes into a blackhole is nuetralized? Maybe you could explain a little further because I think I get what you are saying, but I would have to wonder about Quasars. Try me again using a different scenario. :)
As you put it here, I would think that if an "atom" stops when it comes in contact, that no matter how many gazzillions of atams that did manage to settle on it would have no effect. This one mystery "atom" that would have enough oomph (lol) to act as the catylist?....So I think you are talking about weight "mass" being the catylist....Am I right? Then it would move, and since movement would be essential to charging those particles, you say that a sudden reaction of that magnitude would be enough to cause a bang?
I still think the only way to recreate the bang would be to have everything that is or "isn't" resolve back to its original state (very, very, cold). Or to be able to move faster than space itself. To get past our seemingly infanite Universe, it would be like bursting the bubble and everything in it would shoot out in to some other unknown "demention". What could be powerful enough to do that? 1. Everything! 2. something so fast it could jump ship. lol.
I do dig your theory. A rock you say. hmmmm....continuesss. :)
it would be dark matter, but not in the sense you mean.
 for example, hydrogen is hydrogen because it is made of hydrogen.
but hydrogen can be broken down into protons, neutrons and electrons.
hydrogen is only hydrogen because the composite materials (protons/neutrons/electrons) are set up in a particular way. ie. proton/neutron with an orbiting electron.
if u had 1 million protons, 1 million neutrons and 1 million electrons cold compressed so that they were in essence in contact (physically crushed together) with each other, they wold not be 1 million hydrogen atoms because they are not bonded together in the correct way. it would just be a bit of 'stuff' for want of a better word.
so what i am saying is that the rock is a pile of 'stuff' as defined above.
the mass would be infinitely higher than for standard working elements as it is infinitely more dense.
hence since the mass is so great, the gravity would be so high as gravity is primarily based on mass.
(Mass of object1 x mass of object2
divided by
4 x Pi x coefficient of what is between them x the distance between them squared
Â
The Gamma source I was thinking off was from an external source.....
perhaps an exploding star? something that would expose the black hole to an immense dose of energy. but you may be right.
what if there is an undiscovered element that is so unstable that breaking it down or even attempting to break it down would cause enough gamma to initiate a reaction?
anyways.... back to work i guess..... :o(
i win
ok, didn't know we were trying to win something, but ok. You win. :)
Now you all are speaking my language.
I may work in Finance but science is my passion!!!
Sandra, I made a request a couple of days ago for you to write a hub on Nuclear Energy. You are clearly a brilliant and creative mind, and I would like to see your thoughts. The problem with being an engineer such as myself is we truly rely on the imagination of the creative in order to fuel our efforts. Without Star trek we would not have cell phones.
TMG
Hey Yo! I saw that request but um..well...you see...I know how I feel about it but I am not sure if it is bad or good.
Obviously the use of nuclear power could be something really, really great but at the same time we have already seen what it can do which is really, really bad.
I have the request in the back of my noggin and I will answer it but just not at the moment. :) Awesome request though.
I think a lot about splitting atoms and the infinate impossibly-possible outcomes and I am possitive that humanity has its limits on what it can do so when it comes to nuclear energy, I don't believe for a second that we could wipe out existence or anything like that but...but... we could however wipe out ourselves in which case nothing has a meaning but we still wouldn't be able to understand it. :)
I was not expecting judgements good or bad, as I believe you are a person that has trancended such simple dualities.
I do know you to be very creative, and do not seem to have the yokes that prevent so many of us from visualizing other possibilities and alternate realities.
I believe people fall into the entire spectrum each has their strengths. Mine is in the analysis of these thoughts and creating the processes that make these musings reality. It is my special talent. My special weakness is in that I cannot shut my eyes and see these possibilities on my own. I have always had to form these visions from the writings and speaches of others. Please take your time as I would not want you to put anything less than your best foot forward!!
On another note, I think I am going to record my dealings with the Credit cards here on Hubpages so everyone can see how I do it. :-)
TMG
"My special weakness is in that I cannot shut my eyes and see these possibilities on my own." - are you sure about that? :)
When you get that hub up let me know, so I can do it too.
hi sandra, great hub, loved the pictures, i love the blackhole universe idea, a new twist on things. the blackhole is believed to dump in to another demension of our space and time as a whitehole. i love the one about looking at the universe as a fabric of time, so as you go closer to the big bang area you are going back in time, and as you go past our present time your in the future.
i have one thing to say here,if a blackhole is so heavy and dense it absorbs so much energy,even light it must be somewhat like a vacuum cleaner ,it sucks things in one end and out the other constantantly.So,how's this for a question .Where's the Hepa filter? lol How long does it take to vacuum the universe anyway!Forever? Maybe!Almost as long as this hub.lol I started reading it yesterday and I think it's yesterday again already! oh well see you tomorrow ,I mean yesterday.oh well,You know what I mean!I'm stuck in this blackhole here.Somebody pull the cord out of the wall.Â
lol somehonewhoknows, your funny! My ideas have somewhat changed in that I do not believe that looking out is into the past anymore. Actually, if we could identify the center, then that would be the past but moreover, I do believe wez are looking into the future and we live in the past.
Strange days, so strange but yeah about that hepa filter... that's old school. lol, get with the future ahhahahahhaah.
Sandra I 've heard the theory that the reason we see ufo's visiting the earth is,they happen to be our future selves,somewhat like our ancestors are to our past selves.So there may be some mert to the idea that we can travel through time.The way I understand it,time is a function of matter.So there there would be no time without matter and visa versa no matter without time.my question is which came first.The answer in my mind is matter came first.But matter formed over a long period of "time" at least that's what we were taught in science class.I know matter is really energy,that's been organised in such a way as to create the elements of all matter.Which implies an intelligent force at work.So,time and matter are so intertwined that one is a manifestation of the other,it seems to me that time and matter are almost indistinguishable from eachother.Yet,there no denying that you can tell the difference between the elements of matter,as well as matter itself.Sounds like a oxymoron to say energy is matter.yet we all know that we can change matter into energy,and we know that matter is formed by the intelligent organisation of energy."PROOF OF A GOD?'
Golly I love your thoughts! I could swear I have seen a UFO a couple of times but don't know for sure. I think time travel is a fact, though the current thought of the traveling into the past, still moves foward.
But holy moly, what if they are us in the future. Why would I come back to see myself? LOL. Well if I know me as well as I think I do, then I probably came back to laugh at myself. :D
For matters about matter and time functions, it seems beyond my mentality to understand the concept of time when infinity cannot be calculated so I often view the concept of time as a measurement.
I don't know that time iself changes (like God) but we often change matter to distort time. I don't know that energy itself changes (like God) but we often distort it.
As stupid as it sounds, it's like sleeping. 8 hours can pass in what we feel has only been a second but all the while our bodies are expending energy via our minds working in our dreams, our breathing, or whatever else we do in our sleep.
So I know time is still there when we are long past but don't really know that it means anything to anything else but us.
Sandra i know what you mean about sleeping,no consiousness of time. it,may be possible too change Time ,speed it up or slow it down .I know how I feel when I don't want something to stop and when I wish it would. Maybe we do affect time,by our thoughts. Just as some people believe we can change matter such as our health by our thoughts negatively or positively.Scientists at least Quantum scientists that watch the outcome of their experiments with particles of energy produced from the smashing of electrons or protons make differnet patterns when they scatter after the moment of collision as a result of their thoughts at the moment of collison.
Yes! and that is one of my favorite studies. The factor that changes the outcome of the matter is the presence of the human. Smashing, truly smashing. lol. :D
Interesting!....very interesting :)
thanks LogicalSpark. :D
really enjoy your theories sandra. I was thinking about this and thought my theories sounded to farout!! so I googled "our universe a black hole", and come across this site. nice to see other people shear the same ideas.
Hey thanks nath. I don't think it is too uncommon. You should share some of your with me. Would love to hear them as well. :D
I believe our universe was created in a black hole. I find it hard to believe that all that compressed energy and matter can lay dormant. It would take just one atom to split and boom you have your big bang. Makes me wonder how many time this has happened. I also like the idea that our universe is not expanding but stretching, like filling up a sock, lol. I can’t wait until the LHC starts back up, to see if they find anything to do with string theory or any info on black holes and the big bang.
Hey nath, you came back cool. You know, I find it quite hard to believe myself and I do wonder how many times it has happened also. It certainly entertains my mind trying to grasp how big just our universe is compared to what could actually really be out there.
Universes upon Universes and how could we ever really know for sure. I did catch a glimps of a news feed that read the Hadron colider is back on!!!!
I was watching an episode of the Universe on History Channel and they were saying that black holes actually exist all around us, tiny itty bitty black holes everywhere.
I just finished a book and will be on the shelves in 10/09 called Gereral Unified Theory. I had no idea anyone would see the same things I did, our universe is inside a black hole. But more that that, I know how it started or ended if you want to look at it that way. Space expansion, dark matter and dark energies..It explaineds it all.
Sounds fascinating Tom. Please be sure leave me a link when your book is out. I think I might have to give a read. Thank you for your comment.
What you are saying is, if all matter is merely falling into the fabric of space/time, becoming more and more dense, then eventually nothing will escape, not even if you are traveling at the speed of light, due to infinite density. If you want to say, space/time will eventually open up somewhere, allowing matter to escape, similar to a singularity that has an escape valve at the zero point stage, then truly we are all just going down a drain then, aren't we, where all dimensions will eventually condense back into nothing, or very well close to it? If we spring up (or down) then that's gonna probably be into a similar type of drain, or????
My black hole universe theory is more like a seed dropping into a dark, (or black hole, if you will) exploding outward in darkness, (as seeds do) roots on one end, stem on other. Up is where we are going, toward light, yet already embedded in light, which calls us forth, through a series of programmed commands. If GOD is a factor, for this theory we will say, who knows at this moment? Our roots will remain in darkness though, and who knows how long we will survive outside, or if we'll even make it unto the surface? Depending on our so called destiny, which may be tied into our ultimate mind set. Who's to say, we are not all individual universes that (who) go through the same process, whose ultimate destiny is determined by ourselves, somehow? Some may never make it out of the hole, while others do???
This vacuum called space, is truly filled in all ways, thus is like our concept of zero, only becoming real when attached to things (matter), as even zero is nothing with out numbers. The true zero/vacuum is only a "conceptualizing" formless void, of no thing. Since we are some thing, we can only use this concept to a void, non existence, even utilizing this concept to augment rather exponentially.
I know this probably sounds like malarkey philosophy crap, but even crap springs forth eventually from a hole! But then again, aren't all these theories just that???
- "if all matter is merely falling into the fabric of space/time, becoming more and more dense, then eventually nothing will escape, not even if you are traveling at the speed of light, due to infinite density." -
Nothing escapes anyhow. ;) *wink* where does it go? Perhaps another conceptualized Universe, another black realm, an inverted spectrum of the real deal? All light becomes dark, all dark becomes light? lol
There aren't any voids so forget about it. :)
Even black holes in our universe emit Hawking radiation, and gamma rays. So, even a "theoretical" black hole, in our universe, allows things to escape beyond the event horizon, or closely there about. If our universe, being infinite mass, according to theory of mass inside a blackhole, being so dense that sol (speed of light/light) can not escape once confined within, thus according to Einstein's velocity of mass brought to 186,282 (or there about), whereby mass is converted to energy and becomes infinite, yet disappears into a singularity (universe, if you will -- what happens at that point/ratio, or after, even???
I think earlier, you had suggested that perhaps there would be an opening leading to somewhere else? A multiverse? A white hole? A quasar? Then what happens "theoretically" in that case, would be similar to a dense ball, falling by gravity, then bouncing back up, only to be repeated... for how long? And would there be any relief from this type of multiversal monotony? I suppose we could just keep inflating to deflate, or fall in, so we can emerge, etc, eternally. If this is the case, then let's leave open the possibility that perhaps things will evolve to a state of growth beyond the black hole.
I enjoyed reading your article. I once thought completely this way, when similarly I realized the black hole universe many years ago. Yes, the power and strength is what causes dark energy/matter, which is what is presumably holding things in place, other wise we'd be blown apart by the mere matter that is observed. Like a river bank, which holds the river together, by applied force, and other dynamic factors. Yes, even gravity "falls" into place. Thanks for the read!
Hi Maram, thanks for enjoying the read. I also enjoy similar thoughts. :) It is to my understanding that the radiation or light particle that we see at the event horizon is not emitted or allowed to escape the gravity of the black hole but it is light that has narrowly escaped it's pull. I think Dawkings said it as such: "face left, you are outside the event horizon, face right and you are in the black hole. A line so thin you can't get your mind around it.
If you could imagine with me for a moment; we can pretend that the black hole that we see is somewhat of a cylinder, a funnel. The light falls towards it.
Let's observe in perspective that when we are shown photos of a black hole, we always see the black spot surrounded by light. But what do we see from its side? A white hole, something that we might possibly be calling a quasar... a black hole failure?
(Now there is nothing to back up this observation so let's just take it as a thought.) So let's pretend that light had traveled a distance and at exactly the right moment, light traveling down towards this "tunnel" get sucked in right through the top.
Just as it falls, the light right over the opening goes in and the light surrounding the event horizon can be somewhat of a waterfall...
Yes! Let's imagine a waterfall. At the bottom of the waterfall there is a lake. We stick a glass cylinder inside the waterfall. The cylinder catches the water coming straight over the top and the rest slides down the sides.
The water that falls right over the top ends up also in the lake but if we could view this from the bottom of the cylinder under water at its opening... I wonder what we would see? Is it even possible to view it from the top? Have we got it wrong and we can only see it from the bottom?
So it is not as though a mystery universe exist but a different route to a specific spot in the Universe... If we wanted to, we could have used a cylinder that is shaped like a U. We could also make it so the water that falls into the top gets pushed right back out over the top of the water so when it comes out the other side it looks like a fountain. What is constant however, is that it seems everything still ultimately moves in the same direction just some things take detours.
Aw, it's early for me here but you got me wondering. Thanks Maram. :)
Let's also pretend that there is only one way
OMG Maram, I was just off pondering.
I just had this thought. What if a black hole is a collection cup, if you will, for dark energy?
Oh shute, I wrote Dawkings instead of Hawkings. :(
Hawking radiation is "black body" radiation, which ultimately might be what some black holes are, kinda like pure black velvet absorbing light, while keeping reflection down to a minimum. Hawking radiation, it is theorized, is emitted by a leaking, small black hole, which eventually causes the black hole to shrink to nothing. Like you said, I believe this all happens at the event horizon, possibly being thrust outward by anti gravitational effects there. Why would there be anti gravitational effects there? Why does a rubber ball bounce, or a magnet repel itself at south south or north north? So called, infinite density at certain angels, might very well do just that.
How is it that our observable universe can be equated, percent wise, being shown to not have infinite mass, while a black hole is supposedly brought to infinite density, which implies infinite mass/gravity, and energy, even? Even with the allowance of dark matter and energy, we are still not infinite mass. Could be we are circling a much larger field of pure energy, where mass is born?
If you are talking about a funnel, my question would be, how much down the funnel until infinite density? This is why, the funnel is most likely non existent, because supposedly beyond the event horizon, infinite density is immediate, thus the "not even light can escape" part of the theory.
Certain tribes called the black hole at the center of our galaxy, the great mother, both devouring and creating.
I don't know Maram. I ask myself similar questions especially with regards to the observable universe. It never did make sense to me that it could be even somewhat defined. I once thought that perhaps there was a beginning but this beginning doesn't necessarily have to have and end.
I am not sure I understand the question you're asking about infinite destiny according to the tunnel using the example you stated.
Why does a rubber ball bounce or why do magnets repel. In all the analogy that we used there is an applied force behind it. But I think I see what you are getting at when it comes to black holes. -why would there be a need for anti gravitational effects there?-
I suppose if I used all the theory I think is implied here then I could theorize that there is neither exist in a black hole. Thus the effect comes from a force being pushed... not so much like gravity and not so much like attraction but "forced".
Who knows, maybe it is some sort of cosmic energy transit system used to divide light particle. I don't know that the light that is presumably being devoured in a black hole doesn't have an infinite destiny and it is just as thin as as the line that between the event horizon and the black hole.
I could even presume that there is an instantaneous transfer of energy that goes on there in which case light becomes pure energy... recycled even.
I am definitely not sure what to think when it comes to infinity but I certainly am not looking to answer that question. I don't know how anyone could. Shit I don't even know how anyone could say there is a true south or north out there either.
Great hub! It's given me loads to think about, interesting comments too! Keep up the good work, will pop in and digest some more of your work soon.
I am not a scientist but I do love science, I love new theories and will be thinking very much about this one.
Think about this: the singularity of our universe, the singularity of a black hole, and the singularity of the atomic structure. All singularities under (or over) supposedly different power/force ratios, if you will... yet, all of these are singularities.
A singularity has a single dimensional quality of a single unit of measure. Singularities are everywhere there is matter, being the building blocks, the smallest bits of material, brought forth from energy transfer, beyond event horizon.
Just a few more thoughts.
Maram, you got to step it up! lol Quite literally everything is already made of billions...trillion...gazillions...an infinate number of singular structures.
Single bonds are the makeup of the other structures that make up the entirety of everything and what seems to be absolutely nothing at all.
That seemingly "nothing"... is the GP. :D
Hi Shera. I am glad you stopped by for some food for universal thought. Thanks for you encouragement. :D
If black holes vary in size, and nothing can escape them, beyond event , not even strongly interacting bodies, are they then enlightened (light filled) or also black inside? You would think that by its internal function, there would be no room for any kind of behaviour outside of, or exceeding Einstein's theory of relativity by those conditions. Therefore, how can there be anything other than sheer darkness? Unless, of course, somehow light being brought to a standstill is somehow still shining???
Perhaps what is really happening universally is doing so on every level from macro to micro, whereby so called black holes are what binds everything. There is not no thing; only a dynamic everything, eternally imbued with existential significance, thus indefinable, as to why we think nothing, when in reality is everything?
LisaG says:
2 years ago
Very interesting theory sandra. Can I ask where you get those impressive pictures?