How would they KNOW for sure? It is purely speculative.
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?
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.
Scientists ... Do you mean Theoretical Physicists ... ?
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.
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.
It falls into the same category as the 'hidden world at the centre of the earth' categories
Here comes my first attempt. It is a .gov pic. So go for it as far as saving it is concerned.
I got into a black hole once and though it was a new relm for me it felt like the same old same old.
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%">
<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>
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.
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.
Exactly, just like when Einstein came up with General Relativity.
Like Einstein. And, nobody else. Funny thing this science
If they never find a white hole, then it's likely it does lead somewhere.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it is dead accurate. This has been verified by experimentation. To date, no experiment has yet falsified it.
Verified using assumptions in the Tensor equation to conduct the experiments. Keep studying..
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?
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.
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.
I would think that someone who writes about acknowledging the validity of TGR, would be able to converse about the fundamental equations that support the Theory. I was obviously wrong, sorry to confuse you. Study your equations and maybe we can "communicate" one day. LOL
Once again, you do not explain yourself. What is TGR? I am talking about General Relativity, what are you talking about? Are you just trolling?
What else is there to explain Theory of General Relativity TGR. I guess that is another thing I assumed some one writing about the Theory would understand. It seems you are the one trolling. LOL.
It needs to be explained because TGR is not used when talking about General Relativity. Sorry.
I've seen nothing in any of your posts or hubs that would indicate you knew anything about General Relativity or science. Your use of TGR would cinch that conclusion.
Sorry, but it is referred to as TGR all the time
I can definitely say the same for you as well, Having Cod For After Dinner. LOL
I noticed that in the first link you provided, few if any sites with "Theory of General Relativity" came up but the latter one showed many sites that came up with "General Relativity"
You made my point and refuted your own. Thanks.
Is there some other reason why you're posting here, other than trolling?
The point is that both searches had the word Theory in it. It doesn't matter, because it is Theory of General Relativity, or General Relativity Theory, or General Relativity, or TGR. It is still just a Theory, and it is now clear that you are just trying to argue the semantics, and have absolutely no understanding of TGR. I hope you actually learn about what you agree with one day. Good luck. LOL, you crack me up.
But, it is a theory you know nothing about or you would have actually provided something valuable other than just attacking me, which is all you've done so far.
If there's something wrong with the theory and it's results, point them out, provide the math and I'll be happy to show you why you're wrong.
Attacking you how? I simply stated:
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.
Sorry if you took offense to it. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. You don't need to do any math, the blunder is right smack dab in the Field Equation. The equations work, but only by using assumptions that may or may not be true. You can't claim something is "dead accurate" when the conclusions are based off of assumptions.
Your ad homs were not necessary.
Okay, please show me exactly where in the equation that particular "blunder" exists? There is no other way for you to make your point than to show mathematically why it is a blunder.
Okay, what assumptions are you talking about? Please list them here and tell me why you think they may or may not be true?
Then, if you describe those assumptions, we can work together to see where the error lies.
I am in earnest here, considering that if you can point out the blunder, you have thus falsified the Theory of General Relativity.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
Yes, you are missing a lot of something. LOL
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.
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.
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.
See? You are confused and don't understand the difference between them.
It was a question, there was no I. Whatever you say. Have fun with GR-T. LOL.
Here you go, this will alleviate your confusion:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/C … rames.html
It elevates no confusion at all. This just further confirms my point. I've reviewed Mr. Caroll's work. Did you even read what he had to say?
Of course, I read it years ago. Now, you can read something completely different from Carroll, his lecture notes on General Relativity. Hopefully, if you review this work, you'll begin to understand the differences between the two concepts and why you're confused.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/M … tents.html
Again, I digress, did you even read what he wrote?
"The primary question facing any introductory treatment of general relativity is the level of mathematical rigor at which to operate. There is no uniquely proper solution, as different students will respond with different levels of understanding and enthusiasm to different approaches. Recognizing this, I have tried to provide something for everyone. The lectures do not shy away from detailed formalism (as for example in the introduction to manifolds), but also attempt to include concrete examples and informal discussion of the concepts under consideration"
What does that have to do with your confusion between the CC and GR?
You must be confused. Why would companies who make GPS units have to include General Relativity corrections in order to make them work? How do you explain that if you believe GR is wrong?
Oh man, wiki said that? Never mind, I retract everything I said before.
Here's the first line:
"General relativity or the general theory of relativity"
Thank you for validating my point, again.
I never said GR was wrong. I said it wasn't "dead accurate" and uses assumptions. You have a major comprehension problem, LOL You've missed the point completely. That's what happens when you read about things you don't fully understand. Keep the faith and good luck.
ey you know what, I had this very same absurd conversation in another thread.
*shakes head* some people really think wiki and dictionaries are the ultimate absolute source of truth.
Just so you know, you are not alone.
(as in same problem, different topic)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
And here with GPS units requiring GR corrections
Can you explain any of this with your belief system?
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?
"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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
of that realm is a smarter one, send me, I am tired of this world.
by jomine 7 years ago
Suppose a light ray travelling near a black hole, which has so much gravity that the escape velocity is twice the speed of light, got caught in its gravitational field. Will the light travel at the speed of light or travel at double the speed of light?Similarly what happen to other objects...
by Ruchira 10 years ago
What would you attempt if you knew you could not fail in it?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|