A thought on the Big Bang, etc.

Hi J. Miller It we could see gravity graviton waves the same way we see
star photon waves they would be just pin points. The reason is they
both obey the square of the distance law. Good that it does,or
the big bang would long ago become the big crunch. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi J. Miller It we could see gravity graviton waves the same way we see
star photon waves they would be just pin points. The reason is they
both obey the square of the distance law. Good that it does,or
the big bang would long ago become the big crunch. Bert


Okay, Bert. I want you to read the sentences above and ask yourself - did I
make any sense at all using them?

The point I was making is that at the great distances between the galaxies,
other galaxies would sense them more as point sources rather than extended
sources. If each galaxy becomes swallowed into one galaxy-mass black hole, the
pull of gravity all the other galaxies feel would not change. And, if the
universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, well before each
galaxy could be swallowed into a galaxy-massed black hole, the whole of galaxies
would likely be outside each one's cosmic particle horizon.

Scott

LOL,

That thought had occurred to me, too. If there is an alien civilization out there
who's figured out how to stop the expansion (or collapse) of the universe, we
wouldn't actually know it until it...didn't...happen, because the universe is so
vast that we can't observe what is happening NOW, only what happened in the past.

Jason

PCportinc wrote:


if there are millions of intelligent alien civilizations in the universe(as
there must be) at least one of them would've figured out a way to prevent the
collapse
of their star, galaxy, or the universe itself.
if not, they might figure out how to move into another dimension, or escape out
of the known universe.
it is also likely that there are millions of universes.

"Jason Bodine" wrote...
Hi Scott,
I would agree with you on the point that if each galaxy becomes swallowed
into
a galaxy-sized black hole, they wouldn't feel much--if any--difference in
gravity.

Under normal circumstances, that is. What you're not taking into account--
it
seems to me, anyway--is that there's the difference between a galaxy and a
black hole with equal gravitational force. A galaxy isn't trying to suck
everything within range of its event horizon into a gaping maw it can't
escape. A black hole is.

I thought that the current understanding was that most or all galaxies
already have a black hole at their centre doing exactly that! (?) It just
takes a great deal of time, especially with most of the galactic contents
"trying" to avoid being sucked up as this material whizzes around with an
outstanding inertial force at least temporarily delaying this. And I don't
think we know of black holes with the mass of most galaxies (e.g. ours) Or
do we?

snip Regards, Brett.

Hi Brett,

Currently, there are no galaxy-sized black holes (to my knowledge). But that's
only because all the stars in a galaxy that will become a black hole haven't
done so yet and then, in turn, been joined with the gigantic one at the center
of the galaxy.

Jason



Brett Aubrey wrote:

"Jason Bodine" wrote...
Hi Scott,
I would agree with you on the point that if each galaxy becomes swallowed
into
a galaxy-sized black hole, they wouldn't feel much--if any--difference in
gravity.

Under normal circumstances, that is. What you're not taking into account--
it
seems to me, anyway--is that there's the difference between a galaxy and a
black hole with equal gravitational force. A galaxy isn't trying to suck
everything within range of its event horizon into a gaping maw it can't
escape. A black hole is.

I thought that the current understanding was that most or all galaxies
already have a black hole at their centre doing exactly that! (?) It just
takes a great deal of time, especially with most of the galactic contents
"trying" to avoid being sucked up as this material whizzes around with an
outstanding inertial force at least temporarily delaying this. And I don't
think we know of black holes with the mass of most galaxies (e.g. ours) Or
do we?

snip Regards, Brett.

Jason Bodine wrote:

I would agree with you on the point that if each galaxy becomes swallowed into a
galaxy-sized black hole, they wouldn't feel much--if any--difference in gravity.

Under normal circumstances, that is. What you're not taking into account--or so it
seems to me, anyway--is that there's the difference between a galaxy and a black
hole with equal gravitational force. A galaxy isn't trying to suck everything
within range of its event horizon into a gaping maw it can't escape. A black hole
is.

Neither black holes nor galaxies are "trying" to do anything. To
paraphrase Frank Zappa, they are what they is.

Leaving teleology to the philosophers, it's the amount of mass that
produces the 'suction', no matter what form it's in. From any
distance on the scale of megaparsecs the gravitational effects of a
galaxy and a black hole of equal mass would be absolutely identical.
The extreme concentration of mass in a black hole is only evident
from close up.

--Odysseus

"J. Scott Miller" wrote:

3) If the universe does expand forever, it is hypothesized that black holes will
evaporate. I believe that the age of typical stellar mass black holes might be
on the order of 10^60 to 10^63 (not looking up the number but going from memory)
years to do so. Those at the cores of galaxies or the ones formed when the
matter within a galaxy becomes consumed within its own black hole may take a
little longer. But in a universe destined to last forever, what does it matter?

In what form will they "evaporate": not literally like a gas, surely?
Will their mass 'break down' into energy, and be carried away in the
form of 'thermal' electromagnetic radiation?

--Odysseus

What I like is that blackholes can come in any size. I can theorize how
nature uses them in the sub-microscopic realm. I even have a theory how
quantum gravity,and GR can explain action at a distance in this tiny
realm.,and how nature does her energy balancing act. It all fits,for
its gravity that evolved every thing from Quasars,to protons.
You are right Scott I use gravity for all that "IS" Bert PS
It fits

What makes one black-hole larger (or smaller) than another.
If it is mass, what is the smallest mass possible to create a black-hole.

Gravity Sucks,
Winfield

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
What I like is that blackholes can come in any size. I can theorize how
nature uses them in the sub-microscopic realm. I even have a theory how
quantum gravity,and GR can explain action at a distance in this tiny
realm.,and how nature does her energy balancing act. It all fits,for
its gravity that evolved every thing from Quasars,to protons.
You are right Scott I use gravity for all that "IS" Bert PS
It fits

Hi Winfield If an area of space the size of our solar system had the
density of water it would be a blackhole. In Hawking's book "The
Universe in a Nut Shell" He has blackholes having the size of half of a
Plank length. It was Schwarzchield working with the math of GR showed
that if the mass of a star is concentrated in a small enough spherical
area so that its mass divided by its radius exceeds a particular
value,and that value will give it such a gravity force that the speed of
light is not fast enough needed to reach an escape velocity. Wheeler
when reading this named such a mass density area in space a "blackhole"
Bert PS If Schwarchild lived longer he would have recieved a Nobel