#81
|
|||
|
|||
What If
What if blackholes are showing they are the same as a BB? Their
sameness takes away all the "if" Conditions are the same at the core of a BH,and the conditions before the big bang explosion. We will never see into the BH event horizon,and never see before the BB. Both had a tremendous matter density(infinite??) In using just one word to sum up their sameness the word is "singularity I'll go a step further by saying trillions of years ago the first big bang took place. Our corner of the universe was created by a mini-bang and that was a colossal BH explosion that took place 22 billion years ago. All mini bang should be almost exactly the same because their DNA came from the original BB. When I say DNA I'm really thinking of the values of particle structure,masses and the force strength's that make up a universe. Nature had to create more blackholes than stars. Like life is continuos,so be the cosmos. Bert |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
What If
What if blackholes are showing they are the same as a BB? Their
sameness takes away all the "if" Conditions are the same at the core of a BH,and the conditions before the big bang explosion. We will never see into the BH event horizon,and never see before the BB. Both had a tremendous matter density(infinite??) In using just one word to sum up their sameness the word is "singularity I'll go a step further by saying trillions of years ago the first big bang took place. Our corner of the universe was created by a mini-bang and that was a colossal BH explosion that took place 22 billion years ago. All mini bang should be almost exactly the same because their DNA came from the original BB. When I say DNA I'm really thinking of the values of particle structure,masses and the force strength's that make up a universe. Nature had to create more blackholes than stars. Like life is continuos,so be the cosmos. Bert |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What if nature is cancelling the universe to zero? Not to "iffy"
Nature cancels all energies,and forces to zero,with one exception gravity.(that is why gravity gets to be the strongest force) The way nature cancels the universe to zero is by bring the force of gravity to zero. Nature uses space expansion and inflation to accomplish this in two separate ways. Inflation of space dilutes the particle density,and that makes the force of gravity weaker,and weaker. Structures(galaxies) are expanding away from from each other at 93% of "C" That weakens their mutual attraction.(gravity) Now we are inside the universe,and there is lots of mass,and gravity. Our brain tells us all this is happening,but we feel nothing. How do we relate to this? The answer is we don't. What does a zero energy,and gravity relate to ? The answer is it relates to nothing. What will happen when expansion and inflation reach the speed of light,and it is now completely cancelled to zero? Again the answer is nothing. Bert |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What if like Einstien told us gravity and accelerating motion are the
same thing,and that goes also for inertia? Now we see in books the playing card the king of hearts showing how thin we would get at light speed,and every kind of clock would come to a stop. This is viewed from a rest frame(not moving) observer. That is SR and so it is written(in the books) We still have to ask is it happening inside the space ship? We have no space ship going anywhere near that speed. Lets go with the space ship accelerating at earth's gravity. The people in the ship would know they are moving because they can feel the same pressure(weight) they had on earth. After about 8 months they are at 87% of "C" Their clock has slowed down to half the speed of earth's clock. They notice nothing everything looks and feels the same,and my thoughts kick in when the spaceship gets to just over 93% then I believe inertia,and foreshortned comes into view. These astronauts will feel heavy (at 99.999999999 of "C" ) a 200 lb person (rest weight) would be 20,000 times heavier Two astronauts the same height one lying perpendicular to the direction the space ship is going,and the other astronaut lying in the same direction the spaceship is going,this astronaut would be noticeably shorter. Well here I"m going against relativity.(I'm laughing) Going against Scott Well I gave them relativity right up to 93% of "C" Still I'm going with what are great accelerators are showing us. In Einstien day there were no accelerators,and he knew of only two forces. That gives me a great advantage.To me it does not seem fair. But I like it anyway. Bert PS I have thoughts and these groups give me a chance to tell what I think |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
What if like Einstien told us gravity and accelerating motion are the same thing,and that goes also for inertia? Now we see in books the playing card the king of hearts showing how thin we would get at light speed,and every kind of clock would come to a stop. This is viewed from a rest frame(not moving) observer. That is SR and so it is written(in the books) We still have to ask is it happening inside the space ship? We have no space ship going anywhere near that speed. Lets go with the space ship accelerating at earth's gravity. The people in the ship would know they are moving because they can feel the same pressure(weight) they had on earth. After about 8 months they are at 87% of "C" Their clock has slowed down to half the speed of earth's clock. They notice nothing everything looks and feels the same,and my thoughts kick in when the spaceship gets to just over 93% then I believe inertia,and foreshortned comes into view. These astronauts will feel heavy (at 99.999999999 of "C" ) a 200 lb person (rest weight) would be 20,000 times heavier Two astronauts the same height one lying perpendicular to the direction the space ship is going,and the other astronaut lying in the same direction the spaceship is going,this astronaut would be noticeably shorter. Well here I"m going against relativity.(I'm laughing) Going against Scott Well I gave them relativity right up to 93% of "C" Still I'm going with what are great accelerators are showing us. In Einstien day there were no accelerators,and he knew of only two forces. That gives me a great advantage.To me it does not seem fair. But I like it anyway. Bert PS I have thoughts and these groups give me a chance to tell what I think Fair enough. That's what these groups are for, but you have to realize that mainstream science has really gone far beyond where you're at. It's gone far beyond me too. I haven't done anything along those lines in recent years, but I did get through a course in Special Relativity and an Independent Studies course in astronomy, many years ago, now. You have to realize that everybody in their own frame of reference will feel perfectly normal. You see relativistic effects, like Lorentz contraction, in "other" frames of reference, but an hypothetical astronaut travelling at 93% C should not "feel heavier." Since he's at rest with respect to himself and so no effect is apparent. To him the rest of the universe is shortened, since it has a *relative* velocity in the other direction. He gets where he's going very quickly in his, (or her), time frame because the clock on board the near-light-speed ship runs more slowly than one at rest, But it's not apparent to that astronaut inside the ship. All she/he knows is that the trip didn't take long at all, but if he/she turns around and goes back, then many years will have past on her/his home planet, while the astronaut will still be young... well younger than if she/he had not made the trip. So time, in this sense is not absolute,... it's "relative." So is mass and dimensionality. Mass and dimensionality are returned to normal when velocities are matched again, but time seems to hold the balance of accounts. I do want to add that there is a small difference between gravity and acceleration. With gravity the force is directed to a point, so it's radial, (or perhaps more correctly "centric"), in direction whereas acceleration is an apparent force normal to a plane. Hence Gravity will have tidal effects and linear acceleration will have none. Did I get that right? -- Regards Fred Remove FFFf to reply, please |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What if it is the different nebular densities that show us all the
densities and sizes of stars that make up our universe? Not to "iffy" for stars come out of the structure of nebulas. We should be able to see how dense nebular are. Like a fog on earth that don't let light shine through,a nebular that is dense won't let stars in the back ground shine through. A less dense nebular would. If star light reflects of a nebular that can tell us it has a lot of dust particles. Some nebular could absorb light as well. I think astronomers have to think more about nebular star formation. I realize the universe is so big that they don't have the time to think about all that the universe has to show them. Bert PS Nebulars in this spacetime must also feel the effect of the coldness of space (2.7 K) ,and this had to be a lot colder than space was 11 billion years ago |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
What if we find a star that is the furthest object and its 22 billion LY
from the Earth? That this distant star is as red as red can get,and moving away from us at 95% of "C" Lets call this star Mirage. Stars radiate in all directions. The back side of Mirage is radiating out 22 billion LY to a planet same as the earth,its has intelligent life and they should have the same realistic view of the universe as we have. They do. Their and our view is only different in color. They see Mirage as blue,and we see it red. Bert PS Thanks Painius for giving me this thought |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|