A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What If



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old August 10th 03, 03:26 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 10th 03, 03:26 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 11th 03, 12:36 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 11th 03, 06:22 PM
Benoit Morrissette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:36:22 -0400 (EDT), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

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


You think too much. We first need to define the word: Universe. To the
ancients, the Universe is: All that exist. Today, it is more like: All that can
be observed. And by "observed" i mean all that can influence us, light, gravity
etc...

The very inside of a Black Hole is hidden from universe forever, just like all
the "others" universes exploded from others "mini-Big-Bangs". There are 11
dimensions in OUR universe but 8 of them are hidden from us forever. Why do we
need to think about them anyway??

There are approx. 50 000 children dying everyday right now because they have not
enough to eat while WE are wasting away food and resoures in scandalous cities
like Las Vegas... And you still dare to think about impossibles universes??
Where are your priorities, my friend?

Archimedes and his frends found a lot of things like the square root of two, the
circumference of Earth etc... just by thinking... and thoses discoveries
changed our lives forever. Forget everything i said above, we need your
thoughts no matter how crazy they sound likes. They are "Food for our souls"
and i wish you clear skys.

Benoît Morrissette...
  #86  
Old August 12th 03, 03:04 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 12th 03, 04:50 PM
Fred Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #89  
Old August 14th 03, 06:02 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 15th 03, 08:29 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.