|
|
#1591
August 31st 04, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi nightbat Well you go with Hoyle's steady state theory(yes?) You have
your own theory. Could you tell it to us again in few words as possible? I tie my creation theory in with the big bang showing there was always gravity and space energy before the big bang. The big bang theory is useful because it answers hard questions. Gamow predicted what the universe's temperature would be in this spacetime,and after those two guys discovered the radiation of 2.7 K he was right on the money. Gamow should have received the Nobel for that. nightbat the big bang theory,and the discovery now of black holes is not going to be dropped. Best to do what I have done and merge your ideas into them. Einstein did that by merging space and time together. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't let your own ideas keep you from appreciating ideas(theories) that are out there. Don't let your ego be king. Bert 
|
|
#1592
August 31st 04, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1593
August 31st 04, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Painius" wrote in message ...
"Double-A" wrote in message... om... (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote... in message ... What if huge black holes are out there but harder to find? I'm thinking galaxy core black holes that have the mass of two million suns are not all that big,and powerful. They Eat about 10 stars a year,and have an accretion disk because they spiral in the stars atom by atom,at close to light speed as they pass through the event horizon. Now lets go with super-massive black holes of 2 billion suns. They have no outpouring of energy,and they can eat a star that gets to close in one gulp at the speed of light. No disk. We can think of gravitational energy (inertia of the star) transformed directly into the energy of speed. These supermassive black holes live very far from our galaxy. They grew up in a spacetime of much greater space density. This adds to there being very hard to detect. If closer we might see a star moving very fast (streak of light) and then just disappearing. Just some more of my thoughts that probably never be proven,but I like thinking about anyway Bert As one falls into a black hole, objects falling behind you appear to be accelerating away from you, because you are accelerating faster than they are. Objects falling in ahead of you also appear to be accelerating away from you, because they are accelerating faster that you are. Somewhere I read (though I can't find the quote right now) that Hawking and Penrose agreed that whenever you see everything around you accelerating away from you, that means there must be a singularity nearby. Now consider our universe. Do we not see everything accelerating away from us? Does that mean that there is a black hole nearby sucking our whole universe into it, so the universe only looks to us as though it is expanding, but is really falling into a super-super-massive black hole? Double-A Interesting thoughts, AA... since we are fairly certain of the Milky Way's present direction, which is toward the center of the Virgo Supercluster that our Local Cluster calls home, then it would follow that there is a SSMBH at the center of this supercluster. One consideration might be that there are a few galaxies in our Local Cluster which exhibit a blue shift, and there are even some farther away in other parts of the Virgo Supercluster that are believed to shift blue. So this might put the direct dynamics of a black hole you describe into a different light when objects are closer together while falling toward the center. Perhaps there are "epicycles"? g happy days and starry starry nights Think BIG, Paine. Local galaxies could still have various relative motions if we are still far from the center of the black hole that the universe is falling into. We see the effect only when we look at the universe as a whole, and compare velocities at very long distances. Double-A - Theorist. -- You make me happy!- When I'm not with you, Couldn't she take this the wrong way? Ha ha! Double-A - Poetry Critic. I often look forward to When I can be with you. This, friend 'n lover true, This! makes me happy. Paine Ellsworth Think about life's meaning, filled with so much pain, But you have brought the laughter in the rain. Walk with me forever. Life's a sunny day, When I can walk beside you all the way. Double-A - Poet Emeritus.
|
|
#1594
August 31st 04, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Double-A" wrote in message...
m... "Painius" wrote in message... ... Interesting thoughts, AA... since we are fairly certain of the Milky Way's present direction, which is toward the center of the Virgo Supercluster that our Local Cluster calls home, then it would follow that there is a SSMBH at the center of this supercluster. One consideration might be that there are a few galaxies in our Local Cluster which exhibit a blue shift, and there are even some farther away in other parts of the Virgo Supercluster that are believed to shift blue. So this might put the direct dynamics of a black hole you describe into a different light when objects are closer together while falling toward the center. Perhaps there are "epicycles"? g Think BIG, Paine. Local galaxies could still have various relative motions if we are still far from the center of the black hole that the universe is falling into. We see the effect only when we look at the universe as a whole, and compare velocities at very long distances. Double-A - Theorist. Yes, and it may also follow that there are more than one of these super-super-massive black holes as possibly evidenced by there being a good many galaxy superclusters out there. Can the potential masses of these be calculated to see if they might come anywhere near the value of the "missing mass" we hear so much about? And thinking even BIGGER, maybe all these superclusters are also heading into an ultra-super-massive black hole? You make me happy!- When I'm not with you, Couldn't she take this the wrong way? Ha ha! Double-A - Poetry Critic. g and they say that punctuation isn't vital. Think about life's meaning, filled with so much pain, But you have brought the laughter in the rain. Walk with me forever. Life's a sunny day, When I can walk beside you all the way. Double-A - Poet Emeritus. Lovin' it! -- Space so scary, quite contrary, How does your nothing grow? A just as hairy corollary... What makes your nothing flow? Paine Ellsworth
|
|
#1595
August 31st 04, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ... What if Newton had one thought that was weirder than all of Einstein's thoughts put together? That being that the force of gravity acted instantaneously over any distance. Einstein changed that to light speed. Come to think of it Einstein took the force away from gravity altogether. Seems Einstein never mentioned "action at a distance"(I can't recall,Can you?) He used spacetime curvature as "gravity" (yes) Can I say "gravity is the curved geometry of space time caused by the mass inertia of objects,or energy??? tricky stuff Bert PS Had that dog catching its own tail feeling again I just had a thought that whatever else the Allais effect might eventually prove... http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=3104321 ....it just might be hard evidence that gravity does *not* act instantaneously over any distance. It appears to be a good sign that its velocity is c, just like light. Why? Well, because the effect begins precisely as the Moon starts covering the Sun, and it ends at just the moment that Sun totally reappears from behind the Moon. Since the Sun is much farther away than the Moon, and the light from the Sun takes about 8 minutes longer to reach us, then the actual position of the Sun is about two Sun-diameters (one degree) *ahead* of the position we see. So if gravity acts instaneously, then the Allais effect would be expected to take place *before* the eclipse, and while the Moon is still a diameter's width away from the Sun, wouldn't it? To be specific, if gravity is an instantaneous effect, then the Earth would begin to show the Allais effect while the Moon is still two diameters away from the Sun. The effect would continue to about maximum or so when the Moon is exactly one diameter from the Sun (at this point the Moon would be directly over the "real" position of the Sun). Then, almost precisely as the Moon touches the "visual" Sun, the Allais effect would end. Since this does not happen, and since the Allais effect precisely follows the Moon's eclipsing of the "visual" Sun rather than the "real" Sun, it follows that the Sun's gravitational effect gets to Earth at the same time as its light gets to us. So the gravitational velocity must be "c". -- Space so scary, quite contrary, How does your nothing grow? A just as hairy corollary... What makes your nothing flow? Paine Ellsworth
|
|
#1596
August 31st 04, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1597
August 31st 04, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Double-A" wrote in message om... (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ... But the problem is that science's most precise observations to date indicate no curvature of the universe on the largest scale. Therefore, perhaps other theories should once again be considered. Double-A I always think this is the nut of the matter. I think "we" don't know exactly what we are looking for or how to detect/observe it when we decide to start looking. I say this from the argument of if we knew, we would have a demonstration. We have made advances since the days of Newton. We can detect/observe all sorts of atomic and subatomic items that scientists 150 years ago could not even theorize about. We can even exploit this knowledge. We have more discoveries ahead of us. The current practice of particle counting will prove to only expand our knowledge about an aspect of the science that yields no useful knowledge. I hope to be alive when the breakthrough knowledge to the next level is made. My prediction is that even that knowledge will not completely satisfy the question. How many layers in this onion? infinite. Where are we? very close to one of the layers. chuck
|
|
#1598
September 1st 04, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
nightbat wrote
Double-A wrote: (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ... hi Double-A With the strong gravity of a black hole it would make spaghetti out of you as you fall in. Double-A Not until you got very close to the center. nightbat Ha, ha, ha, ha, stop cracking me up fella's, there are no classical black holes, ha, ha, ha, ha. You haven't been listening, there are only very strong gravity field depressions caused by the creation of nightbat's " Black Comet ". Bert No molecules only atoms enter the event horizon. Double-A For very large black holes, it is predicted that objects can cross the event horizon with no physical disruption. nightbat Well, ha, ha, ha, how did they get theoretically sucked in if their original galactic location wasn't disrupted? And ha, ha, ha guys, classical black holes are a null real world premise. Bert it is not so very surprising that the universe is expanding. The real mystery is its expanding at an accelerating rate. Double-A And this acceleration would be explained by my "falling into a black hole" theory" because velocity and even acceleration would increase as the gravitational gradient got more steep. nightbat Not possible Double-A because as previously nightbat stated, classical mathematical infinite energy/mass into theoretical and mathematical point zero volume black holes are null, and dead on arrival. Falling into an extremely dense non static singularity metamorphosed collapsed neutron star on the other hand is correct, and as previously informed it's called a profound nightbat " Black Comet " Look if Hawking's could finally get it then so can you boys. Didn't you ever hear of the conservation laws? Bert That means it has to keep getting added energy. Since it is space that is doing the inflating its speed can be greater than "c' This begs the question. Expanding into what? Bert Double-A Or falling into what? Double-A nightbat Come on, you have been told already the answer by nightbat umpteen times, the present disturbed base field. The base field under renormalization effect conserves unto itself all energy and mass no matter its present particular individual dual states and disturbed system non uniform present momentum. the nightbat
|
|
#1599
September 1st 04, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Painius wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message... m... [snip] Local galaxies could still have various relative motions if we are still far from the center of the black hole that the universe is falling into. We see the effect only when we look at the universe as a whole, and compare velocities at very long distances. Double-A - Theorist. Yes, and it may also follow that there are more than one of these super-super-massive black holes as possibly evidenced by there being a good many galaxy superclusters out there. Can the potential masses of these be calculated to see if they might come anywhere near the value of the "missing mass" we hear so much about? AIUI the missing-mass problem to which "dark matter" is the proposed solution pertains to individual galaxies, arising from discrepancies seen in their rotational behaviour. In at least some cases, supposing there to be a gigantic black hole at the centre doesn't fix the theoretical model; instead the only arrangement that seems to agree with observation has the missing mass distributed spheroidally, perhaps similarly to the globular clusters belonging to our Galaxy. Hence the last bit of the acronym for one suggested form of dark matter, MACHOs: HO stands for "halo object". (I forget the first part, although I think C is for "compact" and M is probably for "massive". I'm too lazy to look it up, but it should be easy enough to find.) 'AA', if the universe is falling into a black hole, why does it look so isotopic? That is, why is there no indication as to which way is 'inward'? Wouldn't you would expect to see 'galaxy streams' of some sort, with a large-scale organization or symmetry, rather than the chaotically uniform (or uniformly chaotic, if you like) fractal froth of "walls and voids" that emerges from the deep-sky survey data? -- Odysseus
|
|
#1600
September 1st 04, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Painius" wrote in message ...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote... in message ... What if Newton had one thought that was weirder than all of Einstein's thoughts put together? That being that the force of gravity acted instantaneously over any distance. Einstein changed that to light speed. Come to think of it Einstein took the force away from gravity altogether. Seems Einstein never mentioned "action at a distance"(I can't recall,Can you?) He used spacetime curvature as "gravity" (yes) Can I say "gravity is the curved geometry of space time caused by the mass inertia of objects,or energy??? tricky stuff Bert PS Had that dog catching its own tail feeling again I just had a thought that whatever else the Allais effect might eventually prove... http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=3104321 ...it just might be hard evidence that gravity does *not* act instantaneously over any distance. It appears to be a good sign that its velocity is c, just like light. Why? Well, because the effect begins precisely as the Moon starts covering the Sun, and it ends at just the moment that Sun totally reappears from behind the Moon. Since the Sun is much farther away than the Moon, and the light from the Sun takes about 8 minutes longer to reach us, then the actual position of the Sun is about two Sun-diameters (one degree) *ahead* of the position we see. So if gravity acts instaneously, then the Allais effect would be expected to take place *before* the eclipse, and while the Moon is still a diameter's width away from the Sun, wouldn't it? To be specific, if gravity is an instantaneous effect, then the Earth would begin to show the Allais effect while the Moon is still two diameters away from the Sun. The effect would continue to about maximum or so when the Moon is exactly one diameter from the Sun (at this point the Moon would be directly over the "real" position of the Sun). Then, almost precisely as the Moon touches the "visual" Sun, the Allais effect would end. Since this does not happen, and since the Allais effect precisely follows the Moon's eclipsing of the "visual" Sun rather than the "real" Sun, it follows that the Sun's gravitational effect gets to Earth at the same time as its light gets to us. So the gravitational velocity must be "c". It is known that the gravitational force vector affecting the Earth is pointed at where the Sun really is, not where it appears to be. If this were not true, the Earth would be spiraling away from the Sun. If you consider gravitation to be caused by curved space, then the Sun caused curvature through which the Earth is moving is relatively stable, because the Sun doesn't move much in relation to the Earth. It is the Earth that is moving through the Sun's gravitational field. The field reflects the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, but again, it is not the Sun moving much, but the Earth is moving through the relatively fixed field. If flowing space, aether, LeSage particles, or gravitons were moving at only c, then there would be enough of a differential between the force on the forward side of the Earth and the force on the trailing side to cause the Earth to slow down. Allais effect observations have been inconclusive. But if it really is linked to the speed of light, then perhaps some effect such as atmospheric cooling is the real cause of the effect. Double-A
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
