|
21 Apr 04 - 04:07 PM (#1167205) Subject: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Black holes have been around since the first illumination of the galaxy. Where ever gravity concentrated enough matter a hole would form. Black holes indeed help create galaxies. In fact every galaxy including our own have a black hole with the exception of a few primordial globular cluster galaxies. A voraciously feeding black hole is called a quasar. It glows brighter than other galaxy. People ask; what is on the other side of a black hole, what kind of catastrophes could they cause, what do they do? There is no other side unless sufficient pressure builds to unleash a big bang of its own. Pinched off from our universe some black holes give birth to entirely new universes into a newly created space continum seperate and apart from our own. We have registered explosions in the universe that would eual the energy of our entire universe but curiously our universe is fine afterwards. Perhaps we are registering the energy sympathetically through the dark energy dimension/parrallel brane that permeates all known space. Colliding galaxies with black holes will cause super massive black holes to feed again and create numerous super novas. It will be another 2 billion years before Andromeda collides with the Milky Way. When 2 black holes collide. So black holes are creators and destroyers. Often overlooked is the probablility that black holes condense far more than just visible matter but many other dimensions as well. Here is another way I put it 5 years ago... 'WE GOT HERE FROM THERE,BUT WE GET CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE - FOR A VERY LONG TIME' From a tiny egg our mother universe was conceived. She grew at an exponential rate , expanding space and coalescing dimensions as she grew to an ever increasing full size. Some of these dimensions collapsed to infinity small regions and by an interesting quirk our familiar 3 dimensions continued to grow larger. This inflating hypersphere is our big bang , yet claims as to what came before the big bang are curiously missing. Well I am here to tell you what it is. : We all came from the great space womb in the sky - a black hole. The place where we can not see beyond the event horizon but still see the result all around us. If you ever wondered what a black hole looks like from the inside , look out your front door. Everything you see and more is the product of a black hole. Yes our heavier elements are from "recent" supernovas but the birth of our universe is from a black hole. Our universe has the very same event horizon as a black hole in that there is no escape . Yes exits are created when super black holes or quasar like massive collisions of black holes within our universe create such gravitation that energies spawn a new inflationary hypersphere bubble of a new universe . Our universe is a mother and has given birth to other universes . We have "heard" the burst of energies from these births since they have left measured evidence of colossal bursts equal to energies of our entire universe but we can not see this newly inflating universe because it is within its "own" space. No child universe is identical to its parent. Changes to their cosmological constants may be subtle or large , full of self knowing (self aware) intelligence or dumb as a post . The same may be true of the universe that spawned ours. A Universe is like a seed that falls FAR from the tree. Some seeded universes may not even be capable of procreation and if they are quite different, the hazards of ever going there may be beyond dangerous. The birth of one universe from another does not create a symmetrical (identical) child of the parent. This super symmetry of 'creations' is not an exact mirror . It is a turbulent mirror that shares a fractal similarity on every scale within it , but not in exact substance to the parent. There are limits to this anthropomorphic comparison on quantum scales but they too will reflect fractally to the ever larger meta universe and therein lies the clues of emerging and disappearing virtual particles which may bridge - tunnel to other universes. As our universe feeds on itself , expands and procreates ,the evidence of "our offspring and ancestors" is dimensionally removed from our sight. Perhaps 11 dimensional string theroy and the new quantum computer will give us new insight.( a large population of other universes must leave some evidence for us to discover ) I wondered if the enigmatic dark matter interacts as a field of energy but is wholly separate from our visible universe. As is true with ourselves universes eat , grow , procreate and die cold . On a grander fractal scale that would explode the human mind, ALL universes are are along a torus continum of balck hole universes that graduate to white "hole" universes. We have left the gravity well of our planet , Voyager is leaving the gravity well of the Sun yet is inexplicably slowing faster than theorized. We may leave the well of our galaxy...but to leave the well of the universe requires the energies that created her in the first place unless we can somehow sidestep these vast energies and use stepping stones or tunnel to our mother universe's relatives (or sufficiently cooled children). How these tunnels are built is now in your hands. ~~~ ~~~ You see , it may take a philosopher to help visualize where we can or can not go. As it was with Jules Verne or Stanley Clark ,who foretold many new worlds to discover and how to get there, the next great "philosopher" may be a Science Fiction writer, OR THE POET |
|
21 Apr 04 - 04:45 PM (#1167240) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: GUEST,Lyle Interesting, Donuel. I like the term "torus continum of black hole universes." But I wonder - is a torus continum required or can they be isolated but connected through strings? Or do the strings constitute the continum? |
|
21 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM (#1167253) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: TheBigPinkLad universe n. All existing things; f. L universum neut. (as n.) of UNI(versus p.p. of vertere turn) combined into one, whole] It takes a pedant with a dictionary to point out there can only be one universe. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 05:02 PM (#1167255) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Clinton Hammond "sufficient pressure builds to unleash a big bang of its own." The most likley do not explode ever... they most likely, eventually evaporate away is a cloud of Hawking radiation.... And the end, like the universe will, not with a bang, but with a fizzle... Heat-death is our eventual fate... |
|
21 Apr 04 - 05:18 PM (#1167266) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: GUEST,thickasshit Heat Death! Hey, that could be good. Before the heat death, we might get gorgeous summers. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM (#1167283) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: GUEST,Lyle Well, BigPinkLad, you are right in the common use of the word, but that was coined in the days before physics started looking at the possibility of multiple things that had commonly been called the "universe." There are a lot of things that just can't be described using terminology from the old fashioned three dimensional world that can be described exceptionally well mathematically, but not in the every day language of dictionaries. So physicists talk to non physics people in a common language that both recognize is inaccurate. But then, the world would probably be a real mess if everyone was a physicist! |
|
21 Apr 04 - 05:44 PM (#1167294) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: TheBigPinkLad 'Universe' is not a coined phrase, an remnant of old fashioned termnology; it's a very precise noun, current and valid. The physicists might want to use a different and more accurate word if they want to convey something other than universe. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 06:02 PM (#1167303) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Don Firth I recall reading a paperback SF novel many years ago entitled, The Girl in the Atom (not a classic). Goofy science, but a fun read. The idea was that an atom was analogous to a solar system (nucleus=star, electrons=planets), and our stalwart heroes, instead of journeying outward, journeyed inward (using a process something like that used in the movie "Fantastic Voyage," only moreso) and had all kinds of space opera-type adventures. Of course, the implication was that if we could similarly increase in size, we might find that our own Earth is a mere electron in some unimaginably huge creature's cheese sandwich. There were other stories along this line: notably Henry Hasse's He Who Shrank, published in the August 1936 issue of "Amazing Stories" (I read it in an anthology), and the movie, "The Incredible Shrinking Man." The idea that The Universe, which we always assume is singular, might be just that—the inside of a singularity—sounds immensely reasonable to me. Isn't it possible that that the Big Bang came as a result of a large star in another Universe somewhere/somewhen else (but completely subsuming everything) going supernova? And isn't it possible that every time a star in our universe goes supernova and a black hole is formed, another universe is born somewhere/somewhen, completely subsumed by our universe? Perhaps all of Creation (or "Happenstance," if you will) is like matryoshka, Russian nesting dolls. Universes within universes within universes, each universe periodically spawning other universes ad infinitum. Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,But then again, maybe they're not nested; maybe they're all parallel. Or some unimaginable combination of both. [I'm getting dizzy!] Great fodder for science fiction. By the way, how do the folks in "Star Gate" know they're winding up on other planets? Might the thing not be transporting them to other universes? [I know, I know. "uni-" indicates only one. But you know what I mean.] When I was a wee sprat, I was fascinated by the "Buck Rogers" comic strip. At the age of about eight, I did a thought experiment: I contemplated the possibility of getting into a rocket ship and going as far as I could possibly go. What would I encounter? A brick wall? A steel wall studded with rivets, like the drawings in the comic strip? If so, then that raises the question, "What is beyond that wall?" For a few seconds I had an almost visceral grasp of the concept of infinity. Don Firth P.S. Kinda makes politics seem sorta trivial, doesn't it? |
|
21 Apr 04 - 06:09 PM (#1167308) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Clinton Hammond "Kinda makes politics seem sorta trivial, doesn't it?" You mean it's not? |
|
21 Apr 04 - 06:18 PM (#1167313) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Georgiansilver And I thought the Haemmoroid thread had finished. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 06:49 PM (#1167349) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Bill D well, I've read as much science-fiction as most folks, and it was great to be able to suspend belief for awhile and travel faster than light, and thru parallel 'universes', and to the gravitational edge of Neutron stars, and to the center of the galaxy with Larry Niven. (Who also gave us a world built AROUND a sun!).........but so many of those concepts are will-o-the-wisps, like "east of the sun and west of the moon". It is most fascinating to me that we even able to think about our 'universe' being part of a larger atom, etc....to jump from that to supposing that it might actually be possible is just too much for my poor old brain..*grin* |
|
21 Apr 04 - 06:51 PM (#1167351) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Shanghaiceltic 'It's where matter an' anti-matter mix and it des nae ****ing matter anymore captain' |
|
21 Apr 04 - 07:03 PM (#1167364) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Don Firth Well, Clinton, unfortunately politics can be a bit intrusive on the molecular level that we inhabit. But you're right. It is trivial. That's the problem. Trivial people with too damned much authority. But here we are, talking about hemorrhoids again. Back to black holes. Much more interesting. Don Firth |
|
21 Apr 04 - 10:21 PM (#1167496) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Amos Universe has one definition as "all things everywhere", but it has another as "all items in a sphere of discourse" or even "an entire system of created things". Since the advent of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg, the notion has been in play that there may be parallel universes in each of which a minuely different set of possibilities comes true. This changes the core concept, which was based on a single universe being the container of all that is, which is more of a Newtonian space-timne continuum, a single large box of space in which everyting we are and everything we see is found. This is convenient for most practical purposes. But it isn't by any means an absolute truth about reality. A |
|
21 Apr 04 - 11:44 PM (#1167568) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Larry Niven - great stuff Bill ......... If the concept of the multi verse model seems strange to you, that is good. We first need to challenge ego centrism before we can be free of it. Speculation has it that as little as 23 kg of mass at a compressed energy of 10 to the 200th? power is enough to descend through de sitter space and create its own spatial universe. We are currently trying to do this on a miniature scale at the Fermi Lab in Long Island. The worst that can happen is a small class 1 super nova but then again some thought before the first atomic bomb test that a fission chain reaction knew no bounds. That certain black holes can spawn a universe of its own and others do not isn't remarkable. The same is true with people. Anthropormorphism in quantum mechanics and cosmology is frowned upon but I can not resist the fractal sense it makes that a universe can give birth. ......................... For those that have no idea what string theory is let me say this. I don;t either. But try this... Picture a hammer dulcimer submerged in water so the stings are barely covered. Add an energy vector and stike a string. Waves spread out in the water and particles/ drops of water dance into the air. All things are energy and that energy can be expressed in waves and particles. Different energies and combination of energies interacting between and within dimensions vibrate differently. String theory tries to explain the origins of particle wave energies at a scale as small to atoms as the earth is to the universe. Should they crack the string code I envision playing a technology organ that would transmogrify elements and energies as an instrumentalist turns his instrument into fantastic music. Meanwhile I am a moron since I do not know what gravity is other than what it can do. It is the weakest atomic force yet it inherits the universe and creates black holes. On a super large scale there is an anti gravity which is now overtaking gravity and accellerating the dillution of the universe. {Could this be related to black hole energies flowing into a parrallel brane. Brane is a term for a shadow universe of sorts. String theorists hope to find how strings may produce gravity and anti gravity like discovering a musical chord that urges for a resolution and creates energies of attracting and repeling. Once they can understand gravity and find a balance of all energy relationships , string theorists will have found the equation of everything. What everything is will still be unknown but they will be able to fit new unknowns into a model to better understand what could be out there. Like seeing all of creation as a vibrating music of the spheres has been called an idea 200 years before its time mathmatically, but I believe the notion has been around a very long time psychologically/spiritually. PS side note... the average percent of of the mass of a black hole to its galaxy is one half of one percent. About the same as our reproductive system to the rest of our bodies. About the same percent of the population that rules the remainder with their wealth. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 12:46 AM (#1167598) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Johnny in OKC The only thing more ridiculous than Donuel's cosmological babble is arguing about the definition of "the universe". However as Carl Sagan remarked in connection with Velikovsky's notions, "The true tragedy is that many scientists tried to SUPPRESS Velikovsky." I suspect the universe of being A WHOLE LOT SIMPLER than the High Priests of the Big Bang make out. However we do not have the right to suppress the thoughts of others, no matter how lunatic they may be. Love, Johnny |
|
22 Apr 04 - 05:07 AM (#1167707) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Wolfgang Why stop at complaining about the word 'universe'. Let's got at all those who have used the word 'atom' in this thread in a completely wrong way: it means verbatim 'unsplittable' and should forever be used in that sense. Wolfgang (:-) |
|
22 Apr 04 - 07:38 AM (#1167772) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Pied Piper Nonsense Wolfgang, words change meaning all the time and NOBODY apart from you and some of the other pedantic Fascists on this site will pay any attention. For one thing it's a loan word from Greek and as you pointed out we already have the perfectly good word "unsplitable". If the many words that the English language has borrowed from other Languages reverted to there original meanings English would cease to function. I imagine your one of those people that would insist that the plural of fungus is fungi, but is somewhat les consistent when it comes to pluralizing slogan, bungalow, and wigwam. Sorry for the thread drift but this kind of nonsense realy pisses me of. PP |
|
22 Apr 04 - 07:43 AM (#1167781) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: freda underhill a black hole is where the song words go when you can't remember them in a session. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 07:59 AM (#1167810) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Ringer "Black holes] most likely, eventually evaporate away in a cloud of Hawking radiation" I think you'll find, Clinton, that when Hawking radiation has so reduced their mass that they can't be black holes any more then they explode. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 08:05 AM (#1167820) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Wolfgang PP, I would have thought it was obvious my post was ironic. I was mistaken. Wolfgang |
|
22 Apr 04 - 08:14 AM (#1167826) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Pied Piper My apologies Wolfgang I must have been watching too much American TV. TTFN PP |
|
22 Apr 04 - 08:48 AM (#1167856) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Wolfgang No problem, has happened to me as well. No body language in the posts yet. Wolfgang |
|
22 Apr 04 - 10:33 AM (#1167962) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: GUEST Wolfgang, you're not the one that needs to apoligize; the culprit is TheBigPinkLad! |
|
22 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM (#1167971) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Velikovsky garnered little support but was not suppressed. His books were published. Speaking allagorically regarding cosmological phenomena and theories is like writing down to a level of absurd simplicity, but there are always simpletons who attack implied meaning as babble. Musings of cosmological possibilities is fascinating to some and an immediate door slam to others. If you are a door slammer, save your hinges and don't answer. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM (#1168123) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: TheBigPinkLad Just in case I end up painted a simpleton, pedantic fascist, and subjected to other insults neither sought nor warranted, I'd would point out that I have not attacked Donuel's remarks on Black Holes, nor parallelism, cosmic possiblity and the vastness of what we don't know in comparison to what we do. What we know, purport, surmise, discover, misinterpret etc. will be part of the universe, as everything is. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM (#1168193) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Without any further adieu, back to Black ho's and their John's. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM (#1168202) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: TheBigPinkLad And speaking of black holes, although I am none of the things I mentioned in the last-but-one message, I am a bit thick on who says what regarding things cosmic. I beleive, however, that the nature of black holes is such that the gravitational force is so strong that nothing can escape it, not even light. What is it you mean then, Donuel, by A voraciously feeding black hole is called a quasar. It glows brighter than other galaxy. Am I missing new information? |
|
22 Apr 04 - 02:05 PM (#1168210) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: GUEST,alice through the internet read me |
|
22 Apr 04 - 02:25 PM (#1168226) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Don Firth Pinky, it's not what goes on inside a black hole, it's what goes on in its vicinity. Physics gets kinda weird in a neighborhood like that. Keep it comin', Donuel! Musings and speculations push the envelop and stretch the mind. Provided the mind is sufficiently flexible. Don Firth |
|
22 Apr 04 - 02:35 PM (#1168235) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: TheBigPinkLad OK, so the light is from the galaxy around the black hole, not the hole itself ... makes sense. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 03:14 PM (#1168269) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Don Firth I don't know if you could call it "light," though. The electromagnetic radiation is usually in the form of X-rays. High energy and way up the EM spectrum. Don Firth |
|
22 Apr 04 - 04:19 PM (#1168322) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Rustic Rebel Donuel, are you Lee Smolin in reality? Your theory of universes through black holes is also his. |
|
08 Apr 19 - 09:41 PM (#3986573) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Mrrzy Ok, new question: how can they take a picture of a black hole when radiation/ light, by definition, could not make it back to the camera? |
|
09 Apr 19 - 11:59 AM (#3986607) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: beardedbruce Mrrzy, As matter falls toward the event horizon, it gives off energy ( light) which, being OUTSIDE of the event horizon, is visible, if red-shifted. We take pictures of the region of the black hole, and can pinpoint it by it's effect on the surrounding mass and energy. |
|
10 Apr 19 - 03:27 AM (#3986696) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Mr Red it's effect on the surrounding mass and energy Just as glass bends light and makes lenses, so black holes bend light that it doesn't catch and they call it lensing. |
|
10 Apr 19 - 03:56 AM (#3986704) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: David Carter (UK) There is supposed to be a press release today from the Event Horizon Telescope. I know nothing about this apart from what I can read online, and much of that is so dumbed down it doesn't make sense. But the EHT appears to be a network of high frequency radio telescopes, operating as a very long baseline interferometer. So you combine the signals from the telescopes to effectively construct a large telescope with a diameter set by the separations between the individual telescopes. What they seem to have wanted to do is image the black hole shadow of the black hole in the centre of our galaxy. The black hole shadow isn't the same as the event horizon, it is an absence of radiation from the hot material surrounding the black hole caused by the fact that the black hole absorbs part of that light. New Scientist article on this project |
|
10 Apr 19 - 09:00 AM (#3986734) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel By stitching images together over time the width of the telescopic lense is a virtual width of Earth's orbit. I've seen early incomplete compilations and its sort of Meh. |
|
10 Apr 19 - 09:41 AM (#3986747) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: David Carter (UK) What you have to stitch together is effectively the Fourier transforms of the images. This is quite a complicated process. When I was more active in this field, this would have been thought quite impossible at such short wavelengths, because of the effect of the atmosphere on submillimetre wave radiation. Clever techniques, known as closure phase and self-calibration are the key to this observation. I was wrong about one major thing, they showed today the image of the centre of M87, an elliptical galaxy in the Virgo cluster of galaxies, not of our own galaxy. They are doing our own galaxy but havn't finished analysing the data yet. |
|
10 Apr 19 - 10:43 AM (#3986757) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel cool The super computers looked massive |
|
10 Apr 19 - 12:37 PM (#3986783) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Bill D video of the release of the image |
|
11 Apr 19 - 09:23 AM (#3986880) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel I can see the dark round mouth of Homer Simpson eating a giant pink frosted donut. |
|
12 Apr 19 - 02:48 PM (#3987108) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Mrrzy So... Not a pic of the black hole, but of its effects. Ok. |
|
12 Apr 19 - 03:53 PM (#3987117) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel If we could reliably see neutrinos a black hole would look very different. When black holes overeat we can see Xray and gamma rays squirting out the poles. If we could do the impossible and 'Xray' a black hole you would see 3 distinct regions of spacetime (depending on spin) and the ultra impossible singularity. The cool thing about black holes is that time and space get reversed. Space would begin to pass like time and you would navigate time like a cruise ship navigates the sea to different ports. (see Penrose diagrams) |
|
13 Apr 19 - 02:17 AM (#3987159) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Mr Red So Black Holes eat doughnuts? |
|
13 Apr 19 - 03:13 AM (#3987164) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: BobL Black Holes are omnivorous in a very literal way. |
|
13 Apr 19 - 07:07 PM (#3987230) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Ha the ultimate omnivore. If a BH spins at 'ludicrous' speed centrifugal force plays a role inside the BH. The spinning equatorial region would slow the inevitable journey/time to the singuarity. The poles speed up time in contrast. I speculate that there may be certain black holes that appear to explode but they are reacting to an internal collision between rising centrifugal forces and matter falling inwards. |
|
07 Dec 21 - 12:49 PM (#4128319) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel In the Amos thread: When black holes collide (now closed) he said "No biggie, it happens on the 'Cat all the time". Here is the data for the black hole collisions measured by Ligo lately, Spinning faster toward collision BHs 'chirp up' in gravity wave graphs |
|
09 Dec 21 - 04:12 AM (#4128450) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Ebbie You guys just love complicating things. I have it on good authority that in actuality we are in an ant farm. Know what causes earthquakes? |
|
09 Dec 21 - 07:01 AM (#4128460) Subject: RE: BS: Black holes From: Donuel Cause YES. Predict NO At the smallest scale the stuff of the cosmos seems to pixillate. We might be entertainment programing for something else. |
