Jump to content
Come try out our new Arcade we just put up, new games added weekly. Link at the top of the website ×

Black Holes...


JohnnyNashville

Recommended Posts


  • Member ID:  25938
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  343
  • Topics Per Day:  0.14
  • Content Count:  1493
  • Content Per Day:  0.60
  • Reputation:   284
  • Achievement Points:  13299
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/17/17
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  08/08/1961

Okay for once and only once I am going to be serious...

 

Scientist for decades have been proposing that Black Holes are created by a very heavy small body creating enormous gravity that will bend light and such in every thing with in reach...

 

I offer a different opinion...

 

I state that Black Holes are portals of " Faster than the Speed of Light" area's in the universe...

 

Think about it for a second...if something was racing away from you what would you see?? I propose you would see nothing, It would be black.

 

While Albert Einstein proposed that the speed limit in the universe is 2997932458 meter per sec and that nothing can travel faster, I believe he was wrong, as well as multiple physic's scientist..

 

I do not mean to Demeter the great works of great scientist..I only mean to open your mind to a different way of thinking...

 

Your thoughts??

 

jn

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  87
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  98
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  3789
  • Content Per Day:  0.71
  • Reputation:   3589
  • Achievement Points:  27249
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  09/02/09
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  04/02/1871

they know now that every galaxy has a black hole at its center so does our milky way galaxy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  21058
  • Group:  **- Inactive Registered Users
  • Followers:  220
  • Topic Count:  101
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  2494
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   2778
  • Achievement Points:  20963
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  14
  • Joined:  04/25/14
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  03/07/1987

I don't have a clue about this stuff.. But I do find it interesting to read / hear more about it. Personally, without knowledge but from my common sense, I think you could be on to something ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  2069
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  214
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  2411
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   2409
  • Achievement Points:  18298
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  12/25/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  08/08/1966
  • Device:  Windows

While science, by definition, will present the current thinking on any topic as provisional i.e. open to new evidence, any new hypothesis has to pass several tests. Is it testable (that is, is it falsifiable, which means is it possible for new evidence and observations to render the new hypothesis true or false?) Does the math "add up" which means does the math support it as possible explanation of reality? Can any experiments based on a new hypothesis resulting in new results be reproduced by any research team given the same environmental conditions?

 

So far, Einstein's General Theory of relativity (geometric theory of gravity) has passed every single test thrown at it, and there have been many. Without the General Theory of Relativity being taken into account in GPS satellites within their algorithms in regards to their distance from the earth and their motion relative to Earth's surface, your GPS or GPS enabled smartphone would be so far off as to be rendered utterly useless.

 

As for the speed of light, it has (so far) been shown to be immutable, that is, absolute in its speed as measured in a near-perfect vacuum, such as outer space. It has passed every single test that attempted to refute it, and observations have confirmed its correctness again and again. The speed of light should therefore be considered a physical constant. A black hole is, as far as we can understand it, an exceptionally dense region of space whose gravity warps the fabric of spacetime.

 

For the moment, observations of areas of space where we believe black holes exist have conformed to the laws of relativity as outlined by Einstein and fleshed out by many physicists that followed in his footsteps. Look up the brilliant Andrea Ghez's amazing work on identifying a black hole in the center of our galaxy (I saw her presentation in Toronto a couple of years ago. Amazing.) for an example of Einstein's work in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8re1U9rCo4. 

 

So far, the balance of probabilities weighs heavily in favour of the work done thus far based on the equations of Einstein. The mountain of observational evidence that has built up puts a large onus of proof on any theory that purports to turn it on its head. I applaud your critical look at current thinking, but there is a large burden of proof placed on thee shoulders of any hypothesis that is at variance with where the scientific method and peer-reviewed science has arrived at. There are many competing ideas (the many variations of string/brane theory, for example) out there. So far, Einstein has yet to be proven wrong or superseded, as Einstein superseded Newton.

Edited by Astronomer
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  2069
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  214
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  2411
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   2409
  • Achievement Points:  18298
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  12/25/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  08/08/1966
  • Device:  Windows

Weird...this last paragraph doesn't show up in my above post. This is how I concluded my post:

 

So far, the balance of probabilities weighs heavily in favour of the work done thus far based on the equations of Einstein. The mountain of observational evidence that has built up puts a large onus of proof on any theory that purports to turn it on its head. I applaud your critical look at current thinking, but there is a large burden of proof placed on the shoulders of any hypothesis that is at variance with where the scientific method and peer-reviewed science has arrived at. There are many competing ideas (the many variations of string/brane theory, for example) out there. So far, Einstein has yet to be proven wrong or superseded, as Einstein superseded Newton.

Edited by Astronomer
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  1238
  • Group:  *** Clan Members
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  1207
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  6082
  • Content Per Day:  1.19
  • Reputation:   4981
  • Achievement Points:  50713
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  11
  • Joined:  03/12/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Device:  Windows

Weird...this last paragraph doesn't show up in my above post. This is how I concluded my post:

 

So far, the balance of probabilities weighs heavily in favour of the work done thus far based on the equations of Einstein. The mountain of observational evidence that has built up puts a large onus of proof on any theory that purports to turn it on its head. I applaud your critical look at current thinking, but there is a large burden of proof placed on the shoulders of any hypothesis that is at variance with where the scientific method and peer-reviewed science has arrived at. There are many competing ideas (the many variations of string/brane theory, for example) out there. So far, Einstein has yet to be proven wrong or superseded, as Einstein superseded Newton.

 

However...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-achieve-quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-that-could-prove-einstein-wrong-9462053.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  2069
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  214
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  2411
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   2409
  • Achievement Points:  18298
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  12/25/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  08/08/1966
  • Device:  Windows

 

Heh, I love headline writers. Quantum entanglement was something that Einstein didn't like about someone else's equations around a theory he really disliked: Quantum Mechanics. He felt that this "spooky interaction at a distance" was an artifact of having an incomplete theory with many blanks yet to be filled in. We still haven't reconciled Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, so our picture of physics is still incomplete. However, so far so good for Einstein. Whereas it has stood the test of time for a century, it would be very exciting if we somehow proved some bit of Relativity wrong, because that would mean that we've moved the goalposts on the limits of our knowledge. That would be very exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  82
  • Group:  ** Registered Users
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1534
  • Topics Per Day:  0.29
  • Content Count:  5020
  • Content Per Day:  0.94
  • Reputation:   5171
  • Achievement Points:  131490
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  116
  • Joined:  09/02/09
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Device:  Windows

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  1320
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  37
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  611
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   357
  • Achievement Points:  4498
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/10/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  01/14/1976

A different view:

 

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/

 

I'm sure you'll love it, Astro.  :rolleyes:

 

 

This is just part of the article:

 

The Controversy Continues: Speed of Light Slowing Down?

by Chuck Missler

 

The field of physics worships at the altar of c, the velocity of light. It is widely regarded as the inviolate constant which affects all things: from our knowledge of astronomy to the very behavior of subatomic particles. Even the basic relationship between mass and energy is known by every schoolboy as E = mc2.

 

For many years, and in many of our previously published materials, we have made allusions to the very controversial view, held by some, that the speed of light (usually designated mathematically by "c") has been slowing down.1 We have, naturally, received a number of adverse reactions from those who have difficulties dealing with this possibility.

 

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman for some years.2 Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second.3 They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. The effects predicted by their theory are to be published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review. "If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Dr. Magueijo.

One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform-why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been travelling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it!

 

Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow forever-though at a decreasing rate-and its ultimate fate, it is suggested, would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates.

 

"It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht.

It is disturbing that with this view continuing to gain credibility in some quarters, acknowledgment of the contributions of Setterfield, Norman, and others is conspicuous by its absence.

Edited by Pharticus
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  101
  • Group:  *** Clan Members
  • Followers:  109
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.14
  • Content Count:  8133
  • Content Per Day:  1.53
  • Reputation:   6747
  • Achievement Points:  61498
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  13
  • Joined:  09/02/09
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  01/23/1974
  • Device:  iPhone

While science, by definition, will present the current thinking on any topic as provisional i.e. open to new evidence, any new hypothesis has to pass several tests. Is it testable (that is, is it falsifiable, which means is it possible for new evidence and observations to render the new hypothesis true or false?) Does the math "add up" which means does the math support it as possible explanation of reality? Can any experiments based on a new hypothesis resulting in new results be reproduced by any research team given the same environmental conditions?

 

So far, Einstein's General Theory of relativity (geometric theory of gravity) has passed every single test thrown at it, and there have been many. Without the General Theory of Relativity being taken into account in GPS satellites within their algorithms in regards to their distance from the earth and their motion relative to Earth's surface, your GPS or GPS enabled smartphone would be so far off as to be rendered utterly useless.

 

As for the speed of light, it has (so far) been shown to be immutable, that is, absolute in its speed as measured in a near-perfect vacuum, such as outer space. It has passed every single test that attempted to refute it, and observations have confirmed its correctness again and again. The speed of light should therefore be considered a physical constant. A black hole is, as far as we can understand it, an exceptionally dense region of space whose gravity warps the fabric of spacetime.

 

For the moment, observations of areas of space where we believe black holes exist have conformed to the laws of relativity as outlined by Einstein and fleshed out by many physicists that followed in his footsteps. Look up the brilliant Andrea Ghez's amazing work on identifying a black hole in the center of our galaxy (I saw her presentation in Toronto a couple of years ago. Amazing.) for an example of Einstein's work in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8re1U9rCo4. 

 

So far, the balance of probabilities weighs heavily in favour of the work done thus far based on the equations of Einstein. The mountain of observational evidence that has built up puts a large onus of proof on any theory that purports to turn it on its head. I applaud your critical look at current thinking, but there is a large burden of proof placed on thee shoulders of any hypothesis that is at variance with where the scientific method and peer-reviewed science has arrived at. There are many competing ideas (the many variations of string/brane theory, for example) out there. So far, Einstein has yet to be proven wrong or superseded, as Einstein superseded Newton.

 

 

I try to Google this language and search told me Fuck off... :shock:

Edited by Unchileno
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Member ID:  2069
  • Group:  ***- Inactive Clan Members
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  214
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  2411
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   2409
  • Achievement Points:  18298
  • Solved Content:  0
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  12/25/10
  • Status:  Offline
  • Last Seen:  
  • Birthday:  08/08/1966
  • Device:  Windows

A different view:

 

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/

 

I'm sure you'll love it, Astro.  :rolleyes:

 

 

This is just part of the article:

 

The Controversy Continues: Speed of Light Slowing Down?

by Chuck Missler

 

The field of physics worships at the altar of c, the velocity of light. It is widely regarded as the inviolate constant which affects all things: from our knowledge of astronomy to the very behavior of subatomic particles. Even the basic relationship between mass and energy is known by every schoolboy as E = mc2.

 

For many years, and in many of our previously published materials, we have made allusions to the very controversial view, held by some, that the speed of light (usually designated mathematically by "c") has been slowing down.1 We have, naturally, received a number of adverse reactions from those who have difficulties dealing with this possibility.

 

Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman for some years.2 Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second.3 They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. The effects predicted by their theory are to be published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review. "If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Dr. Magueijo.

One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform-why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been travelling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it!

 

Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow forever-though at a decreasing rate-and its ultimate fate, it is suggested, would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates.

 

"It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht.

It is disturbing that with this view continuing to gain credibility in some quarters, acknowledgment of the contributions of Setterfield, Norman, and others is conspicuous by its absence.

 

Interesting hypothesis, that the speed of light changes over vast time periods, and was immeasurable fast at the very first sub-microseconds of the beginning. I'm interested in seeing their paper. I wonder what they propose astronomers look for to validate their idea? Gravitational waves of a specific characteristic? A signal in the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.