A billion degrees - is HOT [Archive]

xelasnave

29-03-2007, 05:43 PM

I dont know really I had no trouble with chemistry in fifth class but the "atomic side" did not enter my thinking really. I was just a kid with some high school books ... and certainly when at that time I ïnvented "the electric motor" because of ignorance that they were already here.. Such a simple mistake coming from such a simple understanding of the world that I did not realise they were already on this planet left my feeling stupid and gave me a view of myself I did not know much at all,. I could not then see how everything in the Universe worked nor did I enquire past the areas of my childhood interests which became high school routine... but then Sputnik had not been put up either.. and so it was that I was not noticed or was noticed and the system became suspicious of my attention to detail and a propensity to ask questions that could not be answered so I could offer an answer for consideration... and then somehow getting through high school, learning no more than the original books they showed me, I turned to studying the laws of men not the laws of nature leaving me today wondering when I read anything at all on any matter ...whose laws are being written and obeyed here?? and I find that often the laws said to be those of nature are still indeed the laws of man..somehow in his eagerness to explain something and support a favoured direction somehow missing the orginal point he sought to resolve.... so it is that observation I feel takes me closest to answering your question... and yes I do really struggle with some things but why I dont know.. I guess some stuff if it sounds "funny" I become suspicious and feel learning about it other than to know what is being said is a waste of time... but you have a clear head and your thought I find helpful.
alex
alex

DobDobDob

29-03-2007, 05:47 PM

By clear do you mean 'empty' :whistle:

xelasnave

29-03-2007, 06:17 PM

Certainly not Ron empty is one of those words that implies a condition humans "feel" exists so seeking to describe it they invent the word..empty needs to have something that was there and then removed a condition a human could not survive let alone survive with dignity. Further empty is a close associate of nothing and I say there is no part of the Universe or outside of it which can not be..that exists to answer the descrption..nothing. At the risk of using a double negative
..there is no nothing.
I could go deeper but I have other matters that will take my personal time most of tonight but it is interesting and will help someone so in that context is useful.
How could I not respect a man who can change from a man to a dog with such ease where I come from they would proclaim you a God and put you on a chain and hold you in the dog state of existence.
alex

DobDobDob

29-03-2007, 06:21 PM

Thank you, I smiled when I read your post, you have enriched my day, what can compare with that?

xelasnave

29-03-2007, 06:32 PM

Hard cash in the hand sufficient to pay for your next immediate desire.
Have a good one
alex

xelasnave

29-03-2007, 10:23 PM

The blast will appear on the end closest to the other body I suspect blowing the material away for the most part from the other object. The blast will point to a spot a little behind the other body (where it was in orbit moments before the blast. I am not going to offer the reasons why. But if you think pushing it will be very clear but as no one but me sees the Universe that way you can appreciate why I tire of explaining specific sequences. The last explaination of the unaccounted energy surrounding the Sun will be explained by other who "know" so I will leave it at that..
I have not looked up the data but thats what I predict as it is so very clear the sequence of events that can not happen any other way.
I am tired as I have just finished my Universe and content that it is working the way I expected. Having discharged my duty on gravity rain elsewhere I now plan to rest for I am at peace as they say I have told what I see and if they want others can look I doubt they will but my duty is done.
alex

DobDobDob

29-03-2007, 10:32 PM

You wrote three paragraphs, somewhere amidst it all, there is something resembling a meaningful idea, the job of most sane persons is to try and decode what it is exactly that you meant.

Put another way, what you write and what you mean are poles apart, thus not only do you present an interesting point to challenge ones ideas, but you hide it and make it almost impossible to find. Cryptic logic at it's best :thumbsup:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 08:27 AM

I developed the style from reading the Bible and leave it for others to think they have it worked out and let them build upon the little input of tangible evidence made.. however this method simply lets people read into a text anything they want..
They can therefore put me in whatever box tthey wish this then leaves them feeling comfortable and superior and take or reject any proposition that does not suit.
One can only do it the way one suspects may in time win more minds than the approach will lose. I would like to think I eliminate all who will judge a book by its cover, all who want the bottom line and nothing else, all who tire on long expression, all who tire if grammar and spelling are loose, all who think popular ideas are the correct ideas.
So the logic I employ is simply the more difficult you make something for someone to own is a sure way to have them want it and make them pay a very high price to take it home.. otherwise they can simply look upon it and wonder if it works as well as the producer has suggested.
I like your play on poles apart considering the item of review and like better that when you use the word impossible you qualify it with the only adjective that it deserves..almost... make sure you always qualify it so.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 09:06 AM

I guess that just leaves me to read your stuff :P

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 09:10 AM

I couldn't agree more (actually I could), this is the same philosophy that perfume manufacturers employ to sell 5 Bucks worth of scent for 500 Bucks. Bucks in this sense means dollars :P

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 09:12 AM

Well in that case I will continue...thank you Ron
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 09:17 AM

Have you noticed that ron is at the centre of astronomy :whistle:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 09:21 AM

It is further evidence that we are each as individuals are at the centre of the Observable Universe.. this fact escapes many but they still present to others that is where they live.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 09:25 AM

Have you speculated what might lie beyond the observable universe? Is it more of the same? Does it end as we know it and change into something else or nothing? What would nothing actually be? Help me out here, these are important questions :P

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 09:47 AM

There can be no "nothing" so that implies the actual Universe is infinite. This makes it difficult to go along with the big bang idea as one can not double a point, a seed, a discrete object so that it becomes infinite. Infinite however is beyond humans conception and therefore human acceptance. Humans need to have a start and a finish, they need to be able to run the tape around it and get a reading.
The question when one tries to comptemplate infinity is it more of the same or does our observable Universe form for example no more than the smudge upon the lens of a big telescope belonging to a being beyond our comprehension is size. We can only speculate and wonder about the various possibilities. There is a body of math seeking to deal with infinite and it seems that many working in this area go crazy.. so be careful..if you entertain the possibility past a more than curious level.
It is said it is a wise man who can imagine a stick with no ends but of course a life time can be devoted to imagining same and thereby bring the observation that to spend ones life in such a pursuit is not wise at all.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 10:04 AM

I never got past your first 5 words :P

For the purpose of useful discussion, please define for me 'something'. When you imply nothing does not exist, are you referring to it's state of being as in the opposite of being (existing).

I put it to you that the 'ONLY' thing that makes something is nothing, otherwise there would just be.

Consider the record, what makes the record is the hole at it's centre, and yet it can be argued that the hole is nothing. Not true, the hole (the nothing) is what defines the something (in this case a record). Without the hole it would be a round disk of plastic (were they made of plastic, I think not but you know what I mean).

If you have a universe, a 'real' existence, it can only be so by what defines it, and that is it's opposite.

The evidence of opposites occur throughout nature and is directly observed, electricity is a good example, speed (temperature), and the very essence of being itself must have an opposite. I have refrained purposefully from using the term negative in this sense, because that is not what I mean.

A negative universe has a series of implications that are too complex for me to understand, however an opposite universe is easy for me to understand in the terms I have outline above.

My summary is this, nothing can exist but only in tandem with something, you cannot isolate either one IMHO. Like the subatomic particles both existing and not existing in quantum physics, I believe it will come to pass that these laws will one day be resolved in giant physics.

Over to you mate :thumbsup:

Dujon

30-03-2007, 10:41 AM

'Nothing' is an interesting concept in a philosophical sense, perhaps even in a scientific one as well. I suspect that 'infinite' falls into the same category.

I also suspect, rightly or wrongly, that most people would envisage 'nothing' as a vacuum - that is, lack of air or other baryonic matter. But we know, or think, that this is not the case. What most would consider to be a vacuum is full of radiation which, if E=MC^2 is to be believed, means that space outside an atmosphere is still populated by matter (i.e. energy=matter=energy). If that were not the case then there would be no barrier to us stepping from the Earth's atmosphere to that of Mars - or to anywhere else in the universe, visible or not.

Perhaps it's a matter of mathematical semantics, much like a Roman ignoring the concept of zero? Perhaps it is a human inability to process and accept the idea that 'nothing' exists? I find it hard at times to think of history as a time I didn't exist and, likewise, a future in which I will have the same state.

The point being, of course, that both states have and will occur.

Dujon

30-03-2007, 10:45 AM

Ah, sorry, Ron. I've just been shifting a few cartons of goods that arrived - still not finished - and as a consequence missed your post.

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 11:02 AM

John, lifting cartons is a lesson in biomechanics and physics and one that I would love to observe but not directly participate in. I believe that to be a true observer, one must know where not to step beyond :whistle:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 11:59 AM

Ron this could take months so I will start right away;) .
The hole in the record does not establish nothing I mean it is not nothing err dam you can see why I don’t use the term:lol: :lol: :lol: .

However in the interest of establishing how you can look at a hole and conclude it is nothing I say this...in the context of the record the absence of material does not represent nothing as the hole is indeed something.

It is a material part of the structure and a necessary part of the record needed so it may function...another sysetem could arrive at the same result without a hole using a system to grip the record at the edge to replace the function of the original hole…so I say this is an example of how humans will grab at something and declare it to be nothing when in fact they have simply experienced a leap in logic that happily passed over the reality apparent upon a careful consideration.

The requirement of opposite I can embrace and have often made the point we can have no peace unless we have war, no clean without dirt, no day without night...however these are simplification I use to guide minds easily led when through their nose you insert a ring of human belief and experience.

The opposite and opposites are introduced merely at a human level for in truth all that is...just is. It is the observer who makes the qualification so that being observed fits neatly into the box that already is there waiting.

Good or bad for example is a human observation of simply what is...But being human I make the required decision to see the good in every “as it is" situation so that the mind can file away all experience as good, which after all is an uplifting emotion and one to be pursued .on the basis that I in my human form can make a choice of the available human emotions. Failure to manage ones (human) mind in this way can see experiences of "what is" as negative and capable of causing a un necessary phobia or debilitating neurosis.

All these observations simple point to a human condition of requiring limits, starts and finish to all things. The term nothing means we must look for a place where there is a complete absence of everything..not even a single photon is allowed there as then that area becomes "space" and although sparsely populated with a single photon can not be called nothing.

I don’t buy much of the physics I have been offered and many are surprised that one is prepared to say “no thanks” and choose to construct more workable models I build in my mind that follow logic not a maze of complex math capable of manipulation and ready to accept conveniences such as the need for a "repeater" such as .3333 rather than tackle the real problem that such a strange feature reveals about our current maths.

AND some say that in this regard I am too demanding and that I should accept our current highest level of understanding as the truth.. I have noticed that people can be wrong and Ron as hard as you may find this next statement..I also can be wrong..perhaps even wrong to suggest such a possibility.
Calculus is looked to as a complex and higher expression of the art of math where as in truth it is a system of "close enough is good enough". I like calculus as it goes about things as I would when doing bush carpentry.. I work out the area of a circle by dividing to circle into boxes, count them up and arrive at an approximate area.. calculus does the same but has taken the time to provide a short cut to this method with a formula that condenses this very approach…and one should never forget it is indeed simply counting up the boxes. As complex as calculus may appear it based on close enough is good enough.. it provides however a very simple approach to measurement that by the very nature of the math is not absolute.

Back to the particles jumping into and out of existence as one can loosely put that proposition. I don’t buy it and the entire math in the world will not sway me it makes no sense therefore I reject it and I do not care who carrying whatever qualification proclaims it truth.. they can believe in it I have no problem with that but I also can chose not to believe in it for finally the matter under discussion is past presenting proof I will find acceptable. If God were to tell me it were so I would still ask him for some ID but then check his answers with mine.

Positive and negative as applied to electricity perhaps takes away more understanding of the matter than it provides simply because human views and quantification demand a start and a finish.. positive and negative suggest a start and a finish to the matter and of course this approach hides the picture I believe exists.

Consider a black hole..this is an object born form this approach and believed to exist with such passion that observations are explained simply by the belief in an object born on a sheet of paper to fit humans desire to have a start and a finish.

The expansion of the Universe is similar, arrived at thru an extrapolation of perhaps observational data that was going to fit the prevailing popular idea. In fact I question the purpose of having a big bang idea on the basis that it also has grown out of a human need to have a start and a finish.

Yet this need takes us away from facing the possibility that there is no end to our Universe but there is a place where one can hop the fence and travel forever in nothing...an infinite nothing is not possible in any model I can entertain.
If the Universe is expanding does it expand into nothing. Do the out flowing photos colonize nothing to turn it into “space”
I find the reaching for an explanation of the conditions that may have existed before the big bang provides for nothing yet in that nothing we have introduced the proposition of quantum fluctuations ..err from nothing. The very construct of the big bang idea grows from the human need to accept and be happy with nothing. I am never happy with facing the prospect of nothing and in its place will always see something. Again I have confined myself to a short answer by making simple but expandable points.

My Universe is infinite and holds together by every particle wanting to have its own turf and sending messages to the rest of the Universe pointing out its presence and sending a little part of itself to every corner of the Universe..
In trying to account for the region of higher temp (more excited bits) past the surface of the Sun illustrates the power of all these particles arriving to tell the Sun of their respective being.. the Sun pushes back and everyone (bit) gets so excited observers overlook that they witness a coming and going not merely a going.. this increased temp/activity is tentatively explained by the breaking of a magnetic field because that is the only way under current thought they can get addition energy into the region..ship it in from the closest apparently available source (the Sun is the source and magnetism the shipping company of choice) well do that if they must but sums without the appropriate inputs will give the wrong picture even though the sums may be correct in every aspect of their calculation.

This was mostly unchecked or edited so please rip into the ideas not the presentation. I will look at it and fix anything that misleads you from my idea I seek to present.
Alex:) :) :)

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 12:10 PM

John space certainly is not nothing as you observe its full of gravity rain for a start. Think of any point in space and consider what travels thru that one point (and the point next to it and the point next to it adinfinitum) place two objects in close proximity to each other and consider the effect upon them of the bits rushing everywhere, they will both move to the area of "shadow they create for each other.. this is not nothing at work so I agree with your general observation. Moving cartons are you not married?
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 12:15 PM

Alex, you are the master of understatement :whistle:

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 12:19 PM

That analogy is as silly as the two kids trying to out bid each other till finally one says, "my number is a googol plus one". Come on Alex, you can do better than that.

Nothing is not you placing 'something in nothing', that changes the state. Nothing is the 'Place' or 'State' where there is nothing. You have it upside down and sideways, similar to a Chinese All You Can Eat Smorgasbord, hmmmnnnn now you made me hungry :whistle:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 12:26 PM

Considering the two concepts we are considering..."ïnfinity" on the one hand and "nothing" on the other perhaps I did underestimate the time such could take to explain in deatils..still its a start.. but I really cant take any longer than that.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 12:29 PM

Short answer: Yes

I assume you meant photons and not photos :D sorry, this grammar thing is so quaint :P

The short answer to this question is: YES.

One of the principles of observation is that you must not let the observer influence the outcome of the observation.

In keeping with this edict, by altering the state of 'Nothing' you are actually contaminating it, or if you like, changing it's state. Thus it is you the observer that creates the essential difference between something and nothing, and not the state itself per se :P

Alex: A question: Are we having fun :whistle:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 12:59 PM

Looking at it one must view anything not returning a dollar as fun.
I came across this interesting article.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/distant_galaxy_040216.html

I have suggested the big bang idea although interesting may have difficulty living to a ripe old age. The following comment by the author of that article
he says
There is a lot to learn.

When it was born, the universe contained only hydrogen and helium. All other elements were forged inside stars and in the explosive deaths of the most massive stars, known as supernovas.

"But we see a lot of other elements around those early quasars," Fan said. "We see evidence of carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements, and it's not clear how these elements got there. There is as much iron, proportionate to the population of those early systems, as there is in mature galaxies nearby."

Theorists have become increasingly impressed with how rapidly stars must have formed as the Dark Ages ended.

Comments such as these point to the sort of thing I seize upon to reason I may be closer to the answers by removing a start, for if nothing else they will have to increase the age given to the Universe and "tweet"the sums as the day of reckoning doth approach... and being an impertinant fool I sugest the observations will become more difficult to fit the idea as more observations come to hand.
AND Ron re reply for John...having gone on about gravity rain for over a year elsewhere and personally posting over 600 replies to myself I just could not bring myself to offer more than the bare bones I offerred John to grind upon. An example of how I avoid detail in an effort to be brief.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 01:59 PM

Ahhhh had to stop for lunch and to clear my head of all your conflicting thread starters. To be fair, there are probably more than a dozen different possible threads rolled into this one, which is about the ignition of a white dwarf star :P

There is however on the whole a lot of very fine observations by you Alex and some that by your own admission fly in the face of popular opinion. Be that as it may, I want you to consider this final point regarding the 'Big Bang', seeing that you inadvertently (or purposely) brought it up.

Most people see the event we call the Big Bang as a starting point, you yourself coined those words. I on the other hand do not, nor have I ever. I have a linear doughnut theory that I developed whilst at Swinburne and it would take several years for me to explain it to you.

However a gross oversimplification is that the universe 'as we know it' is merely a lap, one circuit, one revolution if you like, of an endless ongoing universe where the movie (this reality, this time around), is being played out.

In my multi-dimensional fixed direction doughnut, the end is the beginning and vice versa. The actual big bang point is merely the end (or transition) from one lap to the next, from one existence to the next.

So the term of time is never mentioned by me, because time is a position and not the passage of events over a given range. Thus the question could be asked, not what time is it or was it, but what position is it or was.

If you just focus on the current lap of existence (the one we are in, in the dimension we are occupying), you are constantly trying to figure out 'Where' it began (not when).

The folly of the big bang theory is as you eluded to, seemingly unanswerable for time to have begun, we are compelled to ask but what of before time? In my model of 'Where' it began, you know the answer, will be, a position relative to where the previous 'Lap' ended but in another dimension.

The doughnut is a great shape for my universe because it sits well with the endless flow of existence, continually passing the same position, time and time again, but with each new beginning, the life forms (us) think we are the only ones that ever existed and that somehow it all works just for or around us.

The nothing that exists outside of all that exists is the conduit that binds it together, for no reality can exist outside of itself and by definition must be contained within itself.

The essence of what makes nothing and something is the only real universal cop that keeps life and reality flowing along the doughnut round and round and round ad infinitum.

On this lap, we go back to a position where it began, but can't go further or past that position, because of the shape of existence (the humble doughnut), it is one way traffic only. I have often used the human heart with it's marvellous filters which purify blood and stop the backflow as a way of trying to explain what is happening at the position where one lap ends and the next begins (what you could call the big bang) but is more probably like a big contraction :whistle:

If you have ever wondered about the meaning of life (no not the number 22) but the cycle of life-death-birth you must admit it goes on everywhere and with everything to some degree or other. So too in my model does the rebirth after death exist, I call it laps, you can call it whatever you like, it's all the same thing.

Each time around, there is an end, which is followed by a beginning which moves towards the next end and so on. This is not strange, you see it everywhere, here on Earth and in the stars, so why not the very fabric of existence itself?

Okay, I will stop this short because it is off topic and the one thing I have learnt is that you dare not push a moderator too far, else all the universe will be annihilated with an unimaginable fury :thumbsup:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 02:18 PM

Ron I am speechless but that has never stopped me.
May I ask what does the doughhnut (mmm I spelt it doenut elsewhere) sit in nothing? or a bowl of cream?
Ron I thought all said was very much on the original post.
But that is an interesting idea and indeed a novel idea...a Universe without a start or finish.
Have a good one.
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 02:32 PM

Thank you Alex (both of you) :whistle:

No seriously, I am serious :D you have a good day too :thumbsup:

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 02:38 PM

No worries Ron and for the record what do I really beieve in.. well the answer seems strange given our little chat but it is....nothing..nothing at all
alex

DobDobDob

30-03-2007, 02:41 PM

Here is something eerie to ponder, my last post (the one before this one), it was number 666, now I really am starting to worry :doh:

If you reply again and it is less than 25 words, I will not reply thereafter, which will make you the winner of the person having the last word :P

xelasnave

30-03-2007, 05:38 PM

The devil you say!
alex

taminga16

30-03-2007, 11:17 PM

Alex, who makes your shirts. Greg (Take care)

xelasnave

31-03-2007, 03:24 AM

I presume you refer to the one I wear in the post a pic of yourself thread.
I usually wear black shirts, pants socks etc as you can boil the heck out of them and the color does not run. When I took that photo all the black ones were in the wash so that was the only one here I had to wear. That shirt has drawn a comment elsewhere I dont know if it is very good or very bad but who made it I dont know.
alex

Dujon

31-03-2007, 12:24 PM

Ah, the laws of observation are far removed from reality, Ron, much as I wish they were not.

I am an expert supervisor and have been such for much of my life. Unfortunately on the day of arrival of this evil shipment my wife, son, his girlfriend along with other willing souls, were not within a coo-ee of my premises. Damn shame that. Nevertheless, given that I have recently taken up an exercise regime (OK, not a regime, just a bit of heavy walking . . . would you believe a light walk? . . . No? . . . How about a bit of masochistic calf and thigh torture?), I managed to complete the task.

Once I get the body into reasonable condition I shall start on the brain. Does one get headaches from brain training? I rarely suffer from headaches so perhaps that is why.

Oh, yes, I forgot. A billion degrees is hot, but only if you are close to the atoms which are jiggling.

DobDobDob

31-03-2007, 03:04 PM

When you are ready to learn how to think let me know, I did a course on it once and you would be surprised how technically advanced a process it is. Most people never think, not once during the course of the day, they have robotic like responses to certain conditions and go about doing the same old things everyday.

The process of thinking is something you must learn, it is not instinctive. Thinking is an action, a verb, and as such you must actually 'Do' something. Let me know if you are serious and I'll teach you how to think. :whistle:

xelasnave

31-03-2007, 09:19 PM

Ron I would like to learn how to think.. I find myself not thinking and sometimes moving instead..can you help?
alex

xelasnave

31-03-2007, 09:20 PM

mmm I think I need help with the moving also.
alex

DobDobDob

01-04-2007, 12:05 AM

Okay, seeing you asked so nicely :P

The first thing you have to realise is that you currently have no formal method of thinking, be honest, what you consider thinking is just a random process that happens, usually instinctively or due to some catalyst.

There is really only one successful way to think and that is of course providing you have something to think about. This is not me being glib, but the first thing you have to do is set yourself a topic to think about.

I will describe for you how I think. Firstly the night before going to sleep, I write down a topic that I want to think about the next day, something important is good :whistle:

I go to sleep and wake the next morning, and find the quietest place in the house, grab a coffee and make myself comfortable. I then pull out my blank sheet of paper with just the topic for thinking at the top and I start to think about the specific topic. I jot ideas down very quickly as they rush into my fresh mind.

Because I am totally focused, in a quiet room, and very comfortable without any distractions whatsoever, the ideas flood in, so only time to jot the ideas down in point form. After about 5 minutes of this, I then go back over the list and start to group the ideas, then I prioritise the ideas.

After I have the list of ideas about the topic I am thinking of, I then go over every idea from top to bottom in the list and make additional notes as I think about each item in turn, this spurns a new level of thinking and a few new ideas.

The whole session last between 20 to 30 minutes, and is solid thinking. As I mentioned earlier, thinking is a verb, so you need to do something, you need to be structured and comfortable and prepared and you need to follow through.

I tried this for several years when working my way through Swinburne and it helped me pass all my assignments. I learned how to think, and it does work. I challenge you to try it and be honest and earnest and give it a try, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish in a short time. By the end of the coffee, you have a manuscript that is more than just random thought, you have a working draft of your idea and from there you can put the idea into action.

As I have written in my Logo, I try to think everyday. Using my definition of thinking, it is hard to do if you are not a structured person, but if you want something bad enough you can train yourself, I did it and trust me I am seriously not that bright :doh:

Good luck, try to think tomorrow. Btw, I chose the morning whilst the house was quiet, it suited me best then, others may be better at different times. The important thing is to give yourself a chance. :thumbsup:

xelasnave

01-04-2007, 09:13 AM

Ron thank you for taking your time to share your method of “how to think”:thumbsup: .

You have addressed the most important aspect I feel in so far as you allocate specific time to the activity:thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
I believe many people think they think but I suspect it is a casual approach and time is not allocated but thoughts are dealt with “when they pop in” whilst engaged in other activity.
Being confronted with the "white board" in a group discussion may be the closest some come to this wonderful experience:) .
Given the fact that human existence is full of activity and “dead line” situations the time available for thought can be minimal, the pattern of thought somewhat random, unrecorded and unprepared with unrecorded goals and objectives.
I can see your method addresses these issues and so will place one in a state where the matter being thought upon is given the time and room that will allow a productive result:thumbsup: . I like your approach and can relate to the method for I follow a similar method:thumbsup: .

I also like your “I try to think once a day” tag my only observation is I dislike the word “try” as it implies the possibility of failure generally:eyepop: .

If we make a statement of intention qualified by the word “try” the word provides the sub conscious mind with an excuse not to “win”.
I avoid its use as a very conscious effort when managing any task;) .

I was impressed by Sir Isaac Newton’s, observed as strange, propensity to stop where a thought occurred to him and drop all other things to think upon whatever had occurred to him until his thoughts had pursued the thought,... no doubt as fully as it could be with no time limit set upon the process:) .

I would like to share your method with my Son if I may as better progress is made when you point to another using a sensible approach than if one points to oneself and offer that as authority;) .
Again I thank you for taking the time to share your method:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
Alex:) :) :) :)

Dujon

01-04-2007, 10:26 AM

No, tailwag, you are wrong. I think many times a day, although I grant you that I don't always write down my mental notes. My problem is that I've been taught to 'think outside the square'. This possibly explains why my thoughts generally tend to 'go around in circles'. :atom:

xelasnave

01-04-2007, 10:56 AM

But John Ron said most people and although a generalisation I doubt if he was thinking of you John:) .. Your engagement in this thread alone shows you indeed think:thumbsup: .
I post this simply because I notice when ever one says another is wrong the matter goes down hill from there and as Ron is a man who would not take offence and as you are a man who would not take offence I can raise this observation I have only recently made:) .
I like being told I am wrong however and often invite the opportunity mainly to test the water I find myself swimming in at the time:) .
However not all humans approach matters this way so I avoid making the statement that one is wrong.... mind you I could be wrong here:) .
mmmm I am going off in a quiet room and think about all of this.
alex :) :) :)

DobDobDob

01-04-2007, 12:03 PM

....anyway, I still think "a billion degrees is hot"....:whistle:

xelasnave

01-04-2007, 12:46 PM

Hey are you hyjacking this thread:lol: :lol: :lol: and besides you got me round to thinking fast not hot:whistle:
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

01-04-2007, 01:13 PM

I believe that is a more appropriate way to understand the phenomena :P

xelasnave

01-04-2007, 01:42 PM

I agree Ron
alex

DobDobDob

01-04-2007, 02:17 PM

Stop agreeing with me Alex, it will start tongues wagging :whistle:

huckabuck

02-04-2007, 12:09 AM

:shrug: this thread has raised a question to me.

what ever started our universe(big bang, gravity rain,supreme being, or whatever), could it not have happened more than once????

could our universe, as vast as it seems to us, be just a miniscule part of many other universe's???:D :D :D

xelasnave

02-04-2007, 07:08 AM

Quantum fluctuations in the gravity rain blowing thru a window of time coming from the Universe next door:eyepop: ...believe me it was I who forgot to close the window and have been sent to explain the mess to all life forms in the Universe before cleaner arrives to mop it up;) .
Good questions:thumbsup: but you know Ron he will accuse us of hyjacking his thread:D but starting a new one to consider such questions would be neat:thumbsup: .
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

02-04-2007, 08:19 AM

Hmnnn hijackers indeed :P anywho, (that is intentional Alex, not a typo), if you refer back to my continuous, linear, doughnut model, you will see that each revolution is indeed a previous or future iteration....or put in more succinct terms, "more of the same".

Existence is just one long ride on the icing of my doughnut, going round and round, with a start and finish for each lap. You can call the beginning the 'Big Bang', or you can simply call it a metaphysical change of properties to a different plane, but still going around on the old doughnut :whistle:

xelasnave

02-04-2007, 09:26 AM

Then you are an optimist for it is so said of someone who sees the doughnut not the hole.
alex

DobDobDob

02-04-2007, 09:29 AM

Well actually I am sort of guilty of eating the middle of the doughnut, but only because I was really really hungry :whistle:

xelasnave

02-04-2007, 04:09 PM

I must be very positive as I see there can be no hole or even an outside so all I see is doughnut:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Except someone has taken a bite out of it:eyepop: ..but if infinite you can take as many bites as you wish and the dougnut will alway remain a doughnut...even if it has no outside:shrug: .
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

02-04-2007, 08:51 PM

You cad, you ate part of my universe, why?????? I never 'Rained' on your parade :whistle:

xelasnave

03-04-2007, 09:00 AM

There is no point in saying I did not do it unless I can suggest the most likely culprit:) .
alex:) :) :)

cohen avshalom

12-04-2007, 08:42 PM

what is the temperature in supernova?

thank you
avshalom cohen charly
isreal/haifa

DobDobDob

12-04-2007, 09:05 PM

Very, very hot :P
Seeing no one has been inside one with a thermometer, it is a theoretical temp, and seeing there is no standard supernovae i.e. different sized stars go novae, there would in my humble opinion, be a wide variation in possible temperatures. :whistle:

cohen avshalom

13-04-2007, 05:31 AM

what is the most passible hot that we can get?

cohen avshalom charly
isreal/haifa

Pascha

13-04-2007, 05:59 AM

Heja Ron!
Are you sure that temperature is the speed of mainly electrons?
If I rember well in a crystall the atoms swing. If their speed accelerates temperature rises till the crystall becomes a liquid, later a gas. So I would pefer to say temp. is a metron of speed of atom or molecules.
Clear skies Pascha

DobDobDob

13-04-2007, 05:27 PM

Hmmn that is really splitting straws and as punishment you will have to read the following 'Short' excerpt I 'borrowed' from a friendly website. It's true that words such as particles and molecules are used in preference to the more specific electron, but I rather fancy this is a somewhat mute point, because the temperature of things is as a whole unit, not the individual parts :P anyway, read this more informative description and you will know most of what there is to know about heat (hot). This is the first part and if you want to read the entire story, go to: http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/tmp2.html The question of how hot is also answered near the bottom of the story on the website.

What is Temperature?

In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it.

It is easy to demonstrate that when two objects of the same material are placed together (physicists say when they are put in thermal contact), the object with the higher temperature cools while the cooler object becomes warmer until a point is reached after which no more change occurs, and to our senses, they feel the same. When the thermal changes have stopped, we say that the two objects (physicists define them more rigorously as systems) are in thermal equilibrium . We can then define the temperature of the system by saying that the temperature is that quantity which is the same for both systems when they are in thermal equilibrium.
If we experiment further with more than two systems, we find that many systems can be brought into thermal equilibrium with each other; thermal equilibrium does not depend on the kind of object used. Put more precisely,
if two systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they must also be in thermal equilibrium with each other,
and they all have the same temperature regardless of the kind of systems they are.

The statement in italics, called the zeroth law of thermodynamics may be restated as follows:If three or more systems are in thermal contact with each other and all in equilibrium together, then any two taken separately are in equilibrium with one another. (quote from T. J. Quinn's monograph Temperature) Now one of the three systems could be an instrument calibrated to measure the temperature - i.e. a thermometer. When a calibrated thermometer is put in thermal contact with a system and reaches thermal equilibrium, we then have a quantitative measure of the temperature of the system. For example, a mercury-in-glass clinical thermometer is put under the tongue of a patient and allowed to reach thermal equilibrium in the patient's mouth - we then see by how much the silvery mercury has expanded in the stem and read the scale of the thermometer to find the patient's temperature.
What is a Thermometer?

A thermometer is an instrument that measures the temperature of a system in a quantitative way. The easiest way to do this is to find a substance having a property that changes in a regular way with its temperature. The most direct 'regular' way is a linear one:

t(x) = ax + b,
where t is the temperature of the substance and changes as the property x of the substance changes. The constants a and b depend on the substance used and may be evaluated by specifying two temperature points on the scale, such as 32° for the freezing point of water and 212° for its boiling point.
For example, the element mercury is liquid in the temperature range of -38.9° C to 356.7° C (we'll discuss the Celsius ° C scale later). As a liquid, mercury expands as it gets warmer, its expansion rate is linear and can be accurately calibrated.

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/hg.gif

The mercury-in-glass thermometer illustrated in the above figure contains a bulb filled with mercury that is allowed to expand into a capillary. Its rate of expansion is calibrated on the glass scale. The Development of Thermometers and Temperature Scales

The historical highlights in the development of thermometers and their scales given here are based on "Temperature" by T. J. Quinn and "Heat" by James M. Cork.

One of the first attempts to make a standard temperature scale occurred about AD 170, when Galen, in his medical writings, proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. (http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/galen.html)<A href="http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/galen.html" target=_blank>
The earliest devices used to measure the temperature were called thermoscopes.
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/thrmscp.gif They consisted of a glass bulb having a long tube extending downward into a container of colored water, although Galileo (http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/Galileo.jpg) in 1610 is supposed to have used wine. Some of the air in the bulb was expelled before placing it in the liquid, causing the liquid to rise into the tube. As the remaining air in the bulb was heated or cooled, the level of the liquid in the tube would vary reflecting the change in the air temperature. An engraved scale on the tube allowed for a quantitative measure of the fluctuations.
The air in the bulb is referred to as the thermometric medium, i.e. the medium whose property changes with temperature.
In 1641, the first sealed thermometer that used liquid rather than air as the thermometric medium was developed for Ferdinand II, Grand Duke of Tuscany. His thermometer used a sealed alcohol-in-glass device, with 50 "degree" marks on its stem but no "fixed point" was used to zero the scale. These were referred to as "spirit" thermometers.
Robert Hook, Curator of the Royal Society, in 1664 used a red dye in the alcohol . His scale, for which every degree represented an equal increment of volume equivalent to about 1/500 part of the volume of the thermometer liquid, needed only one fixed point. He selected the freezing point of water. By scaling it in this way, Hook showed that a standard scale could be established for thermometers of a variety of sizes. Hook's original thermometer became known as the standard of Gresham College and was used by the Royal Society until 1709. (The first intelligible meteorological records used this scale).
In 1702, the astronomer Ole Roemer of Copenhagen based his scale upon two fixed points: snow (or crushed ice) and the boiling point of water, and he recorded the daily temperatures at Copenhagen in 1708- 1709 with this thermometer.
It was in 1724 that Gabriel Fahrenheit, an instrument maker of Däanzig and Amsterdam, used mercury as the thermometric liquid. Mercury's thermal expansion is large and fairly uniform, it does not adhere to the glass, and it remains a liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Its silvery appearance makes it easy to read.

Fahrenheit described how he calibrated the scale of his mercury thermometer:"placing the thermometer in a mixture of sal ammoniac or sea salt, ice, and water a point on the scale will be found which is denoted as zero. A second point is obtained if the same mixture is used without salt. Denote this position as 30. A third point, designated as 96, is obtained if the thermometer is placed in the mouth so as to acquire the heat of a healthy man." (D. G. Fahrenheit,Phil. Trans. (London) 33, 78, 1724) On this scale, Fahrenheit measured the boiling point of water to be 212. Later he adjusted the freezing point of water to 32 so that the interval between the boiling and freezing points of water could be represented by the more rational number 180. Temperatures measured on this scale are designated as degrees Fahrenheit (° F).
In 1745, Carolus Linnaeus of Upsula, Sweden, described a scale in which the freezing point of water was zero, and the boiling point 100, making it a centigrade (one hundred steps) scale. Anders Celsius (1701-1744) used the reverse scale in which 100 represented the freezing point and zero the boiling point of water, still, of course, with 100 degrees between the two defining points.
In 1948 use of the Centigrade scale was dropped in favour of a new scale using degrees Celsius (° C). The Celsius scale is defined by the following two items that will be discussed later in this essay:

(i) The triple point of water is defined to be 0.01° C.
(ii) A degree Celsius equals the same temperature change as a degree on the ideal-gas scale.
On the Celsius scale the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure is 99.975 C in contrast to the 100 degrees defined by the Centigrade scale.
To convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit: multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
° F = 1.8° C + 32
° K = ° C + 273.

DobDobDob

20-04-2007, 01:47 PM

Well you sent me off looking up 'metron' which led me to Heim theory (for a quick overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory) ) and of course after a full revolution of effort returning to where I left off from (Doughnut theory) :P I can only conclude that the difference between swinging and vibrating or jiggling electrons, or other sub-atomic particles, is not much :whistle:

I do want to thank you Pascha for your thought provoking submission, it did enrich me as per Heim theory, which by all accounts, has not set the academic world on fire (heat), a sort of half-pun intended :D

One last thing that I would like to add, which reflects back to my 'Doughnut Theory' which is analogous to one of the current interpretations about a 'Black Hole'. It has been said that when matter meets the singularity, it ceases to exist, which is like the instant prior to the 'Big Bang' in reverse.

Applying this to my 'Doughnut theory', each revolution of existence, ends in a singularity which is the same instant of creation of the next revolution (or lap). This means that as one reality ceases to exist the next is born, thus it is continuos however each revolution is unique and the linear nature of the flow of existence means it is one way traffic only.

That's not to say that a possible 'Short-cut' might not be possible, similar to a 'Worm Hole' from one side of the 'Doughnut to the other. Perhaps using the word doughnut is a little off putting to most people, it might be wiser for me to say that the flow of all existence at any give location (time) is linear and if one were able to rise above all existence, you would see it flows in a circular shape similar to a doughnut i.e. a void in the centre.

As this existence flows, it heads towards a singularity (which could be the accretion of all known existing black holes into one final unimaginable last black hole that all existence flows into and ceases to exist, emerging at the same instant as a 'big Bang' in a new existence, ready to flow forward for the next iteration.

To help you understand this more think of the mechanics involved in birth-life-death of a star, advance it beyond the creation of a galaxy, advance it further to all existence itself i.e. all known and unknown forces, imagine them on a one-way journey where each new moment (instance of location/time) supersedes the previous.

This relentless journey ends, the next begins, obviously on a time scale we cannot realistically hope to understand, towards the end of the journey all physics begin to mutate and alter, similar to what happens on the other side i.e. physics seems to have changed it's goal post at some stage after the current 'Big Bang', this explains why we can't model the creation of a galaxy.

Anyway, this is just another slant on my 'Doughnut theory', perhaps I should rename it, but in all honesty the humble doughnut for all intents and purposes is the shape that best describes how time and space flows.

The so-called expansion of the universe for-ever is not really forever, it is so large and expanding but still curved and at the point of extinction, fully circular i.e. back to where it came from.

Hmnnnnnn I hope Alex can grasp this, he is the only bloke weird enough that I know that might actually understand what I am trying to say. Oh, and to put this firmly back on topic, yes Hot is very hot :whistle: but don't confuse it with heat.

xelasnave

20-04-2007, 07:38 PM

"this explains why we can't model the creation of a galaxy".

Ron this is only a problem because the time needed for galaxy formation can not be fitted into the time frame allowed by the big bang idea. Add to that the annoying finds of very old galaxies that are "too old" for their age, and finding stars older than the Universe can confuse things no doubt.

There is no mystery to me how they form and grow but one wont be able to fit their life cycle into a big bang Universe reasoned to be only some 14 billion years old.
I wonder what was happening say 100,000 billion years ago.. mmm even earlier and how long did we enjoy this state of "nothing" .. what was going on for the last trillion years and the trillion before that...nothing???

To be polite I will say I understand your doughnut approach on the assumption this is a way of simplifying something much more complex, but is an outline of a cycle somehow grouping time and matter.

I take it that you see a cycle.. a cycle that presumably tries to fit current science (big bang idea) into the current abnormalities cosmology presents to us.

However I come back to the point I have made before ... we can not exist in a sea of nothing, as it were, so we must face the prospect of the Universe being infinite..if we face that proposition we find that we can not have a start or a finish, there is no expansion or contraction other than maybe a locally observed matter, if infinite the Universe has no place to expand "into"... it is at this point I disagree with the big bang idea and the big doughnut idea as it seems both call upon human requirement for a confinement of all that is.. why do we need a start finish top bottom or sides for our Universe other than to satisfy humans desire to be more than they are and not face the fact we are very small and maybe at best insignificant...

Infinite is impossible to comprehend but I suspect that is the way it is.

But back on topic re tempreture do you have any thoughts as to what the "bits" do when two bodies seek thermal equilibrium?

What messages are sent back and forth I wonder???

I wonder how such messages pass between them and how these messages are passed.. using the "bits" available.. is it fast particles bumping into slow ones causing the slow one to spped up a little and the fast one to slow down a little.

Or do we need super symmetry??? or better still can we get it a gig in here someplace...

I wonder how string theory explains such a basic thing as bodies seeking thermal equilibrium.. particularly as it concerns the very objects they like to speculate upon.
Dont worry about a link I have some ideas I am following that seems to be ok so far.

Have you noticed that in the past I say that temperature is relevant in gravitational influence... I bet no one will go along with that idea... so I need another prediction to cover that one I guess... but it must.

Of course all will say the speed of a body is relevant in its gravitational relationships but not temprature.. mmm speed is temprature is it not relevant?.. sortta makes sense did we not say temp is speed???

So heat is really the manifestation "speed" and heat is the energy in a form humans can observe... even if they can not observe the reality at the atomic level of the experience.

Heat is maybe the speedometre of speed of the bits we observe. So I wonder if any see the relationship of temp to gravitational influence?
alex

DobDobDob

20-04-2007, 07:55 PM

Just quickly, heat is the transfer of temperature, this implies from point a to point b. Next, I doubt that the universe is infinite, my stop start is not that simple, it is total annihilation to zero, zilch, nada, then rebirth ala Big Bang, this is very different than your inference of it stop/starting.

Back to dinner, I could'nt let those two slide past, I will review your effort and make fuller comment later :whistle:

xelasnave

20-04-2007, 08:20 PM

A singularity soup boiling evaporating and condencing perhaps?
Eternal but not infinite timeless but maintaining an order that can be described as a cycle not only of time but of matter and on your earlier notes the laws that make it all work also change...

If I could understand it better I would disagree more but must limit myself to what I understand to date.

Still its as good as any idea out there and gravity rain will work your Universe as easy as any other.

What happens between point A and point B has me interested in the temprature thing. The mesages etc must be very interesting to observe..if we could that is.

How can you eat when such matters are under review???

I know the brain uses most of the energy provided for the old body and without fuel you would be lost... at least under powered for thinking.. so eat up, power up and let us have some more of your wonderful explanations .. they really are very good and informative and I am sure all gets as much excitement as I do from your input Ron.

You have a great way of explaining things.

alex

DobDobDob

20-04-2007, 08:27 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
LOL you are incorrigible :whistle:

DobDobDob

20-04-2007, 09:46 PM

Alex, it seems that you and I need to come to common ground with regards to a singularity. I'll go first, it is my understanding that the far end of a black hole i.e. the opposite end where you enter, is what is called a singularity.

Within this region matter ceases to exist i.e. doesn't change or alter form, does not convert to anything, it simply ceases to exist. This is where you must either agree with me or disagree. This is the point that we must settle on, because unless we are both of that belief, we can not move forward which in this case is backward :P

Let's assume that you agree with my description above, then the tricky part is what comes next.....creation......the big bang......a giant universal burp....call it what you like, but the effect is, the exact opposite of what happens in the singularity in a black hole.

What happens is existence comes into being, as it did 14 billion years ago, why are you having trouble with this concept. It starts, it finishes, it exists, it doesn't exist. Things have been observed popping in and out of existence all the time in quantum theory, this is nothing new.

Just apply the same phenomena on a larger scale, it is so simple, really simple, stop looking for exotic explanations where none exists. Apply Occam's Razor in this instance and you will sleep well tonight.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the word infinite, to me it does not exist, it can't. I will admit that existence can last a long time, but definitely not for infinity. Try my model, which is fast gaining support even if not mathematically kosher.

Back to you Alex, can you agree or not on the most basic issue of all, is the universe infinite, is existence infinite, can matter be destroyed - good questions, which I answer No, No and Yes.

Your serve :whistle:

xelasnave

20-04-2007, 11:51 PM

Yes, irrelevant and no.

Occams Razor works for me to cut away all that hides my Universe.

I find it unacceptable that such a small amount of time has been allocated to our Universe when presumably there is so much more available... 14 billion years is nothing really when measured against say a trillion.

It makes no sense to me to place such a limit upon it which is derived from human dabling at the issue. Particularly when galaxies pop up that simply dont fit the time frame. I understand it there are stars that say they are older than the big bang Universe age??? maybe wrong, maybe data is corrupt maybe who wrote the things I have read are uninformed..

It is not easy to determine why certain ideas are followed so strongly but I fear if something threatens the big bang approach it is dispatched promptly..even if it takes a fanciful notion such as inflation to do so..

Why can inflation be so readily accepted I have no idea .. I am only human but this does not limit me from calling a proposition, requiring all we know about (the observable Universe) at some stage, growing at a trillion times in a split second..unreasonable.

I say that is unreasonable others say it is not... I can not prove I am right and I doubt if they will prove inflation as a fact..ever to my satisfaction. I find it extrodinary that they wish to try given that the data will be somewhat "old" but they will and I suspect they will find the proof.. because that is waht they expect to find.

But Ron it is a matter of views ..you have yours I have mine and they are not the only explanations of creation or non creation available I expect.

It will irritate folk that I dont buy what is on offer given all the science to prove their point but they are best seeing that as my problem.. not theirs... and let me drown in my ignorance of the science..still I say that I read a lot and never like to sound as though I know more than I do but I am not as uninformed I suspect many think I am.

I do find however by asking questions one gets closer somehow to at least assessing why folk believe what they do which is more relevant to me than what may or may not be so.

I simply think that the idea of singularity is wrong.
It is so convenient to cop out of working for a better answer I feel.

I see singularity as a concept born of speculation on paper using geometry to describe boundaries arrived at by extrapolation of observations that may indeed have other explanations.

No one will have it that the Universe may not be expanding because of their preference of interpretation of the observation.

Dr A was of a different view until Mr Hubble made his observations public.

What would Dr A have found if such information had not been accepted and the doppler effect considered may not be appropriate when dealing with vast distances.
The big bang is supposedly tidy but so is Lord of the Rings however the story line may have little to do with the reality.

It makes sense only if you are a small human wanting to define your exsitence and intelect to answer unanswerable questions.

I am seen as strange because I refuse to accept what has been accepted by others ... but to me it is no more than being outcast by mob rule, unkind but lets face it there is no alternate view to the big bang and given the short comings of the idea I find this strange.

If you hold another view it is asked to provide the most sound proof, yet say with the big bang idea when a problem is reached another idea is added to support it and hold it from drowning.

I find it impossible to give any credibility to the concept of inflation... yet such a long stretch is eagerly grasped by all who wish the Universe to have a start and an end...without inflation the big bang idea has serious problems.

Maybe drop inflation and fix the problems with something believable may be a better approach.
When inflation was first floated it was seen as a little over the top but in time (20 yrs I think) it was the best available to save the big bang so inflation was installed. It is possible by math.. but maybe other things are also possible.

If one has a system that requires an idea , followed by an prediction, followed by observation do you not conceed to observations will possibly fit the things being sought.
I feel that is the problem.
I can not suggest better but that does not mean that such a system may lead us to one conclusion very fast without other conclusions even being considered.

Major problems present with the big bang idea but it is held onto as if there can be no other alternative... to support an idea so strongly has advantages but may see all information guided to support the original idea.

We think we know it all and the big bang is it, I simply say it may have been a good idea at the time but really if we look at the problems perhaps other ideas should get equal time.

Just as I could not convert the whole of the Catholic Church to Non belief I can neither convert those, who believe the big bang is it, to see any other alternative.

That is the way it is.

But also the whole Catholic Church can not convert me to their thinking nor can the whole big bang movement convert me to their way of thinking... And I know there is evidence (both will provide to support a conversion)..

I am happy to comment upon item by item offerring my foolish and unscientific explanations and many will laugh but my views are considered whereas many take what they are told without any consideration that it may or may not be valid.

Why should a point be reached where another set of rules take over as we expect with singularity.. it makes no sense to me ..it sounds neat but it is so untidy I reject the notion.. AND it is no good saying but our science can not explain past a certain point if that point opf itself is unreasonable.. why should the laws break down..only to suit humans that all.. I doubt if nature deals iwth things in such a manner...

I do not accept that matter can pop into and out of existence that there is some sort of "other" side or that there are multiple Universes..that does not mean I am correct or incorrect it is simply my view... suported only by my lodgic and presumably will make perfect sense to me but not to others.

Still I like to know accepted thinking and enjoy any futher explanation of the big bang Universe or the Doughnut Universe.

So I hope this has qualified for others your observation that I am indeed weird in my thinking.... but that I think nevertheless.

Best wishes with your Universe and all others I hope my observations firm your beliefs rather than erroding them.

alex

DobDobDob

21-04-2007, 02:11 PM

Hi Alex ;)

Firstly, it was a little unkind of me to insinuate you were weird in your thinking, please accept a $2.00 scratchie that should arrive in the mail at some stage in your future :whistle:

Next, as I read your short reply, I thought of many things paragraph by paragraph that I was going to say, but dumped it all when near the bottom you mentioned 'Nature'.

It was then that in an instant I could see that you totally do not understand a basic fundamental point, that if you did, if I could find the right words to demonstrate one single idea, that you would start to understand everything else.

You used the word 'Nature', when I used words like existence, reality and so forth. I am glad you used the word 'nature' because now I challenge you openly in this court of our peers to explain exactly what you think 'Nature' is.

Seeing this is my reply, I will take the liberty of explaining what I think it is, and why it is such a compelling factor for singularities, Big Bang's and so on.

A quick review of the Black hole before we start however, just so I don't get misquoted out of context. A Black hole, surrounded by an event Horizon, which is a location or a point where to go further you will not be able to escape the force of the Black Hole itself, commonly referred to as the point of no return.

The black hole, which is defined not by the hole itself but by the consequences of coming within range of the forces (I do not use the word gravity here purposefully) of the Black hole.

The passage through the Black hole which really means the stresses and changes (spaghettification) to all matter, which increases as you journey towards the 'End' of the Black Hole, which we call a singularity.

At the singularity all physics is altered, all science stops, all matter, energy and force ceases to exist, sort of like death.

I ended my simplistic review of a black hole with the word 'DEATH', I did this intentionally, because the words 'Nature' and 'Death' are synonymous with each other, they are in fact the same thing.

In nature, IMHO, we see life through birth, the struggles for survival, the evolution, the growth and finally the death, of everything that we consider to be 'Alive'.

I believe that 'Nature' is a perfect way of explaining the 'Universe', of explaining the way that matter comes into existence, in my mind, it is exactly the same as we experience 'Nature' here on Earth.

If you agree with my version of nature i.e. birth, growth, survival, death then simply (forget all that you ever learned or read from others) and apply the 4 main nature keywords to the universe as a whole.

Let's go, a simple exercise, lets see if we can create a model that fits and then figure out the math afterwards.

Birth, growth, survival, death:

Birth: We see birth on a local level in the magnificent creation of a human child, I would think that nearly everyone marvels at this, yet after many billions of human births and trillions of animal births, we still 'Don't get it', but we accept it because we see the result.

On a larger scale we see star birth and can explain that pretty satisfactorily.

On an even larger scale we look at the birth of a galaxy however I discount this is true birth in the sense I am speaking of, I believe that galaxies are more about formations, or locations of stars due to forces which by and large we understand.

What of the final scale, the Universe itself? Answer this, if the smallest parts and the medium sized parts follow a blueprint i.e. they are born (Birth), then why break away from this theory and try to suggest that the Universe itself was not born?

To me, it does not make sense to accept birth at every level along the way but then change the method at the final level. If nature tells us anything at all, it is that there is a uniform and never ending theme in nature itself i.e. the continual birth, evolution, death cycle. It's everywhere in the Universe, so why then does it not apply to the Universe itself as a whole.

Growth: Once again examples of living things having growth is everywhere, at every level, regardless of size. The very small, through to the very large, everything seems to grow, this is a recurring theme in nature IMHO. So then once again I ask, why if everything inside the universe tends to have this characteristic, why stop at just the Universes contents, why not go all the way and apply it overall, to the universe itself.

We all believe the universe is expanding because we have empirical proof, so we should all agree that this is growth, the second element of my interpretation of 'Nature'

Survival: This is a tricky one but overall on the balance of probability, I believe that most life strives to survive. I do not accept and cannot subscribe to the notion that anything that is living, would willing go to it's demise. Not human, animal, plant or other wise.

Can you apply the desire for survival to galaxies, to the Universe itself? Well that is a good question, and the answer revolves around the word desire. If you ask the question using the word desire you would answer in the negative, because galaxies can't desire things.

If you ask the question a different way, say like this, Given a galactic formation, and providing no new outside force was introduced, would the formation remain as it is? The answer would be positive. Not wanting to split straws on whether you consider a galaxy a living thing, that is a different debate, but trying to draw your attention to the similarities we see in Nature being consistent, even when speaking of a galaxy.

It is my opinion, that unless something new is introduced, a galaxy would be consistent and happy (that is the wrong word) to remain the way it is, further I believe that if a potentially changing force was introduced, that the existing galaxy schema would resit the change until such time as it was overcome by a stronger force. In my mind, this is close to the rhythm of survival in nature.

Death: This the easiest to understand and observe everywhere, death is our constant companion, for without it, we would not exist. Life cannot begin unless death has preceded it and so on.

Locally and at planetary level, star level and even at a galactic level, we see examples of death. It depends on your interpretation of death when speaking galactic, but I put it to you that death in this sense is to become something totally different than it used to be i.e. gas and space debris accretes into a galaxy, to me this is a great interpretation of the life/death cycle.

Why then once again I ask you can't we apply this universal constant to the Universe as a whole? When everything in nature seems to follow a certain pattern, regardless of scale and dynamic force, why can't you accept it at the next highest level and say that the universe itself, is Born, Grows, struggles to survive and finally dies.

Whether the death is in a singularity or not, in this argument is not the point, the point is that the universe was seemingly born, thus at some point in time will probably die, then what? All for nothing? Or is there something else going on here? Is Nature going to continue on it's pattern and give birth to a new universe?

I prefer to believe yes. I prefer to think that there is a sense and natural rhythm to the universe. I prefer to think that every small part of the universe goes into making the universe as a whole and the fate and rules that govern the parts is the same that governs the whole.

Yes Alex, like you, I make some gigantic assumptions and yes due to ignorance I could be shot full of holes at certain parts, but in an overall sense, is this all for nothing? If so, to coin those immortal words from Contact, "It seems an awful waste".

Over to you champ :P

xelasnave

22-04-2007, 06:34 PM

Ron I am sorry I did not mean to make your feel embarrassed in fact I would be somewhat disappointed if I found myself in a group who did not consider me weird:D ... I mean that would really put into question the general company they keep if I seemed to them somewhat normal;) . There is the perception and the reality either area provides opportunity to find a degree of weirdness… but its mostly “oldness”:) .

You present a very interesting view on all that you have sought to cover which is basically “everything”:thumbsup: .

Nature in the context was to point to the laws of everything:) .
I will not try to escape the use of the word but suggest that perhaps in the context one could see it to cover more than things relating to life:) .

Life is but one of the systems of nature...of everything.

Ron I cant say I disagree with anything you say, not because I may well do so when I get to think about it all very exactly, but your manner is so persuasive one can feel washed over to the side you present. It is pleasant to read and seems the natural way of things.

I can not see much difference in our approach.

You lead me to think that one should draw conclusions from evidence that makes sense. That is reasonable and it makes it hard to disagree when someone who makes such a reasonable attempt to explain their view.
I would like to think there are various sources of evidence that can support whatever view one wishes to take.

I can site problems for the big bang but it will provide no place for use to decide the issue if you seek to draw from human experience:whistle: :shrug: :) .

It is human experience that qualifies things in the “nature” context you seek to approach the matter and on those grounds seek a parallel. There is no reason why this should be so...apparent as sensible... it implies we know all there is to know about the experiences covered in your observation of “nature”.

I could say “yes” “now” having corned you in the nature end of the yard say...”But look at the Great Barrier Reef this is more to the way our Universe can be related”.
“ It is it always has been here ..Different things come and go die live become extinct”. “Their individual presence or observations of their environment did nothing to change the overall order of the reef”. “This has always been here…”:)

Please done get sidetracked to attack the metaphor because it is not entirely suitable because indeed thee reef is finite and has a start at some point… so you will say from that your point is proved... yet I say the Universe is a little different to the reef in so far as there is indeed no start but many things come and go hopefully all with no perception of simple life’s experiences will not apply at this scale..
This is beyond our human experience and crude attempts to conceptualise a beginning simply because we observe that is all other things.

I do find that for most people confronting the possibility of the infinity for our Universe is unacceptable, I also say the reasons offered for why such should be unacceptable do not relate to matters of reason but more of a non preparedness to grasp the insignificance of our existence…maybe:) .

I find everything you suggest compelling.
As to the Universe expanding I don’t believe it is.

I know we have the proof...well I will wait... time will show something is wrong the data, the software was corrupt whatever... but it makes no sense...to me. It makes sense if you want to endorse human experience otherwise why should it be expanding and if so into what specially reserved region of “nothing”.

Still on the positive if we are dealing with a finite Universe we can one would think reasonably estimate its size… we will have a boundary to comp template... a spot where we can leave off worrying about anything more;) .

I would like to see the other side of the boundary into the sea of nothing and beyond to determine what gave birth to our Universe. I would not be happy to settle for a quantum fluctuation on a two dimensional plan on a three dimensional sheet of paper pointing to the solving of the mystery either. Yet we do and so we have a satisfyingly simple neat finite view and most important manageable view of the Universe.

The Universe must be “everything” how can there be a limit set on everything?

If so little life available for study in the Universe why should we seek to see a life cycle anywhere but on this planet?
It is due to human experience that we seek to solve the problem this way and as such reasonable to other humans.

I simply do not go along with the current views … all of them!!!! Not only big bang but everything … that is part of getting old I guess one becomes more thoughtful but less knowledgeable… sorry this is an observation of me and not other old people as for others I do not suggest any negative condition at all.

Alex:) :) :)

xelasnave

22-04-2007, 07:02 PM

Ron sorry for such a short answer without really touching on any point.. I still say more than one idea needs to be entertained so as not to limit the possibilities.

Holding onto the big bang idea in the face of problems such as inflation, star age inconsistencies means simply we should keep our minds open rather than to try and make all that is found fit the preconceived idea of a start..it does no good .. inflation for example needs something better or at the very least a viable mechanism .. an admission that the sums lead to a different start time maybe but I believe adjustments are cruitical if we must accept there may be a start..with this and other loose ends it is a bit early to close the book on the Universe and say it has a start... so simple to think being as smart as we are humans have not figured it out but maybe the first ideas are not the correct ideas.
alex
Still I will take the time to deeply think about all you say and give you a detailed reply in a couple of weeks.
alex

DobDobDob

23-04-2007, 09:46 PM

Alex, I like most of what you said but one thing sort of wrecks it, you wrote "It is human experience that qualifies things in the “nature”". I'm certain I don't agree with that :sadeyes:

To me 'Nature' is the exact opposite of what you infer. To me Nature is all that there is, regardless of man's existence. I'd even go one step further and dismiss humanity all together from the broader meaning of Nature.

My Universal laws of nature must hole true with or without humanity, but...the conundrum is of course, we would not be here to know, if we did not exist. But I put it to you that long after humanity is extinct, the rest of the universe will remain pretty well as it did during our reign and pretty well in the same manner i.e. oblivious to our presence anyway :whistle:

do3_37mro

23-04-2007, 11:58 PM

Interesting discussion gentlemen. May I suggest you ask Alex Filippenko some of the questions mentioned here directly and see what he can offer on the subject?
He is perhaps second only to Stephen Hawking... Alex will be live on our site on the 29th.
Cheers
Bert

DobDobDob

24-04-2007, 12:30 PM

Thanks Bert :thumbsup: does he have a blog, website, forum? How can we make contact, would he ignore us as a couple of 'weirdos' ? :whistle: Do you think he would like my 'Doughnut'?

Edit: I found a bio on him via Google (of course)... http://www.melitatrips.com/bios/bio_filippenko.html

do3_37mro

24-04-2007, 12:46 PM

Alex Filippenko dosnt have a blog or posting site and he is appearing exclusively for us only on the AAIRC Service as have Dr David Malin and Dr Clay Sherrod in the past events we have hosted.
On Sunday 29th April 3.00Pm you go to our AAIRC Webpage on http://www.darksky.net.au/aairc.html and floow the log in instructions.
Also, make sure you log into the #astronomers channel.
See you then.
Bert

DobDobDob

24-04-2007, 01:00 PM

I did all that Bert, but I am the only one there, I feel lonely, tiny, like a neutrino :P does it ever get crowded?

EDIT: Thanks for the chat Bert, I look forward to some interesting sessions on the IRC channel, I also joined the Yahoo group you mentioned.

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 01:05 PM

Ron not withstanding you may have misinterpreted my reference to nature and "human qualification" of nature I am happy to say I find what you have said generally reasuring as you in fact state the position as I see it to be.

My reference to human experience and human qualification has only to do with the way humans interprept things from their immediate experience.. the world was once flat and this was reasonable to all looking on..however the human experience did not reflect "nature".

Does this "Alex" chap present himself as the next whoever or is he hailed to be so...what am I missing.. where am I ..who are all these people??

Ron ...so... given that we agree on "nature" and I have already addmitted you are very persuasive,... are you at least prepared to admit that the opportunity for a different approach to the big bang could be entertained simply to fix it..

Inflation seems a sore point.. which has impact on age (if you are going for the finite model).

I think the reason why they needed inflation in the first place was to explain how everything could be the same...again human experience has probably confused the issue...a small problem gained from human experience was dealt with in a manner that one would rather etertain the problem raised that inflation sought to cure... a mechanism may well exist that can can convey information from one end of the Universe to the other.. gravity rain will do it if no one else wants the job... but the model was fixed when it was not necessarily broke...if you support the finite model which I dont all the time...

but of course I like the infinite model because it makes so much sense..from human experience that is..

if the current model has to defend itself from attack it must come up with reasonable explanations that can be evidenced by reasonable observation... seeking to find the traces of inflation is a big ask (even if it was part of the play..which I doubt..)... if they dont find it does it mean it was not there or will it mean the equipment was not up to the task... instead of dieing it can only grow from the experience of testing... this is not science but it is the way things go.. at least for a time... We will have to wait for all the current brains to retire before something different can surface..maybe.

The current big bang model proves nothing other than human experience says... keep at it until we make it fit... thankfully we have moved from a central positioning of our being to one where we can look a little less impassionately at all that is around us but we still unfortunately think we are central... reasonable but that prevents sometimes moving on a little further..we again get bogged down in the human experience.

Ron you say, and all humans say, we are objective... but they/we are not... they can not be unless they have been nuetered and permanently separated from all their kind.

To become mere observers.... and if in the prescense of such a being ...we will act differently... but the propencity to take it personal and be guided by popular belief still will be apparent.

Already most people have bulit a Universe that may be flawed instead of seeing the flaws and fixing them.. we can tolerate them ...for to admit the possibility of a flaw even the posible existence may cast doubt on the model.

The model needs the doubt fixed or it cant grow.

Fortunately I have married Gravity rain to the current thinking so humans can move forward.

We once looked at the circle we cast on the Moon and could not figure that we were "round" we now look at galaxies held together by "gravity rain" yet can not figure that such power may reach us here in our human experience and of course it is very easy to see that it must reach us here notwithstanding our "human experience".

Still Ron I must say I am not sure exactly what point you disagree with me upon.

I understand that you may care to keep your presumed endorsement of "gravity rain" a secret for fear of public ridicule but if you can use it in the privacy of your own home I absolutely recomend it.
alex

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 01:23 PM

Had a look at "Alex" ..what a nice life ...lots of work but neat areas.
He has a kind face.
I wonder where he stands on gravity rain? infinite or non infinite Universe, gallaxy line up, red shift, back ground radiation, will the space craft stop and speed off finally.. hope to see te day.
alex

DobDobDob

25-04-2007, 02:57 PM

:D Alex you are a cheeky Devil, such a well worded response, and then as usual, the last sentence designed to bait me so that I simply must respond, a very ingenious 'chess' strategy, that you continue to use on me.

Okay, how about this, you are perhaps the worlds leading proponent of Gravity Rain, and I would estimate that the majority of people would not understand what that term means. Why? Well because when doing a Google search, the Mother of all information, not much comes up except some references that trace back to you :whistle:

So, officially, once and for all, finally and completely, I requested publicly, that you explain to all the meaning of 'Gravity Rain'. This can be done from a human or non-human viewpoint, if you can figure out a way of separating yourself from what you are going to write :P

As for the rest of creation, existence, beginnings and endings, we more-or-less agree, so lets not bog down on mere details, facts can always be manufactured to suit the storyteller :whistle:

I swear that if your interpretation of gravity rain makes even one iota of sense to me that I will acknowledge it and from that time forward, will walk at your side banging the 'GR' cymbal wherever you go. Honest injun ;)

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 03:49 PM

Mmmm so let me get this straight..if I can show you the secret you will in essence come over..well of course you will ..you are not a person who would abandon the truth when it is presented to you.

So you are really trying to tell me that I have been too fast with the detail and maybe you missed the thrust of the idea.

Again Ron most reasonable view you hold may I say.

The search sometimes has shown me at the top, but that seems to relate to recent past activity. It is a little scarey I was top dog re abel 2029 for days why ..I dont know.

The idea of gravity rain is simply that each object in the Universe (be it a infinite or finite Universe) throws out particles or energy such that creates a pressure through out the Universe.
Take time to think about how many "particles" reach your finger tip when out at night..when the idea is more understandable.

The effect of gravity comes from the shielding of an object locally from this pressure.

This pressure blows at "C" so think of it as a wind from everywhere..I expect the particles to be small as they may well have mass yet travel at c.

We are held on the planet by the "rain" (or wind) coming down ..the rain from thru the planet having lost some of its energy cant "push us up" so the "push" from above is greater..we now have gravity.

The energy lost from GR in the middle of the planet may provide the "heat" "speed" whatever we believe to be there.

Galaxies will not sit the way they do if they rely on the mythical force of attraction... even at the speed of light an attraction form of gravity will not hold them in shape..the force must be an external pushing force..they call it dark energy..I call it gravity rain..I see that it does not stop somewhere outside the solar system but in fact is the force that "pushes" us to the planet.

Space time offers no explanation of the force that "bends" space time I simply say it is this "rain" or particles from "everywhere" that bends space time.

Nuetrinos are a great for the job... but if you think of the fact that all points everywhere are reached by every part of the Universe and then ask could not each of these particles "push" you may see where I am coming from.

I simply say that attraction is not a real force..there is none..it is a human experience with which they seek to define matters that will not be defined that way..

The galaxies say the force is external and pushing..why should humans be able to hold such a force at bay..does it stop somewhere past the Moon or where???

No experiement to support attraction yet it is an established "fact"..it is not a fact until "proved"..

So dont be afraid to ask if you do not grasp something or there is an inconsistency that troubles you... I will be the happiest person if this can be show to be wrong..so does your best...to help me face the reality that maybe I am on the wrong track.

I say the space craft leaving the solar system will find they become "stuck" because of the pushing approach to gravity..they will then appear to fly off at 350 klms approx per sec... being the speed the solar system runs away from them at... they are slowing down now and no one knows why... unless they use the mystery dark energy card...mmm

The heat away from the Sun that can not be explained is simply an interection between the GR and the outpour of the Sun... current attempts to get energy "up there" to me are fanciful ... but we shall see.

They are looking for packets of gas to carry it up... maybe but the razor sees me winning I reckon.

There is one other guy who sees it somewhat similar to me.. I have justed started contact.

Notwithstanding his ideas being similar to mine he seems ok.

Has qualifications and good at math and physics.. its nice to have one other person out there I guess. But he calls it SPUE dynamices..mmm it does stick in the mind I suppose.
So the fact you have not really disagreed with anything to date means you more or less agree with the general propositions ..the reasonable general propositions.

alex

Kal

25-04-2007, 04:34 PM

How do black holes - objects with massive gravity, fall in line with gravity rain theory?

DobDobDob

25-04-2007, 04:47 PM

[quote=xelasnave;213936]The idea of gravity rain is simply that each object in the Universe (be it a infinite or finite Universe) throws out particles or energy such that creates a pressure through out the Universe.

I would agree that everything of substance in the universe is a part of the universe, thus no matter how minute, still plays a role in the makeup of said universe. I would not say that in this sense I radiate energy that could travel beyond my immediate locality and I would not think my presence would exert pressure on anything other than my shoes.

The effect of gravity comes from the shielding of an object locally from this pressure.

You seem to be inferring negative gravity, a force equal to and opposite to positive gravity, if this is your meaning I am not opposed to that.

This pressure blows at "C" so think of it as a wind from everywhere..I expect the particles to be small as they may well have mass yet travel at c.

This does sound very much like the Neutrino, and the jury is still out on whether Neutrinos are the fabled 'Dark Energy, Dark Matter'.

We are held on the planet by the "rain" (or wind) coming down ..the rain from thru the planet having lost some of its energy cant "push us up" so the "push" from above is greater..we now have gravity.

I don't buy this, gravity from our planets perspective is clearly understood, so much in fact that we can re-create it and sell it off to wealthy tourists. When you leave our atmosphere and go into space, our humans that float around in say the ISS do not have an upwards force or inwards force from the actual space station which weights vastly more than the human, which in your model should be forced and jammed clearly in the centre of the space station hemmed in on all sides by opposing forces.

The energy lost from GR in the middle of the planet may provide the "heat" "speed" whatever we believe to be there.

Without giving it much thought, I would suspect that gravity is strongest at the Earths core, I would take this under advisement however from anyone that knows better.

Galaxies will not sit the way they do if they rely on the mythical force of attraction... even at the speed of light an attraction form of gravity will not hold them in shape..the force must be an external pushing force..they call it dark energy..I call it gravity rain..I see that it does not stop somewhere outside the solar system but in fact is the force that "pushes" us to the planet.

You cover three large areas of science in that one very complex sentence. However, I do not disagree that what ever we call it that some explanation must exist that causes the galaxies in the universe to act as they do. Of course I have explained to you previously that using Doughnut Theory the forces are not what you think, it is more of a flow along a well trodden route. If you don't like the doughnut shape, think of the universe as a very large river that is essentially circular. Then think of a cross section of the river as being almost without end, so that it would be considered infinite but not quiet. Think of the cross section as flowing in a similar circular pattern as the the entire circular pattern of the river in the first place. This is hard to visualise, so don't worry if you don't get it, but bending space-time is not what you think, it is more along the lines of the flow of existence always heading towards where it came from in every direction, grasp that and you are with me.

Space time offers no explanation of the force that "bends" space time I simply say it is this "rain" or particles from "everywhere" that bends space time.

I explained above that there is no actual bending per se, bending implies a rigidness at some point that no longer remains rigid i.e. bends, this is a nonsense, space-time flows bubbling along by existence, and all that goes to make existence up. All the forces within nature/existence flow from the beginning of existence to the end of existence, the end of existence signals the beginning of the next iteration of existence and so it goes...if you like you can use the word infinite in this sense, but it's not truly infinite because at the point of annihilation, all existence ceases, thus not infinite. The act of ceasing to exist, that 'Universal singularity' is what fuels the creation of existence, how do I know this? I suspect it because this follows the immutable laws of the universe that we have all observed, the continual birth, growth and death of the individual parts that the universe is comprised of. Thus the saying that the sum is greater than the whole could be rewritten slightly to, The Sum should follow the same fate as the component parts.

Neutrinos are a great for the job... but if you think of the fact that all points everywhere are reached by every part of the Universe and then ask could not each of these particles "push" you may see where I am coming from.

Don't like your use of the word push, however I know what you mean. You mean cause an effect on something, if that's what you mean, I agree.

So don't be afraid to ask if you do not grasp something or there is an inconsistency that troubles you... I will be the happiest person if this can be show to be wrong..so does your best...to help me face the reality that maybe I am on the wrong track.

Thank you, you are beyond generous :whistle:

I say the space craft leaving the solar system will find they become "stuck" because of the pushing approach to gravity..they will then appear to fly off at 350 klms approx per sec... being the speed the solar system runs away from them at... they are slowing down now and no one knows why... unless they use the mystery dark energy card...mmm

I need more time to think about this, I have no comment at this stage. Can you give a far more detailed explanation of what you mean?

The heat away from the Sun that can not be explained is simply an interaction between the GR and the outpour of the Sun... current attempts to get energy "up there" to me are fanciful ... but we shall see.

Not sure of your point here, please rephrase.

There is one other guy who sees it somewhat similar to me.. I have just started contact.

Does he have a beard?

Notwithstanding his ideas being similar to mine he seems ok.

Hmnnnnnn :P

Has qualifications and good at math and physics.. its nice to have one other person out there I guess. But he calls it SPUE dynamics..mmm it does stick in the mind I suppose.

Yes indeed, and people instinctively react to my Doughnut Theory, perhaps I will search for another name after all :(

So the fact you have not really disagreed with anything to date means you more or less agree with the general propositions ..the reasonable general propositions.

No because I have not disagreed does not infer that I more or less agree, it simply means I have not disagreed before. Like you I am open to input on a continual basis, and should I be shown I am in error in one part or all of what I say then I will immediately acknowledge it and add the new learning into my heap, which continues to grow every single day. My fondest wish, like you, is to be shown categorically that I am wrong, this is the only way that I will evolve and grow, this trial and error and testing and observing results is science and like you, is the tenant by which I abide.

[quote]

DobDobDob

25-04-2007, 06:32 PM

To help you understand the 'Doughnut Theory' a bit better, here is a hastily scribbled diagram, please accept my apology at how amateur it is, I have never claimed to be an artist, however if you study it closely, you will start to see the way it flows (hopefully) :P

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 08:32 PM

Ron you said
"I would not say that in this sense I radiate energy that could travel beyond my immediate locality and I would not think my presence would exert pressure on anything other than my shoes".

Now Ron I find that hard to believe of course but I was referring to bodies such as stars, not that you are not a star in your own right but the ones like our Sun.

I believe if you adopt the notion og gravity rain the need for dark matter disappears. Dark matter is a myth. Dark energy is not.

You also said

"I don't buy this, gravity from our planets perspective is clearly understood, so much in fact that we can re-create it and sell it off to wealthy tourists. When you leave our atmosphere and go into space, our humans that float around in say the ISS do not have an upwards force or inwards force from the actual space station which weights vastly more than the human, which in your model should be forced and jammed clearly in the centre of the space station hemmed in on all sides by opposing forces.

Dont go by their ads there is no 5 star rating for space hotels yet.

Gravity rain holds us suspecded in space, so we appear weightless and uneffected by gravity. The point is we are at that point suspended on "all sides" by the force.. The shielding of the space hotel walls (hotel walls are always thin) is insignificant but I imagine if you had walls made of lead and 50 meters thick you would notice their effect... but still only a minimal effect...

And you said...
"I need more time to think about this, I have no comment at this stage. Can you give a far more detailed explanation of what you mean?"

Yes I can. In fact I wrote something here sometime ago and hopefully my ideas have not changed such that it is not a fair representation of my current ideas.
I will have a look for the post and provide a link. But simply put.. space will be found to be "sticky" because of the "pushing" arrangement... pushing is not exactly what is going on... GR losses energy when it encounters mass so on side of the gr supply has greater pressure.

However if it is the way I say they will slow and stop and speed up... they can not respond this way in a Universe where attraction exists.. they are slowing at the moment needless to say I see this as the start of my prediction being correct...so I hope it is the start of my prediction.

I believe "they" now say it is dark energy that is the cause of the craft slowing up,.. many would have thought that in open space the craft would "take off" but that is only if you see space as empty, I dont cause its full of gravity rain.. well thats what I have said from the start and the craft will get stuck firstly then be carried quickley away from us...

GR is maybe a better defined dark energy... If you see it works this way you do not need "matter" in the current context, to create the gravity they seek to attribute to dark matter..there is none... there needs to be none because although mass is relevant in gravity it is not relevant to generate dark energy..dark energy is generated simply from "all the star light" as it were.. even your energy generated contributes a little to the pressure.

And Ron lastly you said...

"No because I have not disagreed does not infer that I more or less agree, it simply means I have not disagreed before. Like you I am open to input on a continual basis, and should I be shown I am in error in one part or all of what I say then I will immediately acknowledge it and add the new learning into my heap, which continues to grow every single day. My fondest wish, like you, is to be shown categorically that I am wrong, this is the only way that I will evolve and grow, this trial and error and testing and observing results is science and like you, is the tenant by which I abide."

It is a compliment that you read what I have written Ron, there has not been a time where I have laid a trap hidden in verbosity that you have not easily seen.

I will look more closely at your Universe later ...

And finally you said.........
"I explained above that there is no actual bending per se, bending implies a rigidness at some point that no longer remains rigid i.e. bends, this is a nonsense, space-time flows bubbling along by existence, and all that goes to make existence up"
Space time is the human "description" of space in a geometry format. When talking of space time I think of it like a 3 dimentional graph, the graph representing different "conditions" for the purposes of space time discussion but in my Universe say it is the gr that is responsible for the different "conditions" ..Space time is the theory and observation GR is the machinery of the opperation.

However when I talk of space time it is in the context of the "graph" the current popular description generates.

alex

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 08:42 PM

A black hole being super dense will provide the ultimate shield producing an unbalanced pressure of infinite proportion.
alex

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 08:54 PM

I think you are going round in circles... my problem is that you seek to suggest time will pass a point already passed and will be passed again and again.

The suggestion of a big cruch has never won favour with me.. an infinite Universe will not allow it..a finite one in effect has to round up every last photon and put it back in the jar.. possible but I just dont like it.
I think your attempt to explain the concept sufficient to gather the drift of your premise.

i find it interesting and as good as any deas out there.. after gravity rain..and I bet if you looked you may find it in your Universe.

I wonder how many reasonable models for a Universe one could come up with..infinite maybe.
alex

DobDobDob

25-04-2007, 09:39 PM

Alex, I am not in favour of saying time, ten years ago I wrote several essays on 'Time' and I disputed then there was such a thing. Rather I would say location is what people mean by time. It's a hard concept to grasp and the stuff of an entire new thread and I forget most of what I wrote, but it did help get me a pass at Swinburne so it can't have been all bad.

When you think of a 'time' you are actually thinking of what happen at a particular location <not time>, because we are living a liner existence, always moving in the direction of my doughnut, towards the singularity, you can plot your location when any event occurred.

This is a far better method than inventing a chronology of events and calling it time. it's the order of the events and where they occurred. Try this quick quiz grasshopper, and be honest, quickly remember your 30th Birthday!!!!

Well what did you remember, describe it to me, I bet, I guarantee you that the reference of your memory was based on the location and what you did, not the time. The time is a manufactured human convenience, but once again lets say 10 billion years ago before our star was born, we can still place events chronologically because we can nominate the event and it's location, relevant to today.

So I reject you saying I am replaying the events in a time sense, but I have gone on record as stating that existence itself is destroyed and created instantaneously, if you consider this a replay, then yes that's what I believe is happening.

Btw, where were you at the 'Big Crunch' - good question huh? Notice I never said when was it :whistle:

Btw, this is way off subject, but deals with telling the 'TIME' via the stars it's a good read, but very long (58 pages).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3068v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3068v1.pdf)

DobDobDob

25-04-2007, 09:52 PM

If it's unbalanced it would wobble it's self into annihilation very similar to a singularity, thus it cannot be infinite - check and mate ;)

xelasnave

25-04-2007, 10:44 PM

Well the imbalance in the gr will be in all directions.

GR does not argue with space time.

Space time it still seems to me says neither gravity attracts or that it "pushes" ..the approach is an observation of relationships between objects and space.

Singularity is finally the pointy end of the space time expression.. it is produced when the numbers become extreme... the mass of a black hole distorts everything to a singularity.. on paper.

Personaly I wonder if they can exist in the real Universe.

Maybe matter can not exist in such a way to form a black hole.

Maybe the concentration required is never reached... because of a rule we no nothing about preventing mass concentration past a point.

I feel uncomfortable that we can only ever infer their existence by "wobbles" and long range "observation" I would like to see a truck load of it ...mmm maybe not it would be the ultimate shield ..so you would be pushed to death upon it.

We after all admit that conditions will be so different to what we know inside a black hole that current science may well be meaningless.

Perhaps "nature" will not allow the concentration of mass required to form a black hole.. the theory predicts one if the numbers are right..maybe the numbers can not be right in so far as matter simply will not accumulate as required.

The possibility of GR being in the mix suggests alternatives but it can follow the space time math where ever it goes I guess.

If this be the case (matter is prevented from accumulation past a point) we have no singularity in the real Universe and that sounds simple but that is what the razor dictates.

So much comes from getting a little bit of data and extrapolating extremes.. expansion of the Universe..its one thing to note an expansion and another to infer it started at a point I feel.
A black hole comes from the possibility of concentration of mass and the effect of gravity (a force no one has any ideas on..current company excluded) at the extreme end of the extrapolation...

I just wonder why black holes.. they sortta dont fit in.. not even as a central hub of a galaxy.. their relative mass has little bearing on holding stuff in place..dark energy does that.. so what is their purpose... other than to satisfy the extrapolation of the geometry. Are they gobbling up their galaxies to reach singularity?? and join the other singularities to form the ultimate singularity???

Still that is just my thinking aloud..sorry.

Well Ron it has been a great game.. we must play again some time.

I compliment you on a fine victory:thumbsup: .
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 10:40 AM

:) :D :) :D :) :P :) :D :) :D :) :D :P :) :D :) :D :P :) :D :) :D :P :) :D :) :D :P :) :D :) :D

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 01:48 PM

Well Ron I just had a thought and it may be in line with your approach.

The singularity may be the gravity rain "well" the "puddle" where it finally stops. Nuetrinos must fall off the speed of c and build up as dust somewhere.. maybe their dust makes up some of our black holes.

Consider this.
GR starts with radiation from a star (on my premise)..a nutrineo will do nicely or we can have a dedicated gr particle ..whatever... however after some time travelling thru space our nutrino or gr particle will end its life by giving up all its energy and coming to rest in a singularity... a black hole someplace? or I wonder can we have small pockets way out in the voids..unlikey but possible.

The cycle from a live star to its opposite is complete.

alex

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 02:32 PM

Well put it this way Alex, if the definition of a black hole is something like this, "An object whose gravitational pull inside a certain radius is so strong that nothing, not even light can escape it. A black hole forms when the amount of matter in the core of a star undergoing a supernova is great enough to cause a runaway gravitational collapse", then and only then can we consider your offering.

So assuming you are playing by my rules above, my belief is that eventually the entire universe itself will slip into a black hole or to be a tad more accurate, the entire universe will evolve into a single large (super, super giant) black hole.

This is consistent with my theory that the universe will someday die (cease to exist). When matter, even your fabled 'GR' falls into a black hole, it undergoes a process of distortion followed by contraction to a point that 'for all intents and purposes' is infinitely dense, which is followed thereafter by ceasing to exist.

Thus during the life-cycle of the universe, the many black holes we have act as garbage dumps, collecting and cleaning the living universe, I see nothing strange in this....consider a dead animal on our planet, eventually nothing is left, nature will clean it up, there will be no remains....why would this be different for the universe as a whole?

So the many black holes 'eventually' would continue to grow and source more food, they are hungry, like anything that intrinsically wishes to exist, it must feed. Finally, eons pass, the number of black holes becomes fewer but larger till finally, at the universal singularity, the entire universe as we know it, is condensed to a single infinitely dense point and then nothing.

Of course, my theory goes on beyond this point as you know, but for one iteration of existence, that's my story and I'm sticking to it :P

Now trying to find a spot for your GR in my model, as I understand your version of GR, I would postulate this, given that your GR has the effect of neutralising forces in all directions, it would stand to reason that GR could exist in my model, because as each amount of GR is consumed and destroyed by a black hole, more is created by the next supernova, a sort of 'give-and-take' maintenance of sorts.

I must point out however that the amount of matter consumed would need to be greater than the amount created for my model to be correct. This is a vitally important and profound point and I will need to research it before I can move forward.

The question as put: Is the amount of matter (in all forms) being consumed via black holes at a greater rate than is being created in supernovas?

If you have an insight or hunch please let me know, I have a couple of Prof associates at a couple of Uni's that I can put the question to, I honestly don't know the answer to that.

Suffice to say that if the answer is in the affirmative, then your GR principle could be included in my model. However it would be useful if you dropped the word 'Rain' and selected something else, if you did that, I would drop the word 'Doughnut' and we could collaborate on a joint model with a new name.

It's a thought, however, I dare say that no one takes us seriously or even bothers to read any of this, so it is more than likely an endeavour only for our mutual benefit.

Let's try to answer the question and then make some decisions then.

Regards

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 02:52 PM

You have avoided comment on the possibility of there being a proposition that the matter we belive will form a black hole can in fact collapse to that degree.

I simply dont know the figures and how this conclusion is inescapable.

Is there a case for the non existence of a balck hole..not withstanding the damage it may cause to a few Universes..yours as well?

My point is simply.. in theory they are possible but are they real and what evidence supports the belief they are real.

A super nova has a finite amount of matter, they leave evidence of the explosion etc so I expect they have a system to calculate the mass of the star and the debris etc. and the "mass" of the black hole that remains.

I cant see that any more matter will be created so if every star blew up ..there would still be black holes and debris... maybe.

Mmmm infinite gets rid of these problems sop I must say I like the lazy way out.

alex

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 03:29 PM

Okay Alex, sourced from publicly accessible websites, here is a current and educated discussion on Black Holes, without the Math :whistle:

By definition a black hole is a region where matter collapses to infinite density, and where, as a result, the curvature of spacetime is extreme. Moreover, the intense gravitational field of the black hole prevents any light or other electromagnetic radiation from escaping. But where lies the "point of no return" at which any matter or energy is doomed to disappear from the visible universe?

Applying the Einstein Field Equations to collapsing stars, German astrophysicist Kurt Schwarzschild (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinEquations.html#Schwarzschil d) deduced the critical radius for a given mass at which matter would collapse into an infinitely dense state known as a singularity. For a black hole whose mass equals 10 suns, this radius is about 30 kilometers or 19 miles, which translates into a critical circumference of 189 kilometers or 118 miles.

If you envision the simplest three-dimensional geometry for a black hole, that is a sphere (known as a Schwarzschild black hole), the black hole's surface is known as the event horizon. Behind this horizon, the inward pull of gravity is overwhelming and no information about the black hole's interior can escape to the outer universe.

At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them.

Newton and Einstein may have looked at the universe very differently, but they would have agreed on one thing: all physical laws are inherently bound up with a coherent fabric of space and time.

At the singularity, though, the laws of physics, including General Relativity, break down. Enter the strange world of quantum gravity. In this bizzare realm in which space and time are broken apart, cause and effect cannot be unraveled. Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity.

What happens to a black hole after it forms? Does it vibrate? Radiate? Lose mass? Grow? Shrink?

Partial solutions of the Einstein equations point to two possible outcomes:

A non-rotating, spherically symmetric black hole, first postulated by Schwarzschild (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinEquations.html#Schwarzschil d).
A rotating, spherical black hole, predicted in 1964 by the New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr.These two types of black holes have become known as Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, respectively. Both types of black holes are "stationary" in that they do not change in time, unless they are disturbed in some way. As such, they are among the simple st objects known in General Relativity. They can be completely described in terms of just 2 numbers: their mass M and their angular momentum J. Theoretically, black holes may also possess electric charge, Q, but it would quickly attract enough charge of the opposite sign. The net result is that any "realistic" or astrophysical black hole would tend to exhibit zero charge. This simplicity of black holes is summed up in the saying "black holes have no hair," meaning that, apart from its mass and momentum, there is no other characteristic (or "hair") that a black hole can exhibit.

However, both the Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes represent end states. Their formation may result from various processes, all of them quite complicated. When a "real" black hole forms from, say, the collapse of a very mass ive star, or when a black hole is disturbed by, say, another black hole spiralling into it, the resulting dynamics cause disturbances in spacetime that should lead to the generation of gravitational waves (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GravWaves.html).

By numerically solving the Einstein equations on powerful computers, scientists have been able to simulate the gravitational waves emitted by perturbed or interacting black holes. When visualized in movies (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/MoviesEdge.html) generated by advan ced computer graphics, the unfolding wave patterns are not only intriguing but strikingly beautiful. By emitting gravitational waves, non-stationary black holes lose energy, eventually become stationary and cease to radiate in this manner. In other words, they "decay" into stationary black holes, namely holes that are perfectly spherical or whose rotatio n is perfectly uniform. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html), such objects cannot emit gravitational waves.

Though we cannot "see" a black hole itself (since not even light can escape the hole's gravitational field), we may see the hole's effects on nearby matter. For example, if gas from a nearby star were sucked towards the black hole, the intense gravitational energy would heat the gas to millions of degrees. The resulting X-ray emissions could point to the presence of the black hole.

Or, if a massive black hole were surrounded by large amounts of orbiting material -- gas, dust, even stars -- their rapid motion close to the hole could be observable via shifts in the energy of the radiation they emit. Evidence along these lines is mounting, suggesting that black holes may not be that rare in the universe.

However, such evidence remains indirect and therefore inconclusive. To confirm that black holes actually exist, we'll need to be able to observe the gravitational waves they produce as they form or interact.

If scientists could build gravitational wave detectors (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/LIGO.html) of sufficient sensitivity, they should be able to measure the vibrations in spacetime generated by black holes as they form from a collapsing star, when they ingest large amounts of matter, or if they interact, even collide with a second black hole or another massive object, such as a neutron star. Certain patterns of gravitational waves emitted would reveal the "smoking gun."

So far, the wavelike disturbances in spacetime have eluded detection. In a relativistic universe, there should be no shortage of places in which to hunt for black holes. Much larger and more sensitive detectors are now under construction. With luck, soon gravitation scientists may be shouting "Eureka!"

So it's up to you whether or not to believe in the existence of black holes, I for one firmly believe in the probability they exist, unless you can furnish me proof they do not.

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 03:43 PM

Thanks for that Ron.
I will go thru it all again later but I work now.
My daughter wants to play horses and guess who dobbin is..
I hope I have not pushed your thinking time into debit.
alex

Kal

26-04-2007, 04:22 PM

I've read this thread with interest. Your model is close to how I view the universe - at the edge of our visible universe we are accelerating towards a singularity (which is what your cone like donut shape also points to). The only thing I can't figure out is why the circular cone has a hole in the middle like a second donut shape :P

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 05:15 PM

Ahha another human, you beauty :thumbsup:

I'm glad you asked that very good question. The short answer is so that time can flow in a linear fashion forever i.e. each position is preceded by the previous position and followed by the subsequent position, so that you are always moving towards where you just were. Simple huh?

A slightly longer answer could be, that because this universe is expanding in all directions constantly and observing the linear condition set above, you need to have the curvature of the universe such that the beginning is actually the end of the curve, I guess a perfect circle would have worked except for the elongation caused at the singularity, thus a more doughnut like shape.

All existence would flow in an overall direction, whilst simultaneously expanding in all directions, the only shape that fits this inside the darker regions of my mind is the humble doughnut that is flattened on one end.

There is a paradox of sorts that some expansion tries to go backwards as it were, against the flow, and I accept this as a possible opportunity to lose matter along the way i.e. the backwards expanding matter could represent our conventional thinking of a black hole.

This is an evolving model, a work in progress, if tomorrow something comes along via scientific discovery, then it would need to be included in the model, like all other models. I don't know the answer's any more than anyone else, but I have a great movie playing in my mind of what it could be, according to me :P

You no doubt have your own movie, why not play it for us :D

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 07:05 PM

Ron I am still working hard on bringing my knowledge to a level that I may ask you more questions:) .

Perhaps one... that I asked elsewhere but to date have no reply..which is reasonable as it was only recently posted..but I guess it is causing some thought on how to explain this proposition.

I wonder do you have any understanding of frame dragging and do you expect they will find it with experiment..Er there was the gravity B probe but I dont know what has happened there ... keep missing what they found or it may not be out yet:shrug: .

I suggested an experiment once and was told gravity b probe sort to prove the opposite of what I saw... I could not see the relationship of what they were doing and what I was suggesting:shrug: ..I was talking about gyros possibly being pushed together.. I read the gravity b probes mission but was no wiser..:shrug:

I find the concept of frame dragging so far beyond my grasp and ask as your explanations always are understandable, or at least they make me feel warm inside and that I sortta understand:) :thumbsup: .

alex:) :) :)

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 07:13 PM

And needless to say a gravity wave is the geometric rendition of GR, G wind, SPUE or dark energy, or the term I really like Universal Pressure... whatever.. which I guess the gr Universe would see when the black holes merge.. well exactly how would they ..boom! or slower I wonder.

It is interesting that the view is that different "gravity" can propogate through space in the space time approach... very interesting stuff.
alex

xelasnave

26-04-2007, 07:27 PM

and I only clicked with this........

"According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, such objects cannot emit gravitational waves".

Waves are in essence a geometric represention of something ..a bend in the space time graph really... I see no reason for them to propogate unless a major event either when I think about it.

Still what size star needs to blow to form a black hole?
Have we seen one blow and assessed the left overs?s

Do you think the voids harbour black holes that have in effect already consumed all their host galaxis? mmm maybe that where all the missing matter is???!!!
alex

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 07:30 PM

It's a simple concept Alex, once again a quick Google reveals tons of info on it, here is a brief description:

Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)'s theory of general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918) by the Austrian physicists Joseph Lense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lense) and Hans Thirring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Thirring), and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#_note-2) Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. This is the frame-dragging effect. The predicted effect is incredibly small — about one part in a few trillion — which means that you have to look at something very massive, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism).

As you correctly point out there have been two probes, here is the status of both:

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)-based mission which launched in 2004. The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005, and data analysis is currently underway. Its aim is to measure spacetime curvature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) near Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth), and thereby the stress-energy tensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor) (the distribution, and especially the motion, of matter) in and near Earth, and thus to test related models in application of Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)'s general theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity).
Initial results confirm the expected geodetic effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect) to an accuracy of about 1%. The expected frame-dragging signal is similar in magnitude to the current noise level (the noise being dominated by currently unmodeled effects). Work is continuing throughout 2007 to model and account for these sources of unintended signal, thus permitting extraction of the frame-dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging) signal if it exists at the expected level.

And the earlier one:

Gravity Probe B was a relativity gyroscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope) experiment funded by NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA). Efforts were headed up by the Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) department at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) with Lockheed Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin) as the primary subcontractor.
Mission scientists view it as the second gravity experiment in space, following the successful launch of Gravity Probe A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A) (GP-A) in 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976).
Some preliminary results were presented at a special session during the American Physical Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society) (APS) meeting, 14 to 17 April 2007. NASA has requested a proposal for extending the GP-B data analysis phase through December 2007.
The mission plans were to test two unverified predictions of general relativity:
The experiment planned to check, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) satellite orbiting at 650 km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometre) (400 statute miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_mile)) altitude and crossing directly over the poles. So free are the gyroscopes from disturbance that they provided a near-perfect space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time) reference system. They were intended to measure how space and time are "warped" by the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, if and how much the Earth's rotation "drags" space-time around with it; the so-called frame-dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging) effect or gravitomagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism), a field generated by the rotation of Earth and similar to magnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism) in electrodynamics.

So this is basically it in a nutshell, just because it has a weird name, don't be confused, it just a prediction that rotating bodies drag spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) around themselves, just another force if you like, not too dissimiliar to your infamouse GR.

DobDobDob

26-04-2007, 07:48 PM

No. You are confusing missing here. Missing matter that has been consumed is not the 'Missing Matter' that is required to maintain the gravitational equilibrium throughout the universe. ;)

xelasnave

27-04-2007, 07:16 PM

There is so much to look at but I seized upon the following:-

"Earth's rotation "drags" space-time around with it; the so-called frame-dragging effect or gravitomagnetism, a field generated by the rotation of Earth and similar to magnetism in electrodynamics".

I find I must be missing something are they saying that a geometric representation of the Universe, namely "space time" can manifest itself in the real world?

How can a geometric representation produce a real effect?

Or are they simpply saying they have the sums to describe how the path of light will never be straight in its course to reach us?

I must re read all this...however thanks Ron for everything and as you say there is a lot out there upon this ... but you do seem to have a knack for making it sound better.

It must be my expectations of space time are not as high as some...
I cant see how the sums can change anything.. the effect of bent light is pretty obvious when you think about it..

Sorry Ron let me think about what they suggest.

And thinking about it there is no need for the geometric frame of space to be dragged... it is a geometric representation of space for goodness sake... this is human experience getting in the way of common sense.

Still if I think about a gravity rain approach to the planet ... or the course of any gravity rain particle ..or nutrineo... its course will always be "curved" thru real space one way or the other like river water guided by the banks gr is guided by the shields thru space...gravity in other words. Why would it do differnet when approaching a rotating planet??? the effect will be slight but space time cant claim anything more than drawing a plan of the events..if you see my point.

I must see things different ..sorry.

The principle seems like observing that a garden hose if swung around the yard will not leave a curved course...

I am not sure that I understand what I have read and having understood it disagree... or... that I have missed the point somehow.
Not enough to form any opinions anyways.

But I can only relate my impressions they dont make anything wrong or right..

Been busy and I am beat so I am sorry if I could not comment on all the matters you raised in your last posts...second last in particular.

On the last one I probably sidetracked your thoughts sorry.

And as to the missing matter I just wanted your view as there was I point that I thought what I suggested was what you were hinting at..

The main problem with the gravitational imbalanced in the Universe is that the current numbers possibly are missing something .. say if gravity pushed and pushed only..no attraction..just to pick something out of the blue as an example.... then like the need for dark matter going away (to produce dark energy), with that approach, maybe the need for "missing matter" may go away also.

alex

alex

DobDobDob

27-04-2007, 07:59 PM

Hi Alex,

I have consumed an amount of red wine, so I will probably make perfect sense for a change :P

I just want to say one thing to you, all the theoretical stuff is fine, the questions without answers are good, it stimulates the brain....however....here is my tip, after a lifetime of thinking about stuff, keeping it simple is always the best policy.

The more you read into something the more complex and convoluted it becomes and the essence of what you require becomes clouded and often forgotten or replaced by new thoughts on queer tangents.

Take for instance the frame-dragging effect, forget what the math states, forget about geometrical models, go back to basics with this, it's so simple if you let it be. The spinning of an object has an effect on its surrounding, would you agree with that, you probably would. That is as simple as you can state it, so why the hang up when you upsize to a planet that is in the 'Real' universe, why wouldn't the spin of our planet have an effect on what surrounds it, and isn't that effect felt throughout the universe as a whole?

NOTHING happens in isolation, if the space around our planet is affected due to the Earths rotation, then the universe is affected because you can't simply have a set of rules that apply in isolation.

What's good for one is good for all, keep it simple mate. You will understand more by breaking all the theories down to basic units that cannot be broken down further and stringing them together.

Perhaps too much red, I feel flushed, I better stop now. :whistle:

xelasnave

27-04-2007, 08:34 PM

Ron you summed up what I am pretty well trying to say..when you said...

"Take for instance the frame-dragging effect, forget what the math states, forget about geometrical models, go back to basics with this, it's so simple if you let it be. The spinning of an object has an effect on its surrounding, would you agree with that, you probably would. That is as simple as you can state it, so why the hang up when you upsize to a planet that is in the 'Real' universe, why wouldn't the spin of our planet have an effect on what surrounds it, and isn't that effect felt throughout the universe as a whole?"

Well that what I thought I felt tempted to say .. so what! ... it seems to be stating the obvious and saying you have the way of describing the obvious that makes the describing of it the most important part.

I dont see the proposition as unreasonable just strange to think it is sortta unexpected without space time being there to point the way.. one would think such a situation would be " normal" I suppose.

Mmmm red wine ..greatly enhances the brain to make profound comment in a moment when it feels a little less bound to convention.

and happy to hear you see it very much the way I see it ..in that there is a connection ...within the Universe which if limited to no more than beams of light passing from one place to another ..still is indeed a wonderful thing to think about..but of course there is more ..more than visable light..electromagnetic, energy, particles .. the flow is limitless even in a finite Universe.
And so indeed everything touches everything else.. hard to imagine but its really that way when you think about it.

Your observation of me reading too much perhaps into things.. I gather..is no doubt an expression of your concern that I think to much with too little about too much.... you are right but there is nothing to worry about I have my feet firmly on the groung..thanks to GR..er sorry just joking but what an irony..nevertheless I have no trouble holding all views all at once and not having any internal confusion... it is all just information finally so its nothing to worry about Ron.

Ron have a good night, drink twice as much water as you do wine and you will arise refreshed.

alex

DobDobDob

27-04-2007, 08:52 PM

Finally you have said something truly profound, thank you :P

xelasnave

27-04-2007, 11:14 PM

It is so hard to make any worthwhile contribution but I speak unfortunately from experience and selected the best solution.

I have indeed thought about your Universe and wondered if finite can we determine how far we are from the closest edge as it were?

In the popular model we deal with an observable Universe which of course we must by definition be at the centre of..we each are so we can be individually special.. at least thats whatr I personally like to think... however I have never heard of an attempt to place us in relation to a "side" ... could we be on the out side of a bigger town I wonder.

alex

DobDobDob

28-04-2007, 12:02 AM

There is no edge Alex, you haven't been paying attention :P

I have explained this several times, and here are two paragraphs taken from earlier posts that describe why there is no edge, it's not a full explanation, but there is enough to give you the general idea.

A slightly longer answer could be, that because this universe is expanding in all directions constantly and observing the linear condition set above, you need to have the curvature of the universe such that the beginning is actually the end of the curve, I guess a perfect circle would have worked except for the elongation caused at the singularity, thus a more doughnut like shape.

All existence would flow in an overall direction, whilst simultaneously expanding in all directions, the only shape that fits this inside the darker regions of my mind is the humble doughnut that is flattened on one end.

xelasnave

28-04-2007, 09:29 AM

Ron please do not interprete my inability to grasp , what is to me a higher concept than possibly my mind is capable of managing, as inattention. Merely I find the concept difficult to visualise.
If there is no edge as you say I find it hard to see that as anything other than a condition for ïnfinity" yet I see that the absence of an edge does not place that condition upon your Universe.

I miss something from the time thing maybe.

I have seen artists impressions along the lines you suggest to demonstrate the evolution of the big bang Universe.. a cone representation...each cross section a section of the flow I guess we see as time.

I presume the diameter of the cone is physical "size"... so I see an edge there ... but even there I realise I miss something in the concept.
It has to do with thinking finally if the big bang worked the way they say I visualise a finite Universe...from the outside..and wonder where outside is.

I was thinking last night if time in effect slows "infinitely" to a stop in a black hole does time speed up infinitely in the voids or less dense regions of the Universe.

So I guess where space time is perfectly flat, the grid humans use to describe space and the Universe.. that would equate in the real Universe to areas of the voids and the like.. in these regions time presumably moves faster..but no matter how far you go you can only ever be on a curve as it were.. but thats the math trying to describe the reality which may not follow a humans extrapolation.

I guess thats what the space time sums must say finally. And lack of gravity must also be infinite??? could there be a region perfectly flat.. never.. so time must not run infinetly fast.... why at the other end can we have a black hole I again wonder... I feel there is a point that maybe man and nature part on the implimentation of the idea.

But such a region where space time can only represent "space"as flat would really be "nothing"... mmm I can see why a 3d circle is handy... these matters have me going around in circles thats for sure.

(Still on the positive some thought process is still taking place in this human.)

Will this mean some parts of the Universe are older than others... namely the "emptier" regions?

alex

DobDobDob

28-04-2007, 06:25 PM

I'll answer your question above later, but first I want to explain my 'spin' factor, so that you will better understand the seamless, edgeless universe.

Notwithstanding all that I have said and armed with my image supplied earlier, it seems to me that the part you can't understand is probably because I haven't explained it very well. It is difficult using words to describe some rather incredible motion, however I will once again try, because I can see you are a keen student :whistle:

So looking at the doughnut image I posted earlier, you will see FOE (Flow Of Existence), and you should easily understand that given the arrows, the direction of the flow is circular (doughnut shaped) as a whole. The part you may not be clear on is that in the cut-away cross section, there is a foe also, this foe runs perpendicular to the main foe. Seen side on by an observer, the motion would equate to spin, however I prefer the more accurate term of flow, where the end precedes the beginning.

The hardest part to fathom is what happens when the natural expansion of the universe tries to go in the direction where it came from, i.e. against the flow? That is a great question Alex :P

Well let's go to our Simple & Natural set of rules for not complicating the answer, what would indeed happen when anything goes against the flow, there can only be one result. What of the Salmon or is it Trout that tries to swim upstream, what happens when you run up stairs, you of course are resisted in varying degrees, depending on the mass, but resisted nonetheless. The river will continue to run despite the fishes most frantic efforts, so the expanding universe which is rapidly bobbing along the flow of existence will also be stopped eventually by the foe.

To be sure a titanic struggle will occur and mass and energy will be lost, as in any struggle, any fight for survival, so what - let me ask this again - WHAT, is the only thing you know that can 'eat' the universe???? Yes give the man a lottery ticket, yes it's a good old 'Black Hole'.

A black hole is formed when the two giants meet in battle, when the unending expansion of the universe meets the impenetrable force of the FOE, only one thing can happen, a black hole is formed, some of the previously expanding universe is consumed and the remainder Continues on in the correct foe.

There is the never-ending self regulating, self cleaning of the parts of the universe that try to swim upstream. It is a beautiful system, and when the black hole has no more to feed on, when it can no longer grow, it will die, everything dies, even black holes, even the universe itself.

The spin aspect cannot be understated, sit in your bath and watch the water spin it's way out of your bath tubs existence and wonder what forces make it spin, it has a life and energy of it's own as long as the flow of water continues, this is analogous to a black hole in many respects, and when the water has run out, the sink hole is useless, so to is the black hole. A black hole with out anything to consume is a doorway to nothing, it will fade and cease to exist, as the hustle and bustle of the active universe continues on its merry way.

Now, back to your question, there is no empty region or full region, there is the entire universe which means everything that exists, even where there seems to be nothing, there is still something. The word nothing is another human invention to make you feel a little better about things, but there only exists in my universe, when the universe ceases to exist, it does not cause volumes of 'nothingness' to fill a space that used to contain something.

Thank you for staying with me this far, I understand that you are struggling with certain aspects of my model, but if you just go with my flow scenario, you will see the beauty in a natural existence that is on a journey and that the simple is the probable and the complex just muddies the waters.

We are all on a journey, our universe is on a journey, and much like any journey there are good sections of the trip and some rough patches. The universal rough patches are the cosmic cleaners, the black holes, they will clean up every time, it's what they do best. The rest of the universe is growing and enjoying the many splendid facets of it's lifecycle, and like our own human form, the universe will eventually grow old and die - everything dies, it is the way of things, all things.

xelasnave

29-04-2007, 12:24 AM

I feel swayed by the passion but unfortunately can only say I dont go along with your model:) .. dont be put out because yours is not the only one:D .. but it is interesting, conceptually tidy, reasonable without going into detail.

I think the observed expansion may be inconsistent with the prospect of black holes eventual consumption of everything.

In your Universe one would expect the Moon to be getting closer to the Earth not moving away... maybe its being pushed away or is following a bend in space time I dont know but in a cycle such as you suggest it would seem the Moon could be orbiting closer as time passes.. to speed up the black hole gobble up in an efficient manner...the Earth doing the right thing and merging with the Moon for a take away down the track... maybe.

How will the black holes gather up the last bit of Hawking radiation prior to demise or rebirth ... reverse inflation?

I dont know if the Universe will die, but I dont believe it will.. drawing the conclusion it will die is only supported by the big bang notion and the influence of human experience, ...

I once thought black holes were gravitationally relevant to the galaxy but it seems their mass is so relatively small they have little relevance.
If there are any at the center of our galaxy they must orbit the galaxy centre and not be at the galaxy centre... such is their insignifficant gravitational influence on the galaxy... under an attraction system or a "push" system I think the numbers suggest what I see.

The vast out flow of material from the center of a spiral galaxy makes me think a different system is responsible other than the suggested resident black hole shooting matter out of the galaxy.

And how does this out flow of matter fit in to the galaxies lining up like buttons on a string I always wonder... if a black hole is relevant it must provide a reason for its part in the apparent passing of material between galaxies on the string. Why is material cast out of the gallaxy I wonder.

And in this context why does the black hole reject any matter at all and not consume the lot. I know the same as a comet being flung out the back.

The biggest black hole believed to exist will only form a very small part of the total mass of a galaxy , can a black hole consume an entire galaxy? if so how long will it take, say for the Milky Way? Can we have a black hole the mass of approx 300 billion Suns? Now that would bend space time beyong repair.. time would never get going...maybe.

How will all the black holes link up given the current inverse laws on gravity also.. Would they not necessarily be so far apart theycould never get back together... or at this point will space reverse its expansion and we see bodies growing closer in much the same manner as we now see bodies growing apart via expansion.

Interesting propositions raised for me I must say.

As the black holes reduce the density of the uncleared space.. time must speed up given the elimination of matter one would think... the sums will say so.

Well if nothing else Ron you got me thinking.. thanks.
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

29-04-2007, 10:05 AM

Hi Alex, just a quick rely to one of your points above. I never said or implied that the moon would or would not have any effect, I see this Solar system as a self contained unit, with it's own gravitational forces, which keeps it's equilibrium, as we observe.

True the solar system is a part of the universe as a whole, but far too small a part to impact the whole in any significant manner.

To understand this using a human body as an example, lets say your left index finger is the Solar system, which is part of your hand, which is the Milky Way galaxy, which is part of the universe, your entire body.

Just because you cut your left index fingers nail (a dramatic event from your fingers point of view), it hardly impacts your hand and has virtually no apparent effect on your body as a whole.

You must observe the relativity of things, of systems for what they are. The example of our moon to Earth as compared to the entire gravitational forces keeping the universe on a steady keel, are just too insignificant to warrant a mention.

I hope this helps :thumbsup:

I'll go through the rest of your most recent reply when more time permits. Finally, I have never asked you to agree with me, in fact I know my model is full of 'Holes' of any colour, but the point of the entire exercise is to stimulate my own mind and hopefully those of any readers. I once again must say that I am open to reason and logic, prefer science fact but adore imagination :P

xelasnave

29-04-2007, 01:11 PM

True the solar system is a part of the universe as a whole, but far too small a part to impact the whole in any significant manner.

There is no single thing (even a piece of nothing) too small not to matter:eyepop: , Somewhere out there the big accountant in the sky..Nature.. keeps a journal.

Often it is by understanding the actions of the smallest items in the Universe that we can understand the general working of the greater unit.

My study of gravity if nothing else tells me that a tiny particle will solve the problem in understanding the opperation of this force... and even the conventional scientists are seeking it by seeking at a "small" level..nutrinoes ..the smallest of particles are of great interest and relevnce to science generally.

In any event you suggest the Solar System will interact with the galaxy as a unit and that seems reasonable.. which raises the question ..

we (the Solar System) always think we are spiraling in towards the galatic center..but maybe the orbit takes us out a little further each time around...in other words the galaxy is unwinding ..not winding up as it were... the way the Moon is going away from the Earth is a similar situation:eyepop: maybe..:shrug:
Think about that proposition for a while..human experience relates a spiral galaxy to a catherine wheel firework... so it must go a certain way... things "just are"... we place the interpretations on them.. maybe we have done it incorrectly in respect to what galaxies are really doing... but given the expansion observation and the recognition of dark energy being a pushing force (and I presume some of each were partly responsible for the Moon moving away) I would be looking to see if galaxies are indeed unwinding:eyepop: ...

We expect them otherwise..as you will already think about them and imagine them to be...given your expectation of a irrellevant (in this context) black hole at the galactic center having the power to draw stuff in..It dont,

It cant effect things at a great distance according to the inverse square rule.. as I asked how many Suns are in a black hole..the biggest even will still not be big enough to "suck in" the rest of the galaxy I would think.

So the rquirement that it does should be addressed and the matter rethought I think, what do you think?

However that was not my point :D ..I was trying to illustrate that the Moon moving away simply seemed inconsistent and perhaps have you ask why it should act this way in any particular Universe.

It is sortta like another ad for the main product of the Universe... GR and the pushing force it represents:lol: :lol: :lol: .

To understand this using a human body as an example, lets say your left index finger is the Solar system, which is part of your hand, which is the Milky Way galaxy, which is part of the universe, your entire body.

Just because you cut your left index fingers nail (a dramatic event from your fingers point of view), it hardly impacts your hand and has virtually no apparent effect on your body as a whole.

Ron have you not had a paper cut..possibly the nastiest injuries one can sustain... The close calls I have had with them reminds me of the various contacts that part of my body has with the world and indeed the involuntary way it will try to engage in the days activities nothwithstanding the wound.

Still loosing a finger nail may be an issolated event not representative of the human race.. and having a Moon like ours may be nothing but it shows maybe "what Moons may do" ..nothwithstanding this Moon is in a Universe of "attraction" it moves away from its compannion.. or is this an observation gained from human experience.;)

You must observe the relativity of things, of systems for what they are. The example of our moon to Earth as compared to the entire gravitational forces keeping the universe on a steady keel, are just too insignificant to warrant a mention.

Well again I think the difficulty in thinking is not to for the sake of convenience drop the small things... if we are unique, that is a small fact but as a small thing still is important and relevant, if we are not unique for example..that fact is important.

What we do the same as other systems is important ..as is what we do different to other systems... there is nothing too small not to be taken into account.

I hope this helps :thumbsup:

I'll go through the rest of your most recent reply when more time permits. Finally, I have never asked you to agree with me, in fact I know my model is full of 'Holes' of any colour, but the point of the entire exercise is to stimulate my own mind and hopefully those of any readers. I once again must say that I am open to reason and logic, prefer science fact but adore imagination :P [/QUOTE]

Ron anything I say about your Universe or otheres will be critical thats my way of learning so dont take it personal in fact never take anything at all on the planet personal..things just are..waiting for us to lable them.
And in truth my lack of acceptance as with most sales may just mean I am not ready to proceed;)
And I doubt if you want "yes men" who tell you.. you are right and nothing more need be done... many business fall because advisers simply support ego not efficiency and improvement.
You need to know what the buyers dont like and the customers are unhappy with.. realistically.

My motivation here is to have a chat an perhaps entertain others who find the odd moment to read about how hot and fast the Sun is... I like to be speculative with alternative as history should teach us that norms and facts can change... the world became a sphere from being flat... and it is of no use saying ..but we are better than those ignorant fools we have this and that.. if we dont learn we of today will be history ..will we be laughted at for some strange ideas ... that objects attract?? for example.

On the other bright side.. having to meet your thouhgts gets me on the job early... so thats good.

Imagination is what it is all about... you can not imagine something that will not come to pass or exist someplace...

It is one of the mysteries of humanity, it is the only thing that can really define intelligence for us in another species when you think about it...
Again is this unique to us or is in common through out the Universe... numbers and vastness suggest to think it may be common not unreasonable.

alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

29-04-2007, 01:49 PM

:P :P :P okay, I need to read your post several more times to figure my next assault, you (and me) cover so many areas, but then it seems you have to, to get the point across.

A point I would like to make is that the universe is very big, of course you know that and it has been said many times and is somewhat of a catch phrase for many.

But I want to say it again, not that space is big, because space is not fully understood, but that the universe is big.

Therein lies the answer to all things....you see, my universal model will work if the scale is 'BIG' enough :whistle:

That's it, you need to go and ponder this for awhile, ponder what 'Big' means to you, ponder how you would describe the entire universe in terms of it being a part of something greater i.e. non-universe....you have to think like this, you have to invent an area larger than the universe to draw an accurate picture of how big the Universe is.

This is the start and finish to the great debate on the universe and how it works, firstly you must know how 'BIG' it really is, then imagine how 'Big' it is going to be and how 'Big' it was.

It's all about size, this is the truest truism of all time IMHO, because within it lies the secrets of the universe....ponder well my friend....:thumbsup:

xelasnave

29-04-2007, 02:21 PM

Size is a relative issue for humans and perhaps one of the problems in considering the Universe may indeed be infinite.
Infinite or not, or limited to the "Observable Universe" it is relative to us, where we sit, the little part of the world we travell around... from work and back, on holidays and a wedding someplace we never visit as a rule... very very big .. humans have no superlative that does it justice when related to their minor prescense.

Dont worry about answers to all the questions I presented they are for your mere ponderings as one will flash in from time to time in your future.

Some although strange may later present as interesting.
alex

DobDobDob

29-04-2007, 02:24 PM

You can bet on that :thumbsup:

Right now I am killing time waiting till 3.00pm so I can talk to the worlds second highest authority in the Cosmology world.

xelasnave

30-04-2007, 09:03 AM

I read the transcript.

I note that he mentions space is found to be flat which means it is big.. I agree and I know you do also Ron.

Dark energy seems to be a matter of interest at the pointy end of research and I think that is something that needs so much attention because finally dark energy holds the key to understanding what is going on.

I would have liked to have asked his view on the relationship of a black hole to the galaxy and if he sees them as gravitationally signifficant for the whole galaxy..

and his views on the sample of spirals (only 230 I think were observed) that line up like buttons on a string.. that observation must point to structural features and "growth" features in spirals that must help understand things better.
And does such a line up point to a larger picture where matter is routinely passed between galaxies.
As it is thought at the moment black holes are responsible for the outpour of matter I imagine he would have something more on the matter.

Still as much as I missed being there I had a wondeful afternoon with my daughter.. built her a rather neat cubby house that she loves .. she is really the center of my Universe.. and everything falls behind my time with her.
The time they are young passes so quickly never to return... if time travell were possible I would not waste it on going further back than to moments with my children over the years.

She nearly beat me at chess.. got my Queen and not many folk can do that to me... she had to go before we finished the game but I think she could have won from there...and I told her so.. which if you know me an addmission such as that is a victory in itself.

She was still happy about it when I saw her this morning...not as happy as me I must say.

She leans more to a steady state Universe but keeps those views to herself when explaining the big bang to other kids and teachers.

I had to laugh when her teacher said to me.."if I am not sure of science things I look to see if Sascha approves and she gives me a nod".
Said in jest or in serious observation I take it as a nice thing for the teacher to say.

alex

cahullian

30-04-2007, 12:30 PM

I have been really enjoying your thread guys. It has given me and I'm sure many others in the forum lots to think on. I do have a question though, I'm not sure if I should hijack this thread for it so please forgive me. If light cannot escape from a black hole does that mean that the gravity of the black hole overtakes the light and drags it back? If so does that imply that gravity travels faster than light? Once again sorry to be a pain in such a fine thread.

Gazz

DobDobDob

30-04-2007, 08:26 PM

Hi Gazz, it is my opinion that your first assumption is correct in suggesting that the pull of gravity is stronger than light, or any other form of matter or energy for that matter. The second part however would by my reckoning not be accurate, when you express that gravity travels faster than light. Too me it is more a question of irresistible force on the side of gravity, I do not subscribe to the belief that gravity 'travels' in the sense of being able to be timed or to race against the theoretical top speed of light.

Sort of wordy response, but this is a very complex idea and sometimes it's difficult to explain ones ideas. I am sure Alex will also reply and perhaps his opinion will be even more explicit.

DobDobDob

30-04-2007, 08:38 PM

Without a doubt the greatest post you have ever written :thumbsup: I have just selected the last paragraph, to conserve bandwidth and to illustrate a point. Yes Alex, I 100% agree with you as far as grandchildren are concerned, and I salute you for the way in which you have expressed it.

With respect to the IRC chat, it was far too short, the man is clearly brilliant and you can only wish you could have some one-on-one time alone with a man of his intellect. He never claimed anything which I admire, he would always suggest that it was his opinion, I like this approach because it permits you to be wrong and the reality is, in this business, you are nearly always going to be wrong at some stage.

I enjoyed it enormously. :thumbsup:

xelasnave

30-04-2007, 09:33 PM

Hi Gazz,
Thanks for the encouragement:thumbsup: .

There is the conventional approach via space time to seeing what is going on with a black hole.

I have a loose grasp on this stuff but I think it is important to remember firstly in space time gravity is not seen as a force… I think that’s the way they see it but on that assumption gravitation therefore is perhaps better expressed as a bend in space time , the graph?,. but the graph reaches a point where it says the bend is so great light has no path out...I think it may also say that time is bent (in the context of space time) such that the graph dictates the an infinite amount of time will be needed for light to escape from the black hole..which for this purpose is from the event horizon in… the event horizon is where the graph says things are so bent nothing can leave:shrug: .

In the practical sense of what is going on one would conclude that the force of gravity is so strong that it overrides the energy of light... but this is not the thrust of space time.

From a gravity rain view I have been thinking about this all day (I drove down to Sydney and just walked in) …
If I accept a black hole as it is expected to be:) Gravity Rain presumably would experience a full flow in effect from one side of the Universe… against nothing...as it were... the shield of the black hole presumably letting nothing thru in GR to balance the pressure… so its impact would be enormous gravity I expect;) .

My thoughts also allow for the possibility that notwithstanding the extrapolations of the space time graph:D a situation is not arrived at in reality where, what we would term a black hole, could actually form… in other words it somehow avoids the point where matter is to collapse to past a point where our science can take us…. Maybe in fact It does not in fact collapse that far.Maybe because we expect them from the theory we find them maybe man and nature went different ways.
The fact is it does not make sense to a mere human that the laws should break down, the sums say they will if the situation is reached however..well maybe the theoretical situation is not reached in reality...

No doubt if the mass as required goes into the mix one can not draw an alternate proposition to a black hole forming… where I get lost is with an actual object becoming in effect a singularity.

A singularity means a lot of things but the implication is that time and gravity (in effect) become limitless err maybe even infinite is not to strong a word but in its finite sense;) :lol: :lol: :lol: ... real big lets say;) ;) …now I feel this is somewhat inconsistent with describing various black holes as having various masses:) … my point is once a singularity is achieved presumably the gravitational effect is infinite:shrug: ..according to the sums:) … so I wonder how they can be in effect “weighed”…:shrug:

As an alternative (mine:D ) to a black hole.. we may have two massive stars is a close orbit formed from the SN blast..or more “bits” in such a gravitational dance that their disturbances of space around will appear that something more massive is responsible:) … a speculation but its driven by other considerations:) …

I see the center of a hydrogen atom like two orbiting stars..rightly or wrongly but I guess that made me think of that form as an alternative..and things seem to go in pairs… out there... not drawing on human experience down here;) .

A helpful friend pointed out that just because the concept of a black hole is difficult to except in our day to day experience does not render it incapable of existence… and we should remember that… but from my human "cant accept the concept" frame of mind.. I simply think why would nature have a point where the laws break down:shrug: … I my alternative with two stars no laws are broken:D .

Like an infinite Universe I like it because it is simple and that must be fair enough because I am a simple person:) .

AND Ron that worm hole thing we must chat about one day:thumbsup: ... I want to know how real space can be folded like the graph paper the concept is recorded on??? :shrug: ;) :) I must miss something with the worm hole concept:shrug: ..and I have read about it and say I disagree:eyepop: ..er even strongly:eyepop: :eyepop: ... and I am usually wishy washy on taking stands:whistle: :) .
alex:) :) :)

DobDobDob

01-05-2007, 12:13 AM

Alex, I have a good idea, let's ask the question in reverse, so that we may go forward. What evidence would you accept that a Black Hole exists, what would need to happen to convince you?

You tell me that and I'll research all available known, published data and see if what you require actually exists.

The reason I am putting this to you is because despite owning a mind of my own and acknowledging you also have a very fine one, it seems to me that the majority of educated people, astro astrophysicist's, cosmologists, professors at Uni's and popular authors, all seem (rightly or wrongly) to have accepted that Black Holes are real.

The general basis of the belief is that there is observational evidence of the effects of a black hole but by design a black hole itself cannot be directly observed, however I recall reading just last week that a Black Hole telescope is almost ready to be commissioned.

Anyway, back to the question, what do you need by way of evidence, let me know and as an exercise I will try to find if it exists. Please do not say that a human has seen one or visited one, because that is obviously not possible yet.

This is not a challenge or taunt, it's a manoeuvre designed to align our paths down the astronomical road that we are both walking along, however currently in different directions :thumbsup:

xelasnave

01-05-2007, 01:14 AM

Well any evidence using gravity rain to establish it...
Just joking Ron.
I dont know that we can get past what is there really.
I think they only show by disturbance of objects in the area..or rather I dont really know how they are so sure.
In relation to better minds etc knowing and accepting something I never let the fact everyone may think different worry me.

History tells us of many times where the majority were wrong... I may luck out... still being a minority of one ..er sorry now two.. may lead some to think I could be wrong..well I could be.. it wont ruin my day you know if I am proved wrong.
Modesty prevents me saying it would be a new experience for me but trying to get a laugh it did not.. It is probably the legal background.. we are more prone to read the law and see how it suits us.. a different approach to science.
I dont think we need to go far to find out.. some of the data bases like NED must have in depth studies and methods to conclude a black hole exists.

Radiation in the form Hawking had in mind... jets of material thrown out in the vortex I gather runs away from the poles..assuming they have poles.. assuming that it spins. How can something without time spin?? How can something with infinite gravity spin? Will the thing be very hot or very cold..
fitting that into a context of singularity.

I guess what I would like to see is a star of pre observed mass going super N and a fair calculation of the material ejected ..and the material left... is there still enough..first question/observation I guess.

But I think you miss my point... which is...could the "cross over" not actually occur so that the laws of "nature" continue to apply to what is left... rather than conclude that because the theory suggests that under the conditions a certain amount of mass will change by virtue of the concepts of space time which were firstly to measure space rather than explain it. Is it possible that the black hole is an extrapolation we dont need because as I say a process happens that changes what we calculate must happen.
Maybe you miss my point because you have discounted it as unreasonable the even think other than current thought on the matter.

The black hole may have run away with itself.. being realistic and looking at the way the media popularised the concept , who knows who really thought about it or just went along because it was so popular.

I think about it and dont always go along with it, simply to speculate an alternative.

And Ron I dont see a challenge or a taunt ever if I can help it.. everything just is..what you name it...and I name it an opportunity to perhaps consider all we know and what we need to know and develope our own toe.
Mr Hawking says he gets about three a day (or did when he said that years ago) so a bloke should have one to post off dont you think.

I still say a singularity in the form of an object needs more thought and how I guess given that feature of a black hole..and is there not the implication that gravity and time are somewhat infinite???... how one can therefore determine its mass... if its won the race we need a weigh in.
In other words the very definition of a black hole suggests to me that as I say the graph goes off the wall... singularity... how can a singularity be quantified, given its gravity, mass space time predictions... such that there can be any weigh in???
I know I miss something but the penny will drop.. but that is what I get from it all.. as confusing as it must sound to someone with more knowledge than me.
alex

alex