My theory on Relativity

[LuRuello]

Hi all! Great to be here! It has come to my attention through researching the our Universe, that there may be a definite link between the Sun, wormholes and blackholes all working as one in an energy cycle, so to speak.
Blackholes devour all matter as well as light. Where does it go? Through a wormhole and to Suns which output this energy and light through the Universe.
Eventually they are destroyed by a nearby blackhole and so the Universe continues infinitely creating and destroying solar systems. Am I close to the truth? It seems like a perfect cycle to me. Comments welcome!
Cheers, Lu Ruello

[l3gendluk3 (Luke)]

It's a great concept but we know stars run on fusion and will eventually 'run out of fuel'. We can see this through supernovae, although going out with a bang isn't the only way stars die. Also we can more or less see the birth of newer stars, especially in nebulae where there is lots of gases that make up stars. Although I am pretty sure the part about the stars can't be true, we have not yet have enough information on black holes and wormholes to disprove the possible link they have. Again it's a great concept but the star bit is unrealistic, but there is always a possibility that black holes can use some of their energy to maintain a stable wormhole. The universe is a strange place and anything we haven't already disproved can be true, no matter how strange.

-Luke

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by l3gendluk3

It's a great concept but we know stars run on fusion and will eventually 'run out of fuel'. We can see this through supernovae, although going out with a bang isn't the only way stars die. Also we can more or less see the birth of newer stars, especially in nebulae where there is lots of gases that make up stars. Although I am pretty sure the part about the stars can't be true, we have not yet have enough information on black holes and wormholes to disprove the possible link they have. Again it's a great concept but the star bit is unrealistic, but there is always a possibility that black holes can use some of their energy to maintain a stable wormhole. The universe is a strange place and anything we haven't already disproved can be true, no matter how strange.

-Luke

Hi and TY Luke Sorry but according to Professor Eric Dullard, no-one knows how stars function inside, but he thinks they are hollow and are only energy transformers taking it from some other place. The only fusion he says is going on, is on the surface of the Sun , but not inside it and that it's hollow. So if we can see how stars are made from dust then why not theorize that a wormhole connection will only exist ONCE a star is born? Let's face it, no-one knows what HAPPENS to all that matter and light once it enters the blackhole!! IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE!! And perhaps the death of a Star, is somehow directly related to whether a blackhole has STOPPED feeding it? "Unrealistic", is a term I wouldn't use too lightly when talking about things we have no real clue about as yet Luke. Thanks for your comments.

[noeyedeer (Matt)]

this is out of my league .. but I trust Stephen Hawking's theories than some dude that thinks stars are hollow ... gas doesn't make it hollow. just doesn't make it a solid.
sorry

matt

[pdalek (Patrick)]

Go and read
An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure, S. Chandrasekhar, Dover.
$17.96 on Amazon.
Can use Google and Wolfram Alpha to help understand the maths.

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

I have only heard this hollow star idea once before from a member of the public at a free astronomy night. I pointed out that there might be some holes in this his 'theory' but he missed the humour.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by LuRuello

Hi and TY Luke Sorry but according to Professor Eric Dullard, no-one knows how stars function inside, but he thinks they are hollow and are only energy transformers taking it from some other place. The only fusion he says is going on, is on the surface of the Sun , but not inside it and that it's hollow. So if we can see how stars are made from dust then why not theorize that a wormhole connection will only exist ONCE a star is born? Let's face it, no-one knows what HAPPENS to all that matter and light once it enters the blackhole!! IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE!! And perhaps the death of a Star, is somehow directly related to whether a blackhole has STOPPED feeding it? "Unrealistic", is a term I wouldn't use too lightly when talking about things we have no real clue about as yet Luke. Thanks for your comments.

Your very existence is testimony to why this theory is just plain absurd.
Fusion is accompanied by the emittance of high energy photons in the X-ray and gamma range. Since there is no intervening material between the Earth and Sun to absorb and re-emit the photons there will be a gradual stripping of the Earth's atmosphere.
Then there is the simple problem that the Sun's surface temperature is just too low for fusion to occur.
How do you explain the dark absorption lines in the spectrum for a hollow Sun?
And this is only scratching the surface.

Regards

Steven

[cfranks (Charles)]

I think the 'Professor's' surname tells it all.

Charles

[bkm2304 (Richard Brown)]

Kepler would be in big trouble if the sun was hollow - both the mathematician and the satellite!

Richard.

[bkm2304 (Richard Brown)]

Also, beware of piss - takes, fellow Ice In Spacers!

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Your very existence is testimony to why this theory is just plain absurd.
Fusion is accompanied by the emittance of high energy photons in the X-ray and gamma range. Since there is no intervening material between the Earth and Sun to absorb and re-emit the photons there will be a gradual stripping of the Earth's atmosphere.
Then there is the simple problem that the Sun's surface temperature is just too low for fusion to occur.
How do you explain the dark absorption lines in the spectrum for a hollow Sun?
And this is only scratching the surface.

Regards

Steven

So because we are still alive you say this theory is wrong?? The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from gamma rays and x-rays. Ok, so the Sun's surface temp is too low for fusion to occur you say, so what IS the method of energy production being used then Steven? You ask more than you answer sorry, and "absurd" is something you can hold onto there! LOL

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by bkm2304

Kepler would be in big trouble if the sun was hollow - both the mathematician and the satellite!

Richard.

Hi Richard, Can you explain your comments please?

Lu

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by cfranks

I think the 'Professor's' surname tells it all.

Charles

No, I think his parents may have MORE to do with why his surname is Dullard mate

Lu

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by noeyedeer

this is out of my league .. but I trust Stephen Hawking's theories than some dude that thinks stars are hollow ... gas doesn't make it hollow. just doesn't make it a solid.
sorry

matt

Well Matt, No-one really knows what's inside those stars. I have a strange feeling though that it's just not compacted dust that forms them, otherwise we're talking lava flows from some core of solid matter within, which is impossible IMO.

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

Time to fess up. Who is the IIS'er poking holes in the Sun for fun?

It could be worse. At least this thread is not under the Astronomy and Amateur Science section of the forum.

[avandonk]

In an infinite universe or an infinity of an infinite number of Universes we do not have much wriggle room as to what is possible or probable.
The preposterous idea of a hollow star is possible. Only a mind devoid of any Physics could even contemplate such a deranged idea. Only a hollow mind could even begin to contemplate its own lack of logic or lack of knowledge and reality.
Please learn some Physics. It is not difficult!
I do know that most of science is counterintuitive. This does not mean that the intuition of a paid up member of the ignorati is anywhere near reality.
If I have offended anyone it was with the full knowledge of the pathetic intelligence and ignorance of that they themselves have shown.

Bert

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by LuRuello

So because we are still alive you say this theory is wrong?? The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from gamma rays and x-rays. Ok, so the Sun's surface temp is too low for fusion to occur you say, so what IS the method of energy production being used then Steven? You ask more than you answer sorry, and "absurd" is something you can hold onto there! LOL

Strange given I didn't even ask anything.

No the Earth's magnetosphere does not protect you from gamma and X-rays. The magnetosphere is only effective against charged particles such as cosmic rays and the solar wind.

The atmosphere is opaque to incident X-ray and gamma ray photons which transfer some of their energy to air molecules and atoms as kinetic energy through absorption. However if the source of radiation is continuous as the theory suggests the atmosphere would eventually heat up, the molecules and atoms would exceed the escape velocity and disappear into space. We wouldn't be around to admire it.

Fusion occurs at the core where temperatures are high enough and assisted by gravity due to the higher density of the core to fuse hydrogen into helium. While high energy photons are produced most of the energy is lost through absorption and re-emission by the time the photon reaches the Sun's surface.

As has been suggested you should refer to texts that will go into this in far greater detail.

Regards

Steven

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by LuRuello

Comments welcome!

Your premise actually doesn't have much to do with Einstein's theories of relativity, other than the existence of black holes:

Special Relativity posited that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their reference frame.

General Relativity posited that space and time were unified (spacetime) and that mass/energy distorts spacetime which manifests as gravity.

Still, throwing "relativity" into a conversation and make yourself sound smart seems to be a popular passtime.

I once read a novel (i.e. a work of fiction) that included a "theory" that fundamental particles spontaneously disappeared (via "rotation" through higher dimensions) and spontaneously appeared at a random locations in the universe - particle disappearance produced positive gravity proportional to mass while particle appearance produced negative gravity - the upshot being that since particle appearance was random, all the negative gravity cancelled out, and since particles disappeared where they were, positive gravity was created only where particles were, i.e. the more mass, the more gravity. This "theory" is totally wrong and contradicted by many real observations, but it's a simple idea that is far more straightforward than real physics, and at the time, it was a seductive idea.

Similarly, I'm wondering if perhaps you've been drawn in by some convenient fiction that makes "sense" of things beyond your understanding. Of course, I was only 12 years old at the time. What's your excuse?




(Oh, and unless this is a stupidly persistent piss-take, then you're batsh*t crazy. Just thought I'd mention it. Hey, I'm just sayin' what everyone's thinking).

[noeyedeer (Matt)]

Originally Posted by LuRuello

Well Matt, No-one really knows what's inside those stars. I have a strange feeling though that it's just not compacted dust that forms them, otherwise we're talking lava flows from some core of solid matter within, which is impossible IMO.

hi Lu,
this may help you understand what a star is made up of ..
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html

as you can see heavy elements are minute compared to the size of the star. humans are around 75% water .. but we aren't pools of liquid either...
matt

[LuRuello]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Your premise actually doesn't have much to do with Einstein's theories of relativity, other than the existence of black holes:

Special Relativity posited that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their reference frame.

General Relativity posited that space and time were unified (spacetime) and that mass/energy distorts spacetime which manifests as gravity.

Still, throwing "relativity" into a conversation and make yourself sound smart seems to be a popular passtime.

I once read a novel (i.e. a work of fiction) that included a "theory" that fundamental particles spontaneously disappeared (via "rotation" through higher dimensions) and spontaneously appeared at a random locations in the universe - particle disappearance produced positive gravity proportional to mass while particle appearance produced negative gravity - the upshot being that since particle appearance was random, all the negative gravity cancelled out, and since particles disappeared where they were, positive gravity was created only where particles were, i.e. the more mass, the more gravity. This "theory" is totally wrong and contradicted by many real observations, but it's a simple idea that is far more straightforward than real physics, and at the time, it was a seductive idea.

Similarly, I'm wondering if perhaps you've been drawn in by some convenient fiction that makes "sense" of things beyond your understanding. Of course, I was only 12 years old at the time. What's your excuse?




(Oh, and unless this is a stupidly persistent piss-take, then you're batsh*t crazy. Just thought I'd mention it. Hey, I'm just sayin' what everyone's thinking).

I'd LOVE you to speak to Eric Dullard and convey your thoughts about his hollow Sun theory sometime, IF you dare. Just go to his Youtube page and hit him up!

While you're here, plse explain how the c in E=mc2 has any bearing on Energy? Thanks.