Cosmology Topics

[cybereaper]

I understand that as the speed of light is approached, time for all others begins to stand still. I still don't fully buy the idea that at the speed of light, time would completely stand still, lest objects moving at the speed of light (such as light itself), pass us by, existing outside of our 'frame of reference' for time and never be seen. Still, the idea that we are looking at galaxies 100 billion light years away has a very strange underlying tone to it. Even if light particles moving at the speed of light, unaffected by gravitational forces, solar winds and other such factors are visible here from Earth (okay, using the Hubble, about 100,000 miles or so outwards and away from Earth - hee hee, don't know the actual physical distance that would equate to), what we are seeing is already gone. In fact, it could be gone, and we wouldn't know (dust clouds dispersed, stars erupted, etc.).
Given this concept, it also means that we could very well exist in a densly populated universe of other space-capable, intelligent species and would never know using our current technology as perhaps their ships are only giving back reflected light whose pattern disperses long before it reaches our sight. It would make sense then, that the only actual way to use what we see in space to our benefit would be to send out satellites in a string, with a maximum 'real-time' communications capability, rather than send them out randomly throughout the universe. The feedback would be much more accurate, and would, of course, tell us whether or not what we are looking at from a distance is in real time, or not.

[cybereaper]

With new research that has seen that in a vacuum, under lower temperatures and other various settings light particles will bind together to create a singular moving mass (rather than free floating particles, it is reasonable to believe that there is, in fact, an inherit magnetic property to light protons, that with the appropriate magnetic field manipulation can force them to string together. Practicle purposes?
It would seem to me that rather than trying to spin particles freely with magnetics to reach 99% C acceleration, that perhaps using grouped particles such as protons, fired through a laser, in a vacuum, against a single standing particle (with a magnetic buffer between the light and the particle to avoid an actual collision), done from opposite ends, would allow the two particles, in a finite amount of space to in fact reach the speed desired and yield the desired effect. The real question is whether or not using light to propel an object forward would actually slow down the stream of light? If we're talking a single particle, it shouldn't be an issue, as the weight of the particle is so light. Furthermore, you could initiate several instances of this acceleration in a successive row with little energy, yielding the same results as the particle accelerator in Los Alamos, but with a more constant rate (allowing for powering space vessels and perhaps as a replacement to consumable power methods here on Earth).

[cybereaper]

After having worked for years on this and having proven it, and now having sat on it for an incredibly long time being ignored, I thought it might be fun to share and put out there for others to dissect and play with.
Opposing EM fields brought into close proximity with one another have a finite amount of push based on the two forces bringing them together. Of course, increasing one at the max point of compression will push the other field away, but it requires a tremendous amount of power. However, what if we could accomplish EM compression on a consistent, consecutive basis, recompressing field over field, without an external opposing force, and how would we power it?
Working for a long time with flyback transformers, and being very nervous whilst doing so (having a back yard piled high with monitor parts that are thrown out as space permits), I've learned that properly condensing the output of the plasma flow and directing it with magnetics (using a tamarak around a glass tube) to help accelerate the flow, I am able to not only help alleviate some of the heat off of the base transformer, but I can also increase the yielded output of the device in its entirety. Now, given that I have a tremendously high flow of power from one, but have combined three of them to be my source of power - I can yield a fairly high level of both amperage and wattage. This allows me to use specially shaped magnets to control a 3-tier field of an external compressing magnetic force against the backside of an EM field being generated (for the purpose of this experiment, it was a wooden boat in water with a large battery and a large copper-wire wound electro magnet with two sets of three poles extending out the back in a tier format, each one containing a copper coil wrapped electromagnet at 1 inch, 4 inch and 7 inch distances. I used a long set of very carefully insulated wires to carry the power from the power unit, over the water and to the ship for the propulsion EM fields).
By alternating power between the three sets of magnets, starting with the closest to the furthest away, each one receiving the exact same amount of voltage in conjunction with increasing the size and strength of the field on the back side of the boat, then cutting the field off and regenerating it while cycling the power to the three tier magnets in the rear, I was able to yield very excellent speeds on my little boat with very limited amounts of power. I'm not sure exactly how it happened that I was providing no more than 3 volts to each of the rear magnets and never exceeded 10 volts to the magnet on the rear of the boat and still managed to get the thing from one end of the tub to the other without any pickup time in acceleration, but in less than 2 seconds, but it worked.
I wonder how this application would apply to lifting an object? If we can maintain a steady pulse, and now increase the power, it should be very effective. The fields never have an opportunity to fully compress, losing their upward force as a new field would take the place of the old one and keep a stable level of force.
As I stated earlier for my power supply, I tried applying an exponentially larger amount of voltage to the boat and the fields only to find that the wires connecting them melted, and not having had a chance to measure the length of time, but visually, it was hard to tell if it had accelerated any faster. Mainly, it was my hope, that such a device could one day replace the need for gas propulsion in aerospace industries and possibly provide us with incredibly high speeds.

[cybereaper]

If it is possibly true that there exists a dark energy in space in between galaxies and other heavenly objects, then is it possible that what we are seeing are the real beginnings of "folded space" for interstellar travel. After all, if a series of dark or 'invisible' forces exist that can accelerate our galaxy toward another at 200,000 miles per hour, one would speculate that we could harness that energy for ourselves, or rather, manipulate our way through the gravitational forces to help in our efforts of acceleration (much like finding a wormhole). Thus, the point between two distances in space as far as time and travel were concerned would be relative to the amount of dark energy separating the two, as you could cross the vast distance of "nothingness" in a matter of seconds by merely pointing yourself in the right direction. You are, in essence, skipping the travel time through open space limited by your own propulsion.
Or perhaps this is not so much a theory into folded space as it is into creating our own, stable wormholes through connecting rings. If, in fact, there are unseen forces with a tremendous gravitational pull in between the galaxies, a ring placed on this side and one directly opposite on the other could, in fact, using the appropriate mappings and coordinates allow a vessel entering them at a significant enough speed to be propelled directly toward the other, as the two rings should also be able to affect the gravitational force between them.

An additional query comes to mind with this one - black holes. If indeed what we percieve to be black holes are capable of sending matter off in a specific direction at an incredible rate, it would most likely behoov us (when the day and technology came available), to chase down the hole, set a series of checkpoints along the length of it, and then send an object through it to be sure that is what it is doing. But, the real question I have is making practicle use out of it. If we could, for arguments sake, use a ring to create an opposing spin at the same power as the black hole (but only a quarter of the size of the event itself), and get it close enough to the hole to affect its apex, could we open up the pea sized hole, or would we instead end up tearing each other apart?

[______]

:think: :think: :duh: My head hurts...... :finished: :help:

[abaris]

there are limits to forces. There is a cut off, upper limit for energy density. This is defined by the Planck length. A macroscopic body consists of elementary particles and the bonds between them. Both of those entities are actually standing waves. Each half-wave length can not be compressed beyond the planck length. That means that a macroscopic body can not be compressed beyond N*Planck Length ( if it consists of N elementary particles). You put more energy into it, it explodes to pieces. So how are you going to create Wormhole-black hole pairs?

[cybereaper]

*your head hurts? -HAHAHA -try having all this garbage stuck in it all the time! LOL*

As to how to connect the two blackholes:
(sorry my attempt at the ascii in this didn't work out (as I'm previewing it now), but I'm not sure without a pen and paper how else to do it, so hopefully the sketches are in tact enough to illustrate what I mean
Assuming that a black hole is equally strong in force on both ends, and having opened the iris with a mechanical device (such as a counter-gravitational field), rather than appearing as a fairly 'flat' phenomenon, it would take on a brand new feature - it would lengthen naturally. As the opposing gravitron field is generated, it is, at first, pulled into the center of the black hole. As more power is added, the hole would begin to widen, but as the counter field is already being pulled through the black hole, it is now literally unraveling a spiral. That spiral (the black hole itself), would extend along the length of the opposing field it had pulled through itself and assuming its opposing force is equal to its intake, the generated gravitational field would have been extended several light years in a matter of milliseconds. If coordinated properly with another black hole on the opposite end, as the two points of the black hole touched, they would bind, creating a temporary wormhole, only kept stable by the generated gravitron field that has now been pulled through.

| |||
| |||
| |||
|--------------------------------------->
| |||
| |||
Initially, the generated gravitron field is created at a strength powerful enough to be pulled into the black hole. And, as there is such a tremendous amount of gravity, all normal and quantom physics are blown out the window stating this couldn't happen since the gravitational forces would be literally distorting reality.

| |||
| |||||||||
| --------------------------->
|
|
| --------------------------->
| |||||||||
| |||
In this next model, as the gravitational ring/field is widened, rather than having to contend against the strength of the black hole, the black hole is literally pulled along the gravitational lines being thrust out of its back and spiraling around it.

| ||| ||| |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |
| ---------------------------> <-------------------------|
| |
| |
| ---------------------------> <-------------------------|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |
| ||| ||| |

Here are the two manually generated gravitron fields - notice they don't connect. There is not enough power to get them to connect - their distance out the backside of the black hole was solely dependent on the black hole's actual strength. Notice the two black holes do however, meet. They have shot past the gravitron field, met with each other and formed a continuous spiral. This force is maintained by the gravitational pressure between the two black holes having met in the center and combined to create a tremendously outward force. The rings must maintain their state as it helps control the [invisible], interior gravitational field and keeps it from being thrown around and misshapen by the tremendous spiraling force of the black hole itself. Thus, we have a completely stable and secure 'wormhole'. And, again, if the black hole is equally strong on both sides, this wormhole has the potential for being hundreds of light years in length easy.

Now - the black hole as a wormhole is so far off, that not even our fourth generation great grandchildren will see it (at least not at the rate Nasa's going... sheesh). But, there is a more practical solution using the dark energy theory.

| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
|------------------> <-------------------|
| |
| |
| |
If we were to create two smaller rings, in space, at opposite ends of one another (each with their own onboard rockets for position, etc.), and generate a gravitron field with enough power, the supposed 'dark energy' that pulls the milky way galaxy closer to its neighbor at 200k miles per hour, most likely composed of random, powerful, gravitational fields, would be attracted to the forces being generated by both rings. Additionally, the dark energy in between the two rings is physically 'pulling' the newly formed gravity fields farther and farther away from their source of origin, naturally extending the field.
| _______ / \_____ |
|----------------> <------------------|
| |
|------------------> <------------------|
| _____ ______ |
| \ / |
| |

As the field generated by the rings widened, the dark energy, or 'invisible' gravity could bind to its exterior, and realign its gravitational forces to strengthen the open field. On the other side, the same thing is happening. What happens in the middle? As the two fields are being manipulated, they are manipulating the surrounding gravity, realligning the nearby fields, and essentially, a natural 'bridge' or wormhole would form. There would be less of a 'straight' and narrow, solid wormhole with this method as the additional 'dark energy', invisible gravitational forces will pull and push on it, but it won't be enough to undo the tunnel until one of the rings shuts down.

Now for the fun part - imagine the man-made rings to be composed of a very powerful metal, hollow and filled with the extremely heavy molecules of a planet with an immensly larger gravitational force than us. Of course, I speak of Jupiter. If we were to bring back the right kind of molecules from its atmosphere - ones that could be electromagnetically charged, and then we could spin them around inside the rings, a gravitron field should be generated. Why the heavy molecules? There will be less energy/EM force needed to spin them as their density plus their being charged will give them a greater rate of repulsion making for a tremendously faster spin and larger gravitron field. A gravitron field (in my terms and definitions of use), I describe to be a force generated by taking molecules or atoms of immense, magnetic properties and spinning them freely within a gaseous solution, propelling them with gravity (much like a particle accelerator), except that as these dense particles spin, their magnetic field is increased in size (the faster they spin, the larger the field). And, as far as the Earth is concerned, what is gravity except several thousand tons of magnetic elements being spun around the core, their spin being equal to the magnetic field being generated.

[______]

*your head hurts? -HAHAHA -try having all this garbage stuck in it all the time! LOL*
Perhaps you need to take out the trash? :lol:

Or perhaps you should organize it and make it neat in there? :D
As to how to connect the two blackholes:
Abaris, I believe it was you who said there can be no such things as black holes? Can you address this please? I don't have all the facts off the top of my head! :lol:

[abaris]

cybereaper,

Spare yourself the headache. There are no black holes. No such thing like a graviton. And your explanation of terrestrial magnetism is way off the mark.

[cybereaper]

Abaris, while you make a valid point based on our physical actual knowledge of the universe and all of the objects within it being based on assumptions rather than facts (wherein you state that there are no such things as black holes), I was certainly not trying to dispute that point. What I was basing my ideas and theories on was the assumption of black holes. Now, while science has seen dramatic collapses of stars leading to a tremendous gravitational field, it does not 'prove' that these gravitational fields are essentially what we believe to be black holes. However, the fact that the milky way and its neighbor are nearing in proximity at 200,000 miles per hour gives scientists a fairly strong foundation for believing that there are fields acting upon these galaxies that is causing them to move. I would tend to agree that in the vacuum of space, without something pushing and/or pulling, that these galaxies would not be moving. Given that idea or theory, then one can easily see where the theory of dark energy came from.

And, as we have proven here on Earth (within a gravitational subspace field - the gravitational field of Earth itself), we can reallign large areas of magnetic forces to create effects similar to that of 'bridging' or a 'wormhole', but on a much larger scale. In fact, the creation of magnets has to do with using specially controlled magnetic fields to reallign the magnetic particles within a substance, activating its magnetic properties. Recently, scientists have even been able to make a magnetic plastic, merely by properly realigning the fields. And, again, what is Earth's gravitational field but one gigantic, molten, spinning iron core - or better stated, one dang large magnet. So, where black holes (as I mentioned in my previous post) are so far out of our reach of physical, close up discovery for umpteen generations to come, the controlling of magnetic fields, realignment of gravitational fields and generation of large magnetic fields to simulate a gravity (the point in which magnetic fields become gravitron fields - not by a change in particles, but rather, application), is already well underway.

As to my explanation of terrestrial magnetism... umm, I'm not exactly sure what your basis is for that statement? If, in fact, you deny the existence of black holes countering what modern science believes because of factual evidence, that's one thing. And, to deny the existence of black holes based on a lack of physical, up close evidence is another. But, to deny the existence of black holes merely because you choose not to believe is a philosophical basis for that decision, and most certainly your perogative. But, then, what is your basis for believing that my view of interstellar magnetism is way off base?

See - as I see it, the universe is actually very simple. It is more than obvious that there is a universal 'spin' to all things. Obviously, the universe is turning. I even question science when they believe the universe to be expanding, when it is actually in a constant state of flux, and forces could be repelling one another when the large spinning vat that is the universe. My belief on the phenomena of black holes is based entirely upon the idea of a hurricane. Every galaxy, solar system, planet, star - every object in the universe appears to be rotating. Take a look at the milky way - it is rotating. And, the rotation exists on a flat plane. What happens when multiple, counter, rotating fields come within a certain proximity of one another? It's possible they tear part of the gravitational forces apart and create a brand new spinning object, much smaller, but as it has been accelerated in speed by multiple gravitational fields of tremendous size, it becomes powerful enough to be a literal black hole -like a hurricane or a tornado.

Again, I can't dispute the existence of black holes, because I have yet to fly up to what scientists believe to be one and see it for myself. But, it's fun to theorize based upon what science has discovered...

[______]

http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...=5&t=1025&st=30 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=1025&st=30)
This explaination by abaris totally throws everything you've tried to explain out the window. And personally, I think he may be looking in the right direction to begin understanding our universe.
That's not to say that what you have stated is irrelavent. Your theories are merely flawed and ill-applied.

[abaris]

See - as I see it, the universe is actually very simple. It is more than obvious that there is a universal 'spin' to all things

That i completely agree with. As for the universal spin, you may find this interesting:
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/NOF.HTM

[schrodinger]

_____:
This explaination by abaris totally throws everything you've tried to explain out the window. And personally, I think he may be looking in the right direction to begin understanding our universe.
That's not to say that what you have stated is irrelavent. Your theories are merely flawed and ill-applied.

Perhaps the fact that your head hurts has impaired your judgment, or maybe you are simply not qualified to make such a judgment in the first place?

What I see in Cybereaper’s posts is a kind of naïve but open-minded interest in the world and the physical sciences. :thumbsup:

This is in stark contrast to the cut-and-paste approach of Abaris, who claims to have definitive answers to problems that real scientists are puzzling over. And all of this from a man who cannot handle negative square roots. The real irony is that negative square roots of positive numbers (in the Dirac equations) were the first predictors for anti-matter, negative energy and repulsive gravity. As for Einstein being a “half-wit”, that vulgar statement negates anything else Abaris may have to say about theoretical physics.

[abaris]

"half-wit", that vulgar statement negates anything else Abaris may have to say about theoretical physics.


Since when is it vulgar to openly express ones opinion?
What is vulgar are people who make claims without any consideration of the fact's at hand.

If you wish to defend the black hole hypothesis address the questions:

1. How come that the escape velocity at the event horizon is exactly c while relativity prohibits any material object from ever reaching that velocity. Without that the definition of the event horizon is meaningless.

2.If nothing, not even light can escape a black hole. How did all matter in the universe escape the primordial black hole at the big bang.

3. If relativity is correct why does it fail to describe galactic rotation? Or the pioneer anomaly?

I guess, as a supporter of Hawking and co. you have answers to those questions. Otherwise i just assume that you speculate without any knowledge of the subject.

[abaris]

And by the way,

I hold degrees in Aerospace technology, Physics and Information technology.
Worked 3 years as a researcher for the German Aerospace agency (DASA). I sure know a thing or two about gravitational physics.

And i do not cut and paste i'm pondering and writing about those issues for almost 10 years now.
As you can imagine, i do have a lot of material on those issues.

[schrodinger]

If you wish to defend the black hole hypothesis address the questions:

1. How come that the escape velocity at the event horizon is exactly c while relativity prohibits any material object from ever reaching that velocity. Without that the definition of the event horizon is meaningless.

Without what?

Look, suppose you had a universe in which there were only three types of particles, each with their own distinctive constant velocities. Let’s say 1000 m/s, 2000 m/s and 3000 m/s. Now you have a force which can be gravitational, magnetic or
Otherwise which is capable of holding all three particles in check. That is, they are held in place, cannot move. Now move the source of this force backwards, away from the stationary particles. As the strength of the force weakens with distance, which of the particles will escape? You must agree that it is the particle that is capable of the highest velocity, in this case the particle with the 3000 m/s velocity. This is exactly the situation we have with the event horizon of the black hole. The escape velocity is exactly the speed of light because it is the fastest velocity in our universe. It is that simple.

2.If nothing, not even light can escape a black hole. How did all matter in the universe escape the primordial black hole at the big bang.

Relativity makes no claims for a “primordial black hole”. In any case, the singularity is thought to have exploded (big bang!)
If you distribute the mass of a singularity into a cloud of exploding matter, you also distribute the gravitational field.

3. If relativity is correct why does it fail to describe galactic rotation? Or the pioneer anomaly?

No one claims the theory of relativity is perfect. It may have to be fine tuned to agree with experimental data. We already have the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). As we gain more and better experimental data we may end up with a Modified Theory of Relativity (MOTHER). That should not surprise anyone. What is surprising, amazing and awe inspiring is that this “half-wit”, at the end of the nineteenth century, when there were no computers, no internet, no Hubble telescope, not even a simple four-function electronic calculator, still somehow managed to derive the mathematical theory that best describes the universe we live in on the macroscopic level.
Also, we do not fully understand galactic rotation. It may well be that when we do understand
this better, it will be well accommodated within the framework of relativity.

I guess, as a supporter of Hawking and co. you have answers to those questions. Otherwise i just assume that you speculate without any knowledge of the subject.

You should not assume anything.: :badgrin:

[cybereaper]

However, Abaris, I might add to your last post (if I may do so) - and try to do it respectfully:

Whereas I do not hold the degrees you do, nor do I have your experience (and I might say, it is nice to know that you do, because that type of educated insight does help make for a very exciting discussion - between the 'what if's', and the 'what are') - I do have something that it seems you do not:

The open naive (hee hee), belief in 'possibility'. What does that give me?

It gives me what Columbus had to risk sailing around the world.
It gives me what Galileo had to reapply lenses in such a manner as to look into space.

Add to that, that I have spent over 14 years of my life reading, studying, analyzing, following and listening. I did not have the money for school - what I did have was access to the second hand books. Access to those who helped design the computer systems for the space shuttle, access to those whose life has been spent as a rocket scientist from sweden, access to people with a virtually unlimited wealth of knowledge in their fields. That is not to say then, that I know more or less than you - it is to say, that much of my discovery has had to come from my own work, a wider variety of sources - from the most logical, to the most insane (as a for example - not saying as a definitive).

So - to address your questions:
1. How come that the escape velocity at the event horizon is exactly c while relativity prohibits any material object from ever reaching that velocity. Without that the definition of the event horizon is meaningless.

I wonder how much of 'c' is defined within the gravitational forces of Earth? In fact, the speed of light holds completely different meanings in space travel than it does within our atmosphere. The distance between two points is no longer bent, but rather straight. And, given new research into photons as being able to be grouped into a mass with denser physical properties than we once thought - light, being the very definition of 'C', does reach that velocity. And, within a black hole, you forget that the compounding gravitational forces acting against a single point negate what we know about physics. Nothing science has can address this. So, there is your answer.

2.If nothing, not even light can escape a black hole. How did all matter in the universe escape the primordial black hole at the big bang.
--That's an odd statement indeed. That defends the idea that black holes could be used for wormhole physics. But, I digress on that matter...

The one existing commonality in the universe is that all movement of heavenly bodies, without their own source of power, move based upon gravitational forces. Now, discussing the primordial black hole at the beginning is - well, difficult at best, since none of us can actually look back. However, as I stated before, I believe black holes to be a natural phenomenon of counter gravitational fields (and I have read the articles you all posted, thank you immensly for that!!). But, that would support the theory that there was a big bang. For sake of argument, saying that there was - the next step is to understand the creation of gravity. Why? If everything exploded outward, the natural spin of atomic and even subatomic particles is not enough to explain why all things are turning. Sure, there are plenty of other explanations - but as to the black hole- if you truly believe there was one in the beginning - then here is your answer:
What goes in - must come out. And, what better way to compound foreign objects together than to place them within an extreme gravitational 'crusher' (haha - for lack of a better term) or 'atom smasher', then to help generate the universe as we see it today.

3. If relativity is correct why does it fail to describe galactic rotation? Or the pioneer anomaly?
--Well, again, I don't see that relativity has 100% applicability in space - thus we have quantum physics. But, if relativity is not correct to a finite level, then everything we see through the hubble is gone. Everything. Nothing is as it seems, and we are 'literally' looking backward through time. If light cannot travel fast enough, with a certain amount of climaxing time - then what good is looking through a telescope for predective, defensive purposes? We should be studying space solely for the beginnings of the universe, and nothing more....

But, there's my naivity for ya.. :D (LOL)

[abaris]

It is not my intention to offend you. But i do call things by their name. You fail to address the issues.

Let's look at the Schwarzschild metric:

As you may know, Einsteins field equations are quite difficult to tackle. Even today mathematician's are not capable to produce algorithms for the numeric solution of those field equations. As an expert in numeric and after spending a few years in developing solvers for field equations i can tell you why:

Numeric algorithms don't like singularities and the infinite energy gradients around them. No matter how precise your algorithm is, it is always unstable in the proximity of the singularity.

Schwarzschild, took the relativistic field equation and simplified them by focusing on special cases. That's how he arrives at his analytic solution of the event horizon. If you look on what basis he simplified the FE you will immediately see where he messed up:

Schwarzschild solves a gravitational 2-body problem without rotation. A small body rests at infinity. Due to the attraction by a supermassive central body it accelerates towards that source of attraction. Schwarzschild neglects the increase of the falling body's mass with velocity. Claiming that it is to small compared to the bodies involved. This is wrong since relativistic mass approaches infinity while the velocity approaches c.

He neglects the radiation pressure of the central body. This radiation pressure is actually the only thing that makes relativity work when it comes to the perihelion of mercury.

So what remains is the newton equations for the free fall velocity. That's how he calculates the radius of the event horizon. I spend two years at the university in Munich developing numeric simulation for relativistic orbits.The fact of the matter is, that the assumptions on which the schwarzschild radius is based are flawed. The numeric models do not converge to the schwartzschild solution. The whole black hole hypothesis is based on a circular argument:

By neglecting the radiation pressure of the central body, schwarzschild assumes that this body does not emit any radiation, it just swallows energy up without an increase of its temperature. The concept of a black hole is already contained in his assumptions.

Neglecting the mass increase of the secondary body due to velocity means that this body had no mass to start with. In other words he deals with radiation. But radiation is never at rest it always propagates at c. So he is dealing with a photon aimed at a cold central body: it is clear that this photon will not escape.

If you see any flaw in my explanations, please enlighten me. I do not claim to be all knowing. But from my own observation i can't but conclude that Black-holes are not real.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this before we proceed to the next topic.

[abaris]

schrodinger,


Just repeating dogma without any explanation of the underlying forces is not an answer.

The singularity did just explode? That's it!

Mind you i asked if you can find anything in relativity that may cause such an explosion.
If you do not. Then just say so. Saying "It Just Did" does not sound very scientific, doesn't it?

[sonrisa]

Abaris, what about Steinhart, Ovrut, & Turok's idea that the Big Bang was caused when 2 other universes bumped into each other? do you think that's possible?

[abaris]

sonrisa,

Yes i think they make quite a few good points. But they don't take the issue to the end because they try to make their concept fit general relativity.

[sonrisa]

can they even take it to the end? I believe they are saying that time & the universe are infinite.

at any rate, they do suggest a reason for the BB- other than It Just Did! :D

[abaris]

that's not what i mean by "taking it to the end". I refer to the way they present their theory.
they step short from really saying what their proposal means because that would be ridiculed.

A concept of an infinite universe works only under the assumption that:

1. Gravity is repulsive
2. Time does not exist as such
3. The universe has the same structure at every scale (each subatomic particle is a universe of its own)

Those guys are unfortunately a bit shy of presenting the consequences of their theory. They do however move in the right direction in my opinion.

[schrodinger]

schrodinger,


Just repeating dogma without any explanation of the underlying forces is not an answer.

The singularity did just explode? That's it!

Mind you i asked if you can find anything in relativity that may cause such an explosion.
If you do not. Then just say so. Saying "It Just Did" does not sound very scientific, doesn't it?

Abaris,

As you are no doubt aware, this same debate is playing itself out in many other arenas and I am under no delusion that we are going to settle the matter here on this forum. Also I have spent too much time on this subject already!

My biggest objection is to your open disdain for relativity, without substantiated reason, as well as for the man who gave this mathematical wonder to the world. Using present day super computers we still have not deduced all the possible implications of the relativistic field equations. Now, place yourself at the end of the 19th century, with at most a slide rule at your disposal, the speed of light as yet unknown, the science of cosmology not yet born, and imagine yourself formulating the RFE.
That is the last comment I will make about the “half-wit” issue.

Before leaving this subject for you and “Cybereaper” to sort out, I would just like to clarify a few things:

I did not use the words “It just happened” anywhere in my posts.

My answer to the first question you posed was a very logical “thought experiment” (if I may be forgiven for borrowing that expression). The logic very simple, the conclusion unavoidable, but only if you are willing to follow the logic!

By the way, what is the fundamental difference between saying “It just happened” and “It always was”? Both are equally unscientific. Again, I never used either phrase, but you have!

As for the second question:

As I pointed out, the “singularity” that theoretically gave birth to the BB, is fundamentally different in relativity from a black hole, in that it is expanding, while a black hole results from a contraction. As you correctly pointed out, the Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static. Therefore, this parametric solution only applies to a static spherical body, and shows the limit of gravitational density before it is forced to collapse to a black hole. Clearly, the Schwarzschild limit does not apply to a rapidly expanding singularity. I have not, and will not speculate here on what caused the expansion, as that is not within the framework of relativity. I have already written one possible non-technical explanation for this, in another thread.

My answer to question three stands, both the experimental data and the mathematical implications of the RFE are still insufficient to say much other than: Nothing has been substantiated to be in conflict with GR.

Notes:
1. (I am leery of anyone who talks about events before the big bang with conviction!)

2. (I have intentionally kept my response as simple as possible. It is not my intention to impress anyone by pasting here any of the relativistic equations, it serves no purpose. I did not write them!)

Finally, contrary to what you may think, I am looking forward to a Modified Theory of Relativity (MOTHER) or something even better. Amazingly, it has been over 100 years since SR and almost 90 years since GR were formulated, and they are still serving us quite well.
If you seriously believe you have something original to offer, may I suggest you stop wasting your time on informal forums such as this, and take your hypothesis to the nearest Academy of Sciences and see how it flies? :gone:

[abaris]

Schroedinger,


I agree to your assessment that we are not going to resolve the matter here. But we can engage in a serious debate.

So let's do that:

You claim that experimental evidence does not contradict GR and SR. This statement is just plain false. GR is contradicted by:

1. Galaxy Rotation
2. Pioneer Anomaly.
3. Maximum star mass.
4. Large scale structures in the universe

Special relativity and the principle of relative motion on which it is build is contradicted by:

1. Star aberration
2. The Hafele-Keating experiment. The only serious experiment on time dilation so far.
3. Inconsistency in the explanation of the Sagnac experiment.
4. Inconsistency with the Fizeau experiment.
5.Inconsistency with the Fresnel effect.

As for black-holes big bang and so on, That has to be dismissed flatly because the theories can only be made to work through the introduction of arbitrary scaling functions in the form
of Dark-Matter or Dark Energy.

The fallacy is obvious from your own explanations. You are of cause aware that General relativity can not provide the forces to drive the Big-Bang. But you maintain your believes by claiming that the primordial singularity is somehow different from the singularities predicted by general relativity without any elaboration on those differences.

To say that it does not make sense to ask questions about the state of affairs before or even shortly after the Big-Bang is mysticism Not Science.

In other words, proponents of relativity create a magic barrier to inquiry and ask us to take their teachings by faith.

Now if you wish to contest my mathematical assessment of the schwarzschild radius you have to demonstrate a better understanding of the matter. I'll make it simple for you:

A crystal ball is falling towards a black hole. At what distance from the black hole is the crystal ball going to reach the speed of light c?

You may work the relativistic motion equation with or without initial velocity and with different initial distances.

The answer is always the same: The ball will never reach c. This is the absolute speed limit of relativity no object with mass can ever reach it. So where is the event horizon?

Any suggestions on that?

[______]

Perhaps the fact that your head hurts has impaired your judgment, or maybe you are simply not qualified to make such a judgment in the first place?
I am no scientist and certainly can't claim to know much about physics, but I do enjoy stiring debate.

And from the looks of things, you've done a good job yourself. :D

[schrodinger]

I am no scientist and certainly can't claim to know much about physics, but I do enjoy stiring debate.

Mr. Dash,

Thank you for that. My comment was not meant so much as a criticism of you or your qualifications, it was more aimed at correcting what I perceived to be a slight towards cybereaper’s posts, (out the window!) which I felt was unwarranted. This being the informal forum that it is, I think we should welcome all views equally, especially in the area of “theoretical” physics. To be sure, there are “flaws” in cybereaper’s conceptualizations, just as there are “flaws” in mine, and most definitely in those of Abaris! That’s what makes the world go around. But, according to relativity, we should treat all reference frames equally! B)

[schrodinger]

Abaris, I won’t belabor this point: As a person who works for a living, (designing and testing 3-dimensional RADAR systems, radio telescopes and satellite communications systems) I am not interested in a full time “quantum entanglement” type of one on one debate, especially about issues which are unproved and highly speculative. Besides, such a “debate” would detract, in my view, from the open forum discussion, which should be available to all who want to comment, not just two participants. So, sorry to inform you again, there will be no such debate.

Having said that, I enjoy reading your ideas although I do wish you would not present them as hard facts (flatly dismiss relativity Period.) That sort of presentation does not really invite discussion. I would like to see you post your objections to relativity, along with the supporting arguments. Then I, and probably others will most likely respond to discuss and ask questions. In my case, I can respond at best on the weekends and even then only if I have the time.
In this post I will just very briefly give you an insight into one issue you raised; the Pioneer “anomaly”. Having worked with large radio telescopes and large “dish” arrays, I am in a position to know quite a lot about the ranging calibration that must be done on this equipment. The range is measured from the aperture of the tracking antenna to the aperture of the antenna on board the spacecraft. However, all the ranging equipment is located at the console in the tracking station. This means the electrical delay between the console and the antenna hub must be measured and cancelled out in the ranging calibration. The calibration is carried out very carefully, with the result that any hysteris error is so slight that it is of no significance for earth satellites and even inter-planetary probes. However, it can be significant for probes leaving our solar system, such a pioneer and voyager.
Now consider the human side of this. If you were a pioneer program manager, and you saw a blip in your data that could be explained away as: a). Dark Energy B). An entire new set of physical laws, replacing relativity. C). A strange mystery, requiring more research. D). A calibration *#$! Up, meaning we don’t know what the *$#$we are doing. :lol:
Which of these choices would you select to present to the media and the bean counters at NASA? I can assure you it will not be d! I don’t present this as the definitive answer, but I assure you it is entirely possible. If the program manager says it may be due to some undiscovered laws of physics, the research money will flow in and even include a new improved instrument package to remove calibration errors! In fact, that is what is happening, as well as bringing LISA on line to get better ranging data. If, after all the improvements, the same anomaly shows up, I will believe something important has been discovered. :P

[______]

Mr. Dash,

Thank you for that. My comment was not meant so much as a criticism of you or your qualifications, it was more aimed at correcting what I perceived to be a slight towards cybereaper’s posts, (out the window!) which I felt was unwarranted. This being the informal forum that it is, I think we should welcome all views equally, especially in the area of “theoretical” physics. To be sure, there are “flaws” in cybereaper’s conceptualizations, just as there are “flaws” in mine, and most definitely in those of Abaris! That’s what makes the world go around. But, according to relativity, we should treat all reference frames equally!
Ah! :) Thank you!

[abaris]

schrodinger,

Now you are being silly. Do you have to stress that YOU have to work for living?
Is this supposed to mean that others don't. It may come to you as a surprise, but I have to work for living as well. And take care of my two kids.

Debating scientific topics is a hobby of mine and has naturally a lower priority then my kids or my job. But when I engage in a debate I do so in earnest. The repetition of established dogma is not a debate. It is unfortunate that you are not inclined to present your own reflections on the subject at hand.

The issue we debate is very simple, every one who is able to read qualifies as a participant. I asked if relativity explains galaxy rotation. Just google the term "galaxy rotation" up and you will see that it does not. So why does GR, the theory of gravity, fail to describe this simple gravitatational phenomenon?

Every popular article on special relativity states that a massive body can not reach the speed of light c. So how can you define the event horizon as the radius at which the freefall velocity (escape velocity) of a body becomes c. No such thing.

There is no mumbo jumbo in those statements. I point out two simple logical contradictions contained in relativity. So why is it that you evade the debate? Is simple logic beyond the comprehension of non PhD or is your understanding of a debate limited to the praise of so called
"Scientific authorities".

As for the pioneer anomaly, you should know that NASA released a report recently which already eliminates all possible on Board causes and possible inaccuracies of the ranging process

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

:P Sorry to be off topic, but I just have to mention how pleased I am to have landed on a board where no one thinks that cosmology has something to do with hair. :thumbsup:

[abaris]

that would be cosmetology right? :D

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

:lol: yes it would.

[abaris]

does String theory qualify as a hairy subject? check it out:
Setback as string theory of the universe is de-bunked (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200610091240.htm)

[sonrisa]

if you're home tonite & you get the Science Channel, they are showing The Hawking Paradox tonite.