Suppose 2 black holes merge...

1 black hole, being matter and the other black hole anti-matter.

what you think will happen ?

Will the energy released be big enough to blow up through the event horizons, or will them two melt together in black hole entirely comprised of high energy gamma fotons, or...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, nothing I suppose?

matter and anti-matter simply annihalate eachother, and as far as I know everything will simply vanish, assuming that they have exactly the same size.

This seems to fit completely with the physic laws, since anti matter is just matter with a - sign.


btw, it is almost impossible, because between a matter part in space and a anti-matter part must be a huge gap of 'nothing'. Black holes exist in galaxies, those galaxies can never meet, and if they do, it will never come to a point where two equal black holes meet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that the matter and anti-matter would create a soup of fotons. I don't think a giant black hole can exist of fotons alone,

Why? Because I believe in the ethertheory, which states that gravity is just pressuredifference in ether. Dense mass object (like earth, or black holes) leave little room for the ether, while the surrounding vacume has much more room for ether, hence objects will not fall (being pushed, not pulled) to the black hole, because of stochastic fluctuations in the surrounding ether.

Now if the matter and the anti-matter blackhole collide, a lot of mass will be converted to fotons of different high energies (the mass (and according to the old skool gravity) is contained in the energy and speed of the foton. Because fotons are a LESS dense manifestation of MASS, the ether inside the collided black hole has more room to expand, combing this with all the high energy gamma ray fotons, I think we can expect a little big bang rather than a new superheavy black hole.

could you entertain the ether thought of the universe?

 

could you entertain the ether thought of the universe?

Why bother - there is no evidence to suggest an ether/aether exists.

 

Why did Columbus bother to attempt sail around the world - while the majority of the ruling scientific community couldn't/wouldn't see evidence for a round world at that time ?

why did Dirac bother with anti-matter while it was many years after his prediction that we could actually synthesize anti-matter, why bother???

That's why you should bother. At least the ethertheory has better explanations for all that missing dark matter that would be needed for a big bang. Following your line of reasoning Why bother with Big Bang theory if there is not sufficient evidence ??? Where is the Dark Matter to prove the Big Bang ????

Just tell me what is exactly so wrong about the ethertheory and I will help shuff it under the carpet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I admit that some experiment of Columbian proportions need to be done (like measuring the parallax between two stars) to really prove ether theory) but the ghost is out of the bottle and you can't put in anymore...

Science is like fashon, the producers tell you what to wear, but ultimately it's the consumers that decide.

 

aether was invented by the pre-relativity theory physicists who couldn't explain some particular space properties

with the theory of relativity aether became unneeded.
aether is just like mithological god - it was invented to explain. Why don't we all still worship the god of Lightning?

 

If it wasn't for Einstein, we would still be worshipping Newton (who did have a large impact on science and technology for a long time) and if it wasn't for Newton we would be still worshipping Ptolomeus, now fasten your seatbelts and get ready for the new kids on the block!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now that you mention the unexplained loose ends: Have you found the missing dark matter of our relativistic universe lately, or should we ask the god of Lightning where he left it?

Actually we still use a lot of Newtons equations because they suit us still well for designing rockets / planes / colour tv's etc... But einstein (a true genius like newton) has a better model for things like nuclear bombs / atomic energy etc... So It doesn't mean that part of einsteining thinking could not co-exist with the ethertheory, with a few modifications.

 

All Hail Perkons - the ancient thungergod of Balts!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I ment that there is no more use of aether because it was artificially created out of thin air. We never had any reason to think it exists after the relativity theory.

Black matter and energy is another very interesting case

 

Vortexx

Just tell me what is exactly so wrong about the ethertheory and I will help shuff it under the carpet

The Ether theory is inconsistent with observation and experiment. Case closed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Quantum Mechanics was developed in respons to the inconsistent non-deterministic behaviour in experiments of mass and energy observed on atomic levels.

Likewise ether could take us a step further, unless the moon is made of swiss cheese theory proofs to be more fashionable, after all, like Heisenberg said : one never can be certain.

But I take it that you rather close the case than risk buying new glasses?

 

Vortexx, we don't need ether to explain the big-bang.
The fact that the universe is expanding must lead to the conclusion it once was a point of infinite density of energy.
The only reason we do "miss" some mass is becuase with the mass we can see now, the universe must be younger than the stars in it, which is impossible.

But dark matter can exist of much more things, which are more likely to be right:
Ether as some sort of thin air will create some resistence to light and other radiation from stars etc. This will lead to heating of that ether, and by the time we live now, it must be glowing by itself....
and I can still see the stars at night...

 

good one, the ether heats up because of the photondecay. Now there is your explanation for the ubiquitous 2.73 K cosmic background radiation and Hubble redshift.The temperature doesn't climb much further in time cause it is smoothed out due to the expansion of the universe.

No we don't need ether to explain a big bang, but if there is ether indeed it was more likely the big crunch and this is why big bang theorists do not like ether at all.

If the big bang community can accept the existence of dark matter / dark energy , without even really knowing or proving where all this dark matter is in the first place, than the concept of ether shouldn't be that hard to swallow, cause I tell you where your missing dark matter is, Right in front of you!, they used to call it ether.

 

Vortexx

the ether heats up because of the photondecay.

Please explain exactly how this occurs. And please provide the math.

 

Photon decay can be measured in several ways:

1.
Hubble Redshift, the math for foton redhsift is well known to you, only you use the wrong model and draw the wrong conclusions, Redshift does not only point to the Doppler effect, but in the ethermodel also to loss of foton-energy, discussed here, including the math:

http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/preface.htm


2.
Background radiation, this article discusses the relation between ether and background radiation

http://www.vedische-uni.de/research/Table4.htm

 

It never ends here, does it? I'm about to give up on ol' Vortexx here.

- Warren

 

Vortexx

I didn't ask you to point me in the direction of crank sites. I asked YOU to explain this phenomena and provide the math. And besides, there is no math on those sites.

If you claim to fully understand this process then you should be able to explain it in your own words and provide the math for how the ether heats up from photon decay.

If you can't back up your claims with the appropriate explanation and math then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are simply parroting others.

It's time to put your money in your mouth, so to speak.

 

I thought you only wanted to do peer reviews, so that idiot fuckwits wouldn't see the holes in special relativity big enough to fly a spaceship through??????

Anyway there are much more knowledgeable people than me (and you are not one of them) to put the ethertheory forward, I just do the sales and promotion.

Like I said before : science is like fashion , the producers tell us what to wear, but ultimately the consumer decides and I say that this winter the colour is not singularity black, but photondecay red , let the layman decide what to wear.

Suppose I would be promoting the big bang instead, would suddenly the big bang theory become invalid???
You may think it are crank sites because they do not adhere to your view of the world that you studied soooo hard for to understand, but others may see it different. You can always go to a private messageboard with fellow big bangers and no longer be bothered by element 115, ufo's, area 51 and other crackpots.

 

Vortexx

I just do the sales and promotion.

I see... then you clearly don't know what you're talking about - we knew that.

You can always go to a private messageboard with fellow big bangers and no longer be bothered by element 115, ufo's, area 51 and other crackpots.

Perhaps you didn't notice the name of this message board - the "Sci" in Sciforums denotes science.

 

They make cute widdle baby black holes.