There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

A cosmological constant was an early concept of Einstein, when he developed GR. He at the time or shortly after thought is was a mistake.

Why did he add this constant to his equations? It is a funny thing but depending on the value of the cosmological constant, the universe either expands forever, stops expanding and collapses back on itself, or perhaps the expansion even continues to accelerate at an increasing rate.

Do a google search on dark energy and cosmological constant. I am sure will find some connection.

This was not something new and unheard of. It was something old, that has been played with for nearly a hundred years now. Though it is not certain at this time perhaps the acceleration observed is yet another confirmation of Einstein's original concept.

I have resisted through most of this thread being drawn into a debate that it does not seem has any potential for resolution. I think it best that I step back at this point and just let you run on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yep I agree with poster "Only me".

You are going to have to vamp up some energy from someone else... sorry.

Maybe you will read my post and that of others, again only after they stop trying to help you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi E.T., and welcome to my thread.
Oh wonderful, a sky-diver. Well I sure guess you know a lot about acceleration. Now, how much do you know about a system that accelerates and expands?

Planes demonstrate this phenomenon nicely - the induction fans in a working jet engine draw the air in, and as they do, this air accelerates and loses pressure - expands. Can you see that the air is made to accelerate by the induction fans? You do know that any Loss of Pressure equals Rising Expansion, don't you? Well it's true (Boyle).

Yes, the air entering the jet engine accelerates and expands. If you hadn't come along, E.T., I would never have thought of that one. It's Inward, by the way, as all accelerating expansions are. Into the jet engine! The acceleration is caused, as we already discussed, by the attractive force emminating from the induction fans.

I'm very happy that you joined my thread. I'm trying to show everybody that any expansion that speeds up is Inward. The expansion of the Observable Universe is speeding up also - we're actually going in!

So welcome again. Consider yourself welcomed a thousand times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This contradicts all observations. Do you have any explanation for that?

 

I don't think the expansion of the universe could be explained with a jet engine. I think it would be closer to a loose valve. Say you had a bubble universe, that was expanding outwards, that was like a ballon that you sent air into it, "inwards". The rate of expansion on the points of the ballon are already exponential if there is a constant flow of air being sent into it. If this exponential rate was to increase as seen in the universe, it would only take releasing the valve ever so slightly so to let a little more air trickle into it.

 

Only Me,
Look, you don't get it, so there's not much I can do, except leave you alone,

However, I must pull you up on one point. I asked you for an expansion that speeds up and you gave me one that slows down. Compressed air, escaping from a rip in a bag, starts fast, in the manner of all outward expansions, and then, having lost its motive force, slows down (and stops).

It's something I've noticed that you, as well as your pal, Origin, like to give the impression you know all about SR and GR, with your closing speeds that exceed the speed of light, and you claim that's tangential to this thread - and I want it to cease henceforth. Yeah, you like to give this impression, that you and he are knowledgeable on certain subjects, but he doesn't realise acceleration causes loss of pressure, and he can't understand how the expanded 'air' can fit inside the nozzle of a working vacuum cleaner - but it does.

Even after all this time,and all my expanations, you seem unable to determine the difference between an expansion that slows down and one that speeds up. This is backyard Physics, yes, but it still has to make sense.

An airplane flies because of an aerofoil. The top part of the wing has more 'surface are' than the underneath of the wing. The aerofoil causes the air to accelerate over the wing. It's this acceleration of the air that causes a low pressure to form ther, on top of the wing. It's fairly obvious, but people who don't know much physics might have a problem with it.

 

Only Me,
Einstein denounced his Cosmological Constant in the strongest language possible, calling it 'The greatest blunder of my career!'
He lived another 33 years, but never did he say anything about his Cosmological Constant except what a mitake it was.

And Einstein's Cosmological Constant is related to Dark Energy? Well, I certainly know what to think about Dark Energy. Dark Energy is an Anti-Gravity force. That's not me, that's what I read in National Geographic.

The Cosmological Constant is nothing more than Einstein's Anti-Gravity - but Anti-Gravity doesn't exist, and dressing it up doesn't make it real. If you're so sure it does, show me some.

You don't understand because you don't want to understand, but people looking at this thread can understand, and that's what's important to me!

 

Quantum Quack,
That saddens me, that you would side with Only Me, but if you can't see it either - the fact that any accelerating expansion is inward, and the expansion of the Observable Universe is accelerating, and you think we're going out? That's what Only Me thinks.

I thought there was more to you. I asked Only Me several times to give me an expansion that accelerates and he gave me an expansion that slows down. It makes me wonder if he knows the difference - do you? Sure you do!

These guys who talk about SR and GR, and Original thinks it's 'Nonsensible' that acceleration leads to a loss of pressure (which is why an airplane flies, or a Venturi works) and Only Me doesn't know the difference between an expansion that accelerates and one that slows down. I know you do.

Against such ignorance it's hard to explain anything, not without being accused of repeating myself. This 'site hasn't made it easy for me, either. I'm limited to one reply every four hours or so. That doesn't help. It'll probably be another four hours until I can talk to someone else. They have a 'bot on me.

Well I still have a lot of respect for you (unless you're one of these guys who claims they can see outside the Observable Universe) but I don't think you are. Well, it's been nice. I had a good time. What more can you ask for? I wonder tho' what you think... Do we live in a Universe run by Anti-Gravity or do we live in a Universe run by Gravity? It has to be one or the other.

 

Peter Lamont, thank's for wellcoming me. Is Compress the same as your expansion? I ask cause I found this and it says compress but you say expands.

ENGINE THEORY

OPERATION
"The jet engines are essentially a machine designed for the purpose of producing high velocity gasses at the jet nozzle . The engine is started by rotating the compressor with the starter , the outside air enter to the engine . The compressor works on this incoming air and delivery it to the combustion or burner section with as much as 12 times or more pressure the air had at the front . At the burner or combustion section , the ignition is igniting the mixture of fuel and air in the combustion chamber with one or more igniters which somewhat likes automobile spark plugs. When the engine has started and its compressor is rotating at sufficient speed , the starter and igniters are turn off. The engine will then run without further assistance as long as fuel and air in the proper proportions continue to enter the combustion chamber. Only 25% of the air is taking part in the actual combustion process . The rest of the air is mixed with the products of combustion for cooling before the gases enter the turbine wheel . The turbine extracts a major portion of energy in the gas stream and uses this energy to turn the compressor and accessories . The engine's thrust comes from taking a large mass of air in at the front and expelling it at a much higher speed than it had when it entered the compressor . THRUST , THEN , IS EQUAL TO MASS FLOW RATE TIMES CHANGE IN VELOCITY .


The more air that an engine can compress and use , the greater is the power or thrust that it can produce . Roughly 75% of the power generated inside a jet engine is used to drive the compressor . Only what is left over is available to produce the thrust needed to propel the airplane .
JET ENGINE EQUATION
Since Fuel flow adds some mass to the air flowing through the engine , this must be added to the basic of thrust equation . Some formular do not consider the fuel flow effect when computing thrust because the weight of air leakage is approximately equal to the weight of fuel added . The following formular is applied when a nozzle of engine is " choked " , the pressure is such that the gases are treveling through it at the speed of sound and can not be further accelerated . Any increase in internal engine pressure will pass out through the nozzle still in the form of pressure . Even this pressure energy cannot turn into velocity energy but it is not lost ."

Its' probly wrong cause it from place that makes jet engines and maybe dont' want' ccmoptetion to figure it ot?!! Anyway when the air get compressed its equal lower pressure so actually expands, am I get that rite? and when expands engine accelorateds so because bolted to wings pulls wings threw the air so more air gets compressed meaning expands so plane wiill always accelarates til' pilot turns off engine to land. That must be difrance for propeller planes cause they're propellers even spin when the are landing. Pleese tell me I got that Rihgt cause makes me cents because at night see the flames when jetplanes take off but not when lands at night. But could be because army said to not make light at night so eneemis not see us so maybe so they not see planes when landing.
Nother question does being smart make hedake ala the time? cause makes me ake to figure things out to get smarter somtimes. by ok

 

AlexG,

Because the expansion is accelerating, that means we're going in. Any accelerating expansion is inward. Why does it accelerate? Because it is being drawn by some attractive force - in our case Gravity, the Gravity emminating from the Center of Mass of the Universe. This is borne out in several (I think 13) examples of expansions that accelerate that I have shown in this thread. Do I need to remind anyone the expansion of the Observable Universe is also accelerating - am I really so far off course?

Is it my fault that any accelerating expansion is inward? That's just the nature of the beast - but you'll never see it because y7ou don't want to see it, do you, AlexG?

Anyway, there it is, for better or worse. It's been a slice!

 

Of course it doesn't - that doesn't even make any logical sense!

Expansion is inward? In your little world is up acutally down to?

You are so far off into the weeds it is pathetic!

You are using the wrong word the term is not fault it is delusion. And the answer is yes it is your delusion that expasion is inward.

His 'problem' is that he is not completely illogical and delusional.

 

No, Prof.Layman,
I'm not suggesting the jet engine is a good analogy for the Universe - no, all I'm trying to show is how the air entering the jet accelerates as it expands, rather in the manner of the Observable Universe (that part of the Universe we have knowledge of) which is also accelerating as it expands.

By looking for these systems that accelerate as they expand, as is happening to the Observable Universe - I think I have come up with 13 of them in the course of running this thread.

I had this idea, you see, of examining these accelertaing expansions to see if I could glean any information from them. I asked other people to help me look for them - all I got was an expansion that slowed down - I probably asked you too, Prof.Layman. Well, that's what I did, these accelerating expansions - I examined them!

I didn't learn much, but I learned one curious fact about these expansions that accelerate - they're all Inward.

WEll, if you think about it for a second, it's easy to see why the expansion would accelerate - there is (in every situation I found of this accelerating expansion) an ongoing attractive force drawing this expansion into a Central Point. In these situations, everything is relative to this Central Point. In addition I have found in all 13 systems, 'Experiment' confirms these findings.

What I'm saying, Prof.Layman - is that any expansion that speeds up is inward, and since the expansion of the Observable Universe is accelerating, it can only mean one thing - we're going in, not out.

We're attracted by the Gravity emminating from the Center of Mass of the Universe - the only possible reason for the acceleration. We're also moving thru' Space relative to this Center. I have considered this movement thru' Space and have concluded:-

If there's nothing there at the Center, our Rate of Acceleration would decline. As it is, everything I read tells me the Rate of Acceleration is increasing - if it is (increasing) it would take a black hole to cause this - Mable - the black hole at the center of the Universe.

Thanks, Prof.Layman, I've enjoyed talking to you. Best of luck with your 'Relativistic Inflation,' and with everything else.

 

Normal E.T. pet,
Great to be chatting with you. There is Speed, Temperature, Pressure and Volume to consider in any situation (I don't know about enemies.)

The Observable Universe (the only part we can know about) is expanding - increasing Volume - and the expansion is accelerating. I have found that any accelerating expansion is inward - in other words, we're going in, not out.

Because our Rate of Acceleration is increasing (from what I read) we must be falling into Mable - my name for the black hole at the center of the Universe. Imagine that!

First tho', we have to fall into the black hole at the center of our Galaxy however long that takes!

Great chattin' wid yah, Normal. Get back to me on this!

 

Oh yes, Origin,
You're the guy who says that it's 'nonsensible' that acceleration causes loss of pressure. Ever heard of an aerofoil? It's the top part of the wing of a plane, curved so that the distance over the top of the wing, compared to the bottom, is greater.

That means the air going over the wing ( kinda sad that I gotta be explaining this) has to travel farther than the air going under the wing - in the same amount of time. Ergo the air going over the top travels faster than the air going under the wing. It's this acceleration of this air (the air on top) that causes a low air pressure on top of the wing, allowing flight.

Are you still gonna tell me 'Acceleration causes Loss of Pressure,' is 'nonsensible'. Against such ignorance, how can I defend myself?

But that's you, Origin. All bluster, with nothing behind it. That's okay, it takes all kinds to make a world. But I know what I think of you!

 

That has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. The acceleration of air typically causes a decrease in pressure. Your blanket statement that acceleration causes a decrease in pressure is nonsense.

Your ignorant conjecture is nonsense - plain and simple, so you cannot defend yourself.

That is pretty funny coming from you - with your conjecture that expanision is acually contraction and your evidence is a vacuum cleaner...

Are you sure? You think expansion is evidence of contraction, so maybe what you think means you admire me - your ideas are so convoluted who knows?

 

Peter Lamont, hi again. You said you happy chatting with me. I have to read evything overnover evyday and evyday rember questions that I hads. My dads' really smart person and reads and helps me too.
After he reads, (my dad), says Peter Lamont not talks with me but at me. Dad saids you not will answer my questions but wiil keeps reapeateting same stuff overnover to make my head ake. He saids (dad) if I keeps askign Peter Lamont will tell me im' little fish or cat turd im' bother Peter Lamont tomuch and Peter Lamont cant' work with me and to away go.
My dad really smart and says Peter Lamont smart, too, buts not evythings smarts the same!
My dad saids afters EID's heals from brain I wils be smart again too'. Anway dads said should just aks you to why not answer question from me. Dad saids MAYBE you think im' like CTA TURDS guy or like TO SMALL FISH TO FYR GUY or OTHER GUYS AT BOTHER YOU not like you want. Dad saids he thinks (dad) you wills not answer my questions how maney times I aks cuase im' littlefish and cat turds like to some really smart poeples.
sorryies if bothers you IM' not type anymore asks. Dad saids im' keeping getting smarter and healding more evyday so looks back and lafs somday and not let Peter Lamont make my headake.
My dad'es really smart all time and try to always awnsers questions and not just ingnores my asks.
Dad saids maybe being wrongs sometimes makes poeple smarter then always be right and saids when im' all healds from eid's --- will alls look bakc and laf's.
If i'd bother Peter Lamont you to much. Peter Lamont to busy's fry biggern fihs,, Peter Lamont Im' sorry not bother you no more if not can awnsers what I'd aksed . I sorry agian, not bothers Peter Lamont no more. OK by Hopes other poeple whos types here (scifroums) not bothreds by me toos. Somdays ill' be smarter maybe agian and hopes juts not only bother poeple. Any way sorryies to anybodyies elses to. OK by now

 

You sound plenty smart to me. Hang in there.

 

You keep repeating this, as though it is your mantra. What makes you think repetition will transform an incorrect statment into a correct one?

You're ridiculously incorrect. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "that's not right, it's not even wrong'.

 

Actually this thread is a classic study of psychosis at work. Peter is obviously totally blind to the notions of actual achievement. real values etc are not present in his writing.
It is not the content so much or lack of content, it is in the asking for help and then rejecting it as a sort of tease.
"Help me, offer me support but I am going to reject it any ways because that is my illness..."

It is sad to note that millions of people suffer similar and no doubt I am assessed of same just as you all have been assessed of similar at some stage in your lives.

Here we have it in glaring detail. A incredible display of the nature of psychosis... maybe we may learn something from Peters suffering... who knows?... we may even indirectly help so many others who suffer with the help of Peter's obvious state.

sorry for interupting Peter, please continue.....

Just for the boards information:
a video called Mabel theory..published by Peter on You Tube
[video=youtube;wk0uHG3QdBI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk0uHG3QdBI[/video]

The problem for me is that I know he is basically correct in that yes due to an anomoly that Peters has psychicially or by way of dreams tuned into the universe was going through a phase of loosing pressure since 1985/86 [ actually it is tension and not just pressure ~ A form of cosmic Deflation]. Which "appears" to be a possible secret motivation to the "ramping up - and sudden successful funding" for the deploying of the untested Hubble telescope in 1990 with it's 2 billion Dollar error.
His psychosis is driven by the urgency in the need to commmunicate to the world what he feels is an apocalypse of universal proportions is pending... probably connected to 21-12-2012 prophecies.
Yes I know the above will attract towards me a similar assessment given of Peter...and that is the difference between psychosis and not, knowing that accusations of mental incompetance will be levied. So if you feel the urge ..go for it.

...And then ask the question: "If he [QQ] knows that his competancy will be seriously questioned ,why would he do it?"
and maybe one day I will let you know...

 

Compare the difference in presentation:

[video=youtube;gLMiJQXsmkc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=gLMiJQXsmkc[/video]

yep.... looking again at his video..... he is definitely referring to "deflation" phenonemologically and as I said I agree with his assessment the universe is indeed going through a phase of "deflation" whihc mimics provides the same evidence as expansion depending on perspective.
quote from his video: "We will reach Mabel in 13 billion years....." and that is about now.....so it seems...or at least 21-12-2012