Nucleus to the universe?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by trevor borocz johnson, Sep 17, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    The medium of space is heat from a gravity field of a dark black nucleus. All of space everywhere is just heat from a nucleus, big or small. The nucleus of the universe gives space its color and slight background temperature. We probably live in orbit around the stationairy black nucleus of the universe and black holes don't exist. The nucleus of the atom or of the universe has infinite heat inside from smaller and smaller levels of nuclei. This black heat doesn't escape the nucleus unless perhaps during fusion, but it creates a squeezing force on space and an area around the nucleus of dense/hot space that creates a gravity field. When two gravity fields touch they squeeze on each other the same way the nucleus squeezes on space and the squeezing force pulls the two objects together.

    Energy is just hot dense space expanding into colder space. When energy enters the gravity field of the nucleus the free moving energy gets as far into the field until its heat/density equals that of the gravity field. This is a good place I think for the electron shell to exist.

    Time dilation occurs when the force of gravity puts pressure on the nucleus of an atom in a large earth like gravity field. The nucleus of an atom in a gravity field will get hotter as its own gravity field is pushed back in on itself. When an object is moving through the universe the same effect happens to the nucleus because each time it moves into new cold space it's heat takes time to expand and gets pressured in on itself. Because the universe is a single infinite background the heat of the nucleus doesn't lose energy when moving.

    Movement of an object and heating up of the nucleus through time dilation or other wouldn't effect the small infinite because it is to hot at the next level of atom/universe's to be effected by the heat of the outside universe moving. Coincidentally it is to small of a movement to have much of an effect on any outside universe that would be super cold.

    I have a little experiment to show that space is indeed the medium for light. It is similar to the famous Michelson and Morley experiment.

    The experiment utilizes a Femto camera. A Femto camera takes a trillion frames per second and is capable of capturing light in slow motion as it leaves its source. The link below is a video of just that. By pausing the video where light has expanded into s sphere, one can then measure for space 'moving past' just as they did in the M&M experiment. If space is in fact the medium for light one would expect to be able to measure for the slight difference in speed along different directions in a paused image of the Femto camera.

    When I measured with a ruler on the screen I did in fact find that light was travelling faster by a few mm per 25 cm in one direction over the other depending on how you want to look at it.

    All waves are a denser part of a medium spreading out to a less dense part of that medium, so light is just that and its medium is space.

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,491
    What makes you think space is a medium?
    How is space just heat? And what nucleus is this?
    How does the universe have a nucleus? Where is it? It is nearby?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,799
    trevor:

    The content of your post doesn't make scientific sense, as far as I can tell.
    Heat isn't a medium, though. Heat is a type of energy. Energy isn't a medium. Energy isn't space.

    Nuclei don't have a colour so I am puzzled by what "dark black nucleus" could possibly mean.
    Nucleus of the universe? What is that? Where is it?
    Probably? What evidence points towards this conclusion as being probable?
    No. Atomic nuclei do not have 'infinite heat'. Where did you get that idea from?
    ]
    Can you show me your maths, please?
    Two gravity fields? What do you mean? How can there be two? Do you know what a field is?
    No. Energy is not space.
    I'm sorry, but this seems like a waste of time. I'm going to stop at this point. This is just nonsense.

    What is it that you think you're achieving by posting this stuff?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    I write a new phrase, 'heat at at a standstill' to describe the nucleus and why the energy in deep earth doesn't heat up the surface. The background medium of space is this type of heat created by matter. The universe is an infinite one but everywhere has at least a little heat from gravity fields created by nuclei, or else it would be colder. If nothing or no temperature were to exist all the things that have heat would disappear into that spot to try and cause equilibrium. Nope. Everywhere in infinity, big or small, has some heat from nuclei gravity and that's all space is, heat leaking out from infinite nuclei on the infinite oneness of infinity. They balance. and because of gravity nuclei clump together. Space is probably uniform this way.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,491
    Except that it does.

    It has been shown (quite some time ago in fact) that, if Earth were only heated by the Sun it should have frozen solid to the core long, long ago. The fact that the Earth's core is molten is part of the reason why Earth is still liveable.

    Space is not a medium.

    I get the feeling you're making up your own ideas here. Have you studies any physics or cosmology at all?
     
  9. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    Everywhere and everything has temperature of at least some heat. If all of infinity isn't created by the background of infinity, what do you create a second property that all things have that fits the description of energy as well as matter? Do you understand the fourth paragraph in the OP? It relates heat to relativity and time dilation, explaining them differently but the same.
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Badly phrased

    Scientists just broke the record for the coldest temperature ever measured in a lab: They achieved the bone-chilling temperature of 38 trillionths of a degree above -273.15 Celsius by dropping magnetized gas 393 feet (120 meters) down a tower.

    https://www.livescience.com/coldest-temperature-ever

    If you consider 38 trillionths of a degree above -273.15 Celsius "some heat" good luck convincing others

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,799
    trevor:

    I will respond after you have attempted to answer all of the questions I asked you in my previous post, above.
     
  12. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    What happens at -274 Celsius? There has to be a little bit of heat keeping space at any temperature or else it would be colder! And if all of infinity has this 'absolute zero' minimum what keeps the heat from stars from bottling up in the universe? The universe are universe is an atom to is much MUCH more colder then absolute zero. If it wasn't we'd be screwed.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,491
    This isn't even pseudoscience. It's straight up word salad.

    "what keeps the heat from stars from bottling up in the universe?"
    "The universe are universe is an atom to ..."


    Belongs in the Cesspool.
     
  14. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    • Please do not troll. If you cannot support a claim, you ought to retract it and apologise to your readers.
    That's ok. You are the 100th 'scientist' to critique and cynicize my new theory on heat and the universe, which is only 9 months old, and I'm still working on it. My answers to your questions which are in the OP mostly won't make any difference to a fish who swims with his school.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,491
    It's not a theory. There's nothing to critique.

    Consider this claim:

    "Because the Moon is made of green cheese, we could feed astronauts forever without having to bring food."

    The claim is based on a false premise - something that is known not to be true. We don't even need to go past the first comma to know that everything after it is invalid. The claim need not even be critiqued; it's stillborn.

    Likewise, your claims (which you call a theory) are premised on many things that you think are true but are not. Several things you've stated as premises to your claims are simply not true (such as 'space is a medium' and 'the universe has a nucleus', etc.). Your "theory" as you call it, is stillborn for that reason.

    You would do well to finish school. A refresher in high school physics, or even elementary school physics would be an excellent use of your time.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2022
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,947
    Absolute zero is minus 273.15 degrees Celsius hence in theory you cannot go below that temperature

    However at this link

    https://www.mpg.de/research/negative-absolute-temperature#:~:text=At zero kelvin (minus 273,zero on the Kelvin scale.

    we can read how

    Physicists at the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless has negative Kelvin values. These negative absolute temperatures have several apparently absurd consequences: although the atoms in the gas attract each other and give rise to a negative pressure, the gas does not collapse – a behaviour that is also postulated for dark energy in cosmology. Supposedly impossible heat engines such as a combustion engine with a thermodynamic efficiency of over 100% can also be realised with the help of negative absolute temperatures.

    The rest of the article is also interesting to read

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    Okay maybe there is a temperature to space from a little bit of heat from a distant nucleus to the universe, and for all we can tell that's the coldest we can reach. But you have to imagine that if the nucleus to an atom is extremely hot compared to absolute zero, that are universe is probably extremely hot to an outside universe which would be enormous, very cold, and its density of time dilation heat would be very very less dense. Relativity to the nucleus of the universe you live in, that is your movement compared to other objects, exists in a time dilation heat/density which we observe as space-time, everything is relative to the heat the nucleus of the universe creates, and creating an effect on another big or small universe or those universe's effecting us may only happen in extreme conditions like inside the sun, otherwise gravity and relativity of time dilation which are the same keep the enormous distances our universe is travelling at from effecting the heat which is unlike normal energy in that its not expanding to areas of coldness beyond its gravity field.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,577
    I hate these articles. What they describe is just a population inversion (as in a laser for example). This is a non-equilibrium state, in which the energy is not distributed among the ensemble of entities according to a Boltzmann distribution. Temperature is not defined for such a non-equilibrium state. Speaking of a -ve temperature, while it may work technically in the maths, is a totally unhelpful idea which just bamboozles the public.
     
    Michael 345, DaveC426913 and origin like this.
  19. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    I refer to this picture of a close up atom where the center nucleus is black and light bearing fragments make up the rings. It's cold enough far away from the nucleus that movement from gravity can cause fusion.
     
  20. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    Some people have said somewhere that our universe is a black hole to an outside universe and we are living in a black hole. It seems likely that we would live far away from the nucleus of the universe in space that's cold enough for stars to cause fusion.
     
  21. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    398
    Okay they do have infinite heat, but it is so small in size it does not effect this universe. Again the heat of the nucleus is different then radiant heat which has been let go of by the nucleus inside a star to create other radiant sources of energy like life. So what would you call the heat from the nucleus if its at a standstill?

    Energy is a wave and waves only exist because of the medium that creates them. Space-time is a medium of heat and that is all. It doesn't carry any other properties and that is true for light and matter. Color is a property of heat, heat is the only property of space.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,577
    No, energy is not a wave. Energy is the capacity to do work.

    Spacetime is not a medium of heat, save in the very loose sense that radiation can pass through it and radiation has energy, as one of its many properties.

    Colour is not a property of heat. Colour is the perception by the eye of certain frequency ranges of radiation. Green and blue shirts can be at the same temperature in my cupboard.

    I'm afraid you are again living up to your reputation as Trevor "Ballocks" Johnson.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,491
    The universe does not have a nulceus.

    Infinite means infinite.

    It's called a unicorn.
    If you just make stuff up off the top of your head, with zero regard to existing science, then it can be whatever you want - including a unicorn.


    No it isn't.

    Not true.

    No it isn't.
    No it isn't.

    "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
    Christopher Hitchens

    "...the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page