There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

Welcome origin,
Life probably came from Outer Space, where it evolved from different esters of different gasses. But you believe the Universe was created 'poof,' just like in the Bible, am I right? That's not really what I mean by evolution. You see, I'm trying to show people we're going in, not out, and if we're going in, that means there's just Gravity.

If we're going in, there was no Big-Bang, there is no Dark Energy. Some Belgian Cleric assumed that if the Observable Universe was expanding - then the whole Universe must be expanding. Such assumptions in Science are dangerous. Nobody has observed the expansion of the Universe - just the Observable Universe, the part we can know about.

Only by observing the Observable Universe can we figure out what is happening to the Universe, and we know now the expansion is speeding up. That's a critical piece of information - that means we're going in. If we were going out, we'd be slowing down, but we're speeding up.

Origin, any speeding up expansion is inward. A snowball rolling down a snowy bank will expand as it speeds up, in response to Earth's Gravity from Earth's Center of Mass. It's going in. Any speeding up expansion is inward - we're in the grip of the black hole at the center of the Universe, and that's why we're speeding up.

Anything with Mass must have a Center of that Mass. That's not me - that's Physics 101.

Also, did you read my initial post? What did you think of it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems like it could only explain why matter expanded away from each other but not space itself. An inflationary theory would have to provide the reason why space itself is expanding. To me this theory would make a black hole unavoidable, because of the amount of stuff that would be present at the Big Bang. The current modles of inflation show that space itself did travel faster than the speed of light from the Big Bang from the Cosmic Background Radiation. Matter cannot theoretically travel FTL even though it is shot from a nozel, but it can if the space itself is traveling FTL. If the nozel would reach critical mass the mathmatics of the theory would be useless. This would mean that the Big Bang would have to be described more like a big shower, but I don't think a big shower would fit into our current understanding of inflation. In a way I have even thrown out the Oscillating Universe Theory of the Big Bang, as I don't see how it could fit into our picture of inflation either and this theory sounds like it fits into the same catagory. It requires White Holes, and they haven't been shown to be able to exist. That is a Black Hole with an open singularity. Apparently, all galaxy centers giving off massive amounts of energy have been explained to be caused by jets from Black Holes generated by them feeding on matter in that galaxy. In a way these jets act like a nozel that creates these jets from Black Holes feeding on the matter around them. But, the Big Bang wasn't a big jet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I highly doubt that is how life originated but you realize you are stating that life was created in outerspace - wait for it - 'poof'!

No, in the bible God created the universe by fiat, I do not think God was involved. It was more of a bang than a poof.

Well that'sjust silly and illogical.

.

Sorry there is much more to the big bang theory than just the red shift.

That is hideously flawed logic. If you are coasting in your car and then you accelerate do you think the car will move in the reverse directions??

That is absurd. I am sure this makes sense to you but you are an army of one, my young padawan.

Come on now you haven't take physics 101.

No, I did not read your intial post, I sort of looked at this midstream. I think reading your previous post or 2 is quite enough for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even for Pseudoscience, this thread has rapidly reached new lows of rationality.

 

IMPO, The "apparent expansion" of the universe is actually a continuing "implosion" phenomenon of a pre-existing, energy-only universe matrix in which energy to mass conversion processes produce the material universe. Yes, much like the Big Bang, this phenomenon (probably) started as a quantum fluctuation (single point) in the pre-existing universe. As mass continues to form, the boundary with the pre-universe energy matrix recedes from the initial point, give the 'appearance' of an expanding matter-dominant universe. Based only on MY alternative interpretation of the observable phenomenon . . . after all, it's all RELATIVE! O.K. talking heads . . . pick this one apart . . . and 'Make my day!!'

 

Prof.Layman,
I assure you there was no Big-Bang. The expansion is accelerating - due to an ongoing force that is causing this.
If you Push something (they say Dark Energy is pushing the Universe apart) if you push something aren't you going to compress it, besides making it more compact? Aren't you warming it?

If you pull something, of course - you run the risk of pulling it apart. You might stretch it, causing it to lose pressure - you're cooling it.

We're not being pushed by any Anti-Gravity substitute! We're being pulled by Gravity - that's why we're accelerating.

Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. If you're so sure it does, show me some! There is no difference between Dark Energy and Anti-Gravity. They are the same thing.

Any accelerating expansion is Inward. A snowball rolling down a snowy bank will grow (expand) as it speeds up. That is, by definition an accelerating expansion. The snowball is responding to Gravity from Earth's Center of Mass. It's going in.

Unless you can tell me of an accelerating expansion that isn't Inward (and I don't mean your backwards Universe) youshould listen to me - or if you can tell me of an outward expansion that speeds up (not your backwards Universe) then you should pay close attention to what I say.

Your backwards Universe? Sure, we're going in but you think we're going out.

Space is empty. It's a vacuum. You can stretch a vacuum or compress it - it won't change anything. What else there is is Hydrogen, a gas that loves to clump-up.

 

Well there you go. To hell with 80 years of observation, calculation, prediction and verification. We have the assurance of an unknown crank on the internet.

To hell with science, we are 'assured'.

 

@Alex G.... A good example of the limitations of those 80 years Alex G is demonstrated quite graphically with the reported comments made by astute scientists concening the study into what has been called Dark Flow.

I wonder how dark flow fit's in with the "expansion models"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310162829.htm
Maybe your cosmic expansion model deserves a place in pseudo science as well.along with dark matter and dark energy.. eh? [chuckle]
now let's see what does this statement mean:

hmmm perhaps God is doing it? [chuckle] either that or your lack of sound physics is showing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

seriously.. though, I know you guys are doing the best you can...

 

Origin, you really should see my initial post. I'm just going with the evidence, and the evidence says we're going in.

Any accelerating expansion is inward. If you can give me a single one that isn't inward I'll abandon my thread (not your backwards Universe, a different one.

Or if you can tell me of a single Outward Expansion that accelerates (besides your backwards Universe, that is.)

But you can't, can you?

So why don't you listen to what I have to say?

There is no expansion that accelerates that isn't inward (except for your Universe) and there is no outward expansion that accelerates (except for your Universe).

Your Universe violates all the Laws of Science. Your Universe fights Gravity. My Universe agrees with all the Laws of Science, and my Universe conforms with Gravity.

 

Hi again, AlexG.
Some people don't want to see. No matter how patient one is with them, they're still hostile. Your posts to me are not scientific - they're garbage. If that's all you can do, AlexG - go bother someone else, please.

 

Hi wiminex, and welcome to my thread.
You make one good point - that it's all relative!
Interesting that your Universe is 'an implosion,' It's an interesting interpretation.

Did you read my initial post? I think you should. I'm saying we're not going out, we're going in. We're expanding inwardly.

I'm saying 'any speeding up (accelerating) expansion is inward. What do you think of that? I realise the speeding up (accelerating) expansion of your Universe is outward - but that (an accelerating outward expansion) is something that doesn't exist. Unless you can prove me wrong.

 

PL: I think you misunderstood me . . . . I AGREE that the proto-universe (existed pre-detectible portion of the universe - our now) is imploding at the expense of continuous creation of the 'now' portion of the universe. Proto-universe energy (all there is/was) is converting to the matter universe (our now). via one or more equilibrium (mass-energy equivalence) processes. (and why did I just have a flash of recall re: Stephen King's "The Langoliers"? tee hee)

 

Well, this is the Pseudoscience thread, so I guess it doesn't have to make any kind of sense.

 

Really? Here is one; an electron gun (like in a CRT), or an ion engine. There that's 2. Now that you are finished with this thread I hope your next one is more 'grounded' in reality.

 

Well thanks, Quantum Quack, for setting me straight about AlexG. I had already divined that there was a problem...

How about you? Did you read my initial post? Any outward expansion will slow down and stop. That's just the nature of the beast and there's not much you or I can do about it. Are we in agreement so far?

What kind of expansion starts slowly and accelerates? Do you know, Quantum Quack? OK, I'll tell you. The only kind of expansion that accelerates is Inward.

A couple of examples:-
1) Air nearing the nozzle of a working Central-Vac will accelerate. As it goes, this air also loses pressure which equals expansion (Boyle). Are we in agreement so far? In my book, that qualifies as an 'accelerating expansion' and it's 'Inward.'

Note; a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward direction.

The reason the expansion (and everything else) accelerates as it nears the nozzle is because the expansion (and everything else) is responding to an ongoing attractive force - an electric motor. Are we still in agreement?

A snowball teeters for a moment 'till the kids finally push it over the edge of the snowy bank. I'm trying to show the snowball started only slowly. As it accelerates, this snowball grows (expands). Are we still in agreement?

Note; a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward direction.

The reason the snowball acceleratese is because it is responding to the ongoing attractive force (Gravity) from Earth's Center of Mass. Are we in agreement?

You see, logically, it's the ongoing attractive force operating on a system that causes it (the system) to accelerate. What that means is 'any accelerating expansion is Inward.'

The expansion of the Observable Universe was thought to be slowing until 1998 when they found it was actually accelerating. Now, instead of re-assessing teir Big-Bang, Modern Scientists invented (fabricated) a new force - Anti-Gravity which they renamed Dark Energy, a much 'cooler' sounding name and much easier to sell.

Anti-Gravity, you see, doesn't exist - and dressing it up doesn't make it real. But there is absolutely no difference between Dark Energy and Anti-Gravity. Surely, Quantum Quack, you can see that!

We're going in, according to the Laws of Physics. That means there was no Big-Bang, no Dark Energy - just Gravity.

Well, let me know what you think of that, Quantum, and get back to me please.

 

Hey, Peter Lamont, I thought you said, "Any accelerating expansion is inward. If you can give me a single one that isn't inward I'll abandon my thread"?

Didn't you like my example? How about one from nature. The solar wind is a fine example of expansion in conjunction with outward accleration. The ions on the surface of the sun are accelerated up to over a million of miles/hour as the move away from the sun, and at the same time the density of the particles / cubic volume decreases.

So abandon the thread already!

The fact that your whole conjecture is wrong is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. When celestial bodies get farther apart that can't mean they are getting closer together.

You clearly do not know any physics and do not seem to have much of a grasp on logic/reality either.

edited to add: But be that as it may, I hope you have a nice day.

 

I probably did misunderstand you, wimiex. Well you say we're imploding, and I say we're expanding inwardly, the kind of expansion that accelerates - the kind of expansion our Observable Universe is engaged in.

Your proto-universe is over my head - is that the Universe as it was? Equilibrium processes? Can you explain? and I'm not too familiar with Steven King,

You're going to have to explain your theory to me in pretty simple language. I don't think we're talking about the same thing, but perhaps we are so I should be careful.

I'm still going to need you to explain your theory. Does it have a name? Mine is the Mable Theory.

Do get back to me - you're obviously pretty smart from what I've read. Good luck!

 

The Solar wind? An outward expansion that accelerates? Are you saying the 'ions' on the surface gain speed as they travel from Sol to Earth? The density of these ions decreases as does their cubic volume?

Well I can see how their density would decrease as they move outward. The cubic volume of these ions also decreases? I'm not 100% sure that you're right. Can anybody else help us out here?

Why do you tell me that when celestial bodies get further apart that can't mean they are getting closer together? You are stating the obvious and I don't need people doing that in my thread. Please, smarten up.

The only kind of expansion that speeds up is inward. It's only logical if you think about it. Acceleration is caused by an ongoing attractive force - an electric motor, Gravity - there are all kinds. If you're falling you're going in. We're going in because the Laws of Physics cannot be violated.

I think it's you who don't have a proper grasp of physics, Solar winds aside. Why can't you see, for example, that the air nearing the nozzle of a working Central-Vac is going to accelerate and lose pressure (expand)? You can't see that that's an inward expansion? At the nozzle is a vortex, the point of Coldest Temperature, Maximum Speed, Lowest Pressure and Maximum expansion?

Some people don't want to get it - maybe you're one of those. I don't care, keep the blinkers on!

You know, when you say the ions on the surface of the sun accelerate as they move toward earth? I don't believe you.
So you have a nice day too, Origin.

 

Yeah yeah, AlexG.

 

This should go to the Cesspool. It doesn't even make the grade as pseudoscience.