There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

I guess I could call it Relativistic Inflation. Never thought I should give one my ideas a name. I think if one was to assume that only forms of energy existed without mass at the moment of the Big Bang, then Relativistic Inflation would be unavoidable, and most of my ideas about the Big Bang boils down to the start of the Big Bang consisting of pure energy without mass. The goal of the theory would be to show that it resembles normal inflation as closely as possible while explaining it as a relativistic effect. Sorry to say that, I think this is one thing that your theory is clearly lacking, resembling inflation. The Big Bang has been shown to be too perfect of an explosion, meaning that a normal explosion cannot have the degree of "smoothness" as the Big Bang. It has been described as too perfect of an explosion. If you compared it to being like air moving through a nozzle, a Big Bang Theorist would most likely throw out the idea immediatly. There would just be too much variation involved.

I think you have made the idea a lot clearer by saying that we are just being drawn to some sort of suppermassive black hole. There is another problem with this idea though. In Big Bang Theory, the universe itself is seen as a higher dimensional object. So then when you ask where did the Big Bang happen, where was the location of the explosion, the answer is it happened everywhere. Take for example a ballon, before you blow it up you take a pen and mark dots on it that represent different galaxies. Then when you blow up the ballon the dots move away from each other equally in all directions, given the ballon was perfectly round. So then the "explosion" happened everywhere on the ballon at once, and there is no location on the ballon that is more significant than any other location as to where this "explosion" took place. The two dimensional surface of the ballon stretched out into a higher third dimension.

From what we have learned about the Big Bang, it is just too complex to be able to describe it simply as caused by a large center of gravity. I am sure they would have come up with that idea already and thrown it out a long time ago. Also, a suppermassive black hole's gravitational effects are mostly only seen to affect the galaxy it is in. It would take a black hole so large it would be nothing like we have ever seen before, possibly larger than a galaxy itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMPO (& Query): The "balloon" analogy is an over-simplification of the 'expanding universe'. e.g, what is the balloon expanding "into"? . . . the pre-existing proto-universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All such analogies are of necessity over simplifications. The problem seems often to be when that fact is overlooked. The ballon itself is not the universe. It is only the way the distance between two points on its surface expands that, is intended as an over simplification of expanding space. In fact the analogy is best when three points are involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OM: Agreed . . . a better (3-D) 'analogy' is that of a plum pudding that rises during baking . . . all of the 'plum's appear to expand away from each other within the dough. Albeit, I do not agree that 'expansion' is occurring in the first place . . . it MAY (IMPO) be an outward 3-D edge effect of 'erosion' into a pre-existing proto-universe (subplanck energy) that yields mass along the active (reaction) edge as the mechanism proceeds.

 

There are two kinds of acceleration, origin, positive (speeding up) and negative (slowing down). Perhaps you don't know this. And I mentioned a gas flow approaching a nozzle - and you think I'm talking about nozzles. I'm talking about the gas-flow approaching a central-vac, how it speeds up as it loses pressure and expands. The Observable Universe is also speeding up as it expands. But you'll never see the connection - 'juiced' as you are in your Big-Bang.

And no matter what you say, all my readings tell me the ions in the solar wind eventually slow down, in the manner of all outward expansions. It's suspected they might accelerate but the findings of Voyager 1 confirm the truth.

So I'm back to saying all outward expansions slow down -just as all Inward expansions speed up.

I don't care what you say anymore. You have a slight knowledge and you use it to trip me up, but it doesn't work. I only get to answer one post per day - it's dictated by the site. I just don't have time for you, or AlexG. Sorry!

 

you may have missed this post #60


@ Peter,
You may need to consider that you are talking about a level of understanding that is not commonly available on the net. I feel the concept you are trying to establlish considers the universe in oneness and not the dualism that is commonly used to view it with. You have stated that it is all gravity for example [which is the clue I am working with here.]
Let me ask you a question to help clarify the context.

If an object is in freefall towards a gravitational source does it accellerate as it gets closer to the source?
eg.
If I jump out of an aeroplane at 30,000 feet am I going to accellerate before I go splat on the ground..?
I'd be real interested in Alex G's answer as well..[no cheating allowed]. [chuckle]

*note. the question has at least two possible answers depending on context.

 

No problem. You could learn about physics and the universe around you if you wanted to, but if you prefer to live in ignorance and amaze yourself by coming up with simplistic uninformed conjectures, that is your right. Enjoy.

 

Prof.Layman, I like your style.
What I don't like is this idea that the entire universe is expanding, not just the Observable Universe. Nobody has stood outside the Observable Universe and seen that the entire Universe is expanding - the whole concept is without evidence of any kind. Nobody has observed the expansion of the Universe, whereas the expansion of the Observable Universe is amply documented!

Just because the Observable Universe is expanding, it does not prove the entire Universe is expanding. You might say the expansion of the Observable Universe is a good 'indication' that the whole thing is expanding. You could say that -except that the expansion is speeding up.

All Outward Expansions slow down and stop - even the Solar Wind. I'm only going with the evidence, you see, and the evidence tells me that things speed up (accelerate) only when they are attracted by a force (maybe 'magnets' can be excepted).
An attractive force operating on a system in Space will draw that system towards it, causing it to speed up.

It was Bernoulli (I believe) who first associated acceleration with Loss of Pressure, but as far as I'm concerned it's a Law of Physics that acceleration causes a Loss of Pressure and that according to Boyle (one of the first) to equate a Loss of Pressure with Expansion is another Law of Science.

Something else I've noticed is that any expansion that speeds up is Inward. Well it has to be, you see... the attractive force et al. That's also how it is in Nature.

Well, if the expansion of The Observable Universe is accelerating - if Anti-Gravity doesn't exist - it could only be Gravity from the Universe's Center of Gravity (C of M). The only question we have to ask ourselves is what is there at the Universe's C of M?

If there was nothing there - our Rate of Acceleration would decline all the way in. If (and everything I read confirms this) the Rate of Acceleration is increasing - it's gotta be a black hole.

This black hole I call Mable, the oldest coldest object in the Cosmos. It's Mable who operates the Cosmos, none other.

Of course, Mable is on a scale much greater than anything we know. So's the Universe - it's much bigger than you think. Ayway, thanks for letting me explain...

 

I agree, I don't think much of the 'baloon' metaphor. I think there was no Big-Bang.

 

It seems to imply that because of the presence of gravity spacetime is curved, and if that curvature was large enough to create a closed universe it would create a bubble universe. This bubble universe would then be able to expand into this empty fifth dimension of gravity. The movement into the fifth dimension would be exponential in the same way that the universe expands, but I think the 2011 noble prize in physics was awarded for finding a closer value of the cosmological constant. This would imply that the universe is open. I think the universe may actually more closely resemble the quilted multiverse and in this way open universes could exist side by side together. In the quilted multiverse, a universe can go on forever in all directions so much that it in a way has multiple universes inside of it. The value of the cosmological constant is so large that in order for string theory to even come close to that value, it seems to suggest that there has to be many alternate universes. I think that a quilted multiverse may be so massive that it would be able to put a big dent in the number of alternate universes that may be needed to obtain a value that comes close enough to the cosmological constant, if that is indeed the deciding factor although that is unclear. I think the existance of a temporal multiverse would allow for the cosmological constant to increase over time if it existed, and trying to obtain big numbers by the closest big numbers was the correct way to go. It could also mean that time travel was invented about seven billion years ago by some alien civilization, if the following assumptions are true, as the expansion of the universe seemed to increase at this time. I learned about the quilted universe from Brian Greenes new book, it seems to suggest a connection between the cosmological constant and alternate universes but then he doesn't out right say it really.

 

I like you, Quantum Quack, I can't help it. I do have a certain dualism, I see the Observable Universe and the Universe. It's my contention that by seeing what is happening to the Observable Universe (the accelerating expansion) we can better see what is happening to the Universe.

Now to your questions - Yes, Quantum Quack - you will accelerate (positively) if you fall toward Earth from 30,00'. Perhaps tho' the wind might pick you up and throw you around - you might even land in a different State to the one you took off in.

And yes, a system responding to the pull of Gravity will also accelerate, all other forces being equal. I realise a system in orbit is also in free-fall, and it won't get any nearer, but I don't think that's what you meant.

I think the expansion of the Observable Universe is accelerating because it is responding to an attractive Gravitational pull. It's really that simple. There's no Anti-Gravity, pushing and causing compression and compaction, both warming effects. It's Gravity pulling, pulling the Observable Universe, causing it to accelerate, and thereby Lose Pressure (Bernoulli was the first, I believe - to associate Acceleration with a Loss of Pressure) which equals Expansion. Robert Boyle stated that Pressure and Volume were related - inversely. When you increase one, you decrease the other, and vice-versa. Loss of Pressure equals Rising Expansion.
Expansion causes cooling down (just as compaction causes warming). That's the Joule-Thomson Effect.

The Gravity, of course - comes from the Center of Mass of the Cosmos - whatever is there. But if I read correctly, our Rate of Acceleration is increasing. If there was nothing there, at the C of M of the Universe, our Rate of Acceleration would decline. But it's increasing - and that can only mean a black hole - Mable.

It's my contention also that the expansion is increasing exponentially - and Lee Smolin, in his book on String-Theory agrees with me. Now, when they asked Lee if he had any theory he liked he said, 'Yes - the 'M' Theory.
Now I'm sure he meant the Mable Theory, but how can I prove it?

Nobody has ever observed the Expansion of the Universe. The expansion of the Observable Universe is amply documented, but who has seen outside the Observable Universe? The expansion of the Universe is entirely without evidence!

The Universe isn't expanding. It may be growing (and I suspect it is) but this limited expansion is not what the Big-Bang is about.
No, the evidence says we're going in. I'm a scientist - I have to go with the evidence. Further to that, it's a black hole we're falling into.

'Lex Parsimoniae' is a Law in Science that can be considered 'The Law of Succinctness.'

If I say there's only Gravity - none of these 'repulsive' forces exist (in electro-mechanics they do) then that makes my theory more 'succinct' than the Big Bang. Also, they have Time running backward - but there's not much I can do.

 

I haven't read Brian Green's book, Prof.Layman - I hope you enjoyed it.
It seems to me that you have over-thought this Big-Bang that never happened. We're going in, and I thought I showed this idea in my Initial Post #1.

We're going in, in full accordance with all the Laws of Science. We're going in, and that means there's just Gravity, and it's this same Gravity that's operating the Cosmos. For example, it's Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Where does this Gravity run out? It doesn't - it's Universal according to Newton (a very smart man!).

Outward Expansions all slow down. It's just the nature of the beast! The Expansion of the Observable Universe is Speeding Up. Prof.Layman, please tell me about one expansion you can find, that is speeding up - and I don't mean your Universe?

I can think of a hundred different expansions that are speeding up - all I'm asking from you is one. (1). It shouldn't be too hard. If I can do it, surely you can too.

Please get back to me on this - I want one speeding up expansion (not your Universe) that you know about.

 

Maybe I should ask the obvious question, and ask what is the universe going into? And how does the universe going into a type of nozzle in affect cause us to observe the universe expanding outward? The whole thing seems kind of counter intuitive, even for cutting edge theoretical standards. I am not sure if I could pick out just one type of expansion. Like I mentioned before I think the universe started out in a state of pure energy, without even electrons because they have mass. Then relativistic expansion would be unavoidable. But, once light travels away from an observer at the speed of light it always travels that much faster relative too it, unless maybe you are an electron that is governed by similair effects. Then that leaves the question of why it would accelerate faster after the fact. How else could this problem be solved except just blaming it on alternate universes?

I don't see how you could so losely claim that the Big Bang never happened, while we are chatting on the forums of the world wide web. It seems like the Big Bang would be needed to allow for such an occurance. I beleive that the Big Bang may not have occured from the frame of reference of a particle traveling the speed of light. In this way energy is somehow conserved from that frame of reference, and reactions that cause something other than that frame allow for the Big Bang experience (energy being converted into mass). Then it would have to follow that from the frame of reference of an object not traveling the speed of light, energy would not always be conserved. I think free energy may be the only way to prevent the Big Bang from just being a big black hole, as white holes have not been shown to exist. How do you propose how anything could have ever escaped from your Mable? I guess I tend to stick close to a similiar old theory that the universe could be a single photon traveling forwards and backwards through time (maybe from the unanswered arrow of time problem). Don't recal the name exactly, but I think it only got one mention out all the books at the library. As crazy as the thoery sounds, (at first glance it wasn't one of my favorites) I think it is the only one that still holds up to inflation.

 

I only wish to aid in clarifying the perspective you are using.
There are two answers to the question that I am aware of.
you have provided the one that you operate from and this I believe is why you are havig trouble communicating your ideas about a contracting/expanding universe.

You have stated that yes an object is accelerating towards a source of gravitational attraction. This is the typical understanding that most people have.
However you are providing a relative answer. accelleration relative to what? the source of attraction or the gravity itself.
In freefall an object does not accellerate relative to gravity. If the source of gravity [cog] is thought of as "being gravity" then freefall can not be deemed as accelleration.
see?
2 perspectives both equally correct and only dependant on perspective.

Just thought this might provide a clue for you as to the way you describe your Idea...

 

Peter Lamont - perhaps you could give one example of where an outward accelerating expansion is "going in" as you call it, or a contracting. You can even use the example of the universe since there is no evidence that is "going in" and it trivially obvious that expansion is expansion.

By the way your first post does not give evidence to support your conjectures it only gives evidence that you do not understand basic physics.

 

Wow, is that ever interesting! You are obviously very smart. I wonder tho', Prof.Layman why you totally refuse to honor my request, that you come up with an expansion that is speeding up (accelerating.)
For someone of your intellect it should be easy.
Let me give you an example ;- If I set my kitchen tap just right, a stream of water comes out that speeds up as it falls and breaks up into lots of drops that beat a drum tattoo on the bottom of my aluminum kitchen sink.

We have already mentioned that the water picks up speed (accelerates) and I'm sure the 'lots of drops' takes up more room per volume of water (than the stream). So that's an expansion that speeds up in response to Gravity (from Earth's C of M). It's Inward, of course.

Come on, Proffessor - just one expansion that speeds up (not your Universe) is all I ask from you. Surely you can oblige me?

 

I have given examples of where the expansion would "speed up" or accelerate at an exponential rate. Or do you mean to aim for a description where this exponential rate of expansion is accelerating even faster than an exponential rate? A universe could be described that accelerates at an exponential rate faster than the exponential rate it is already expanding, although I don't know that is what has been seen to occur. Take bubble theory for instance, spacetime is curved around on itself and then is inflated so that everything on the surface moves exponentially away from each other. So then what if this bubble was also curved around in another higher dimension and was inflated? The exponetial rate of expansion would then be increased exponentialy. But, I think the rate of expansion would just turn out to be way to fast, so then the universe would most likely only be expanding into one extra dimension of space. I don't think anyone ever said that there has to only be one cause for cosmic inflation. I think that if there was only one cause for the inflation that string theory could be in a lot of trouble, by being unable to account for any value large enough that could fit into the theory in order to describe the cosmological constant. I think it would be a shame after it was able to accurately describe everything else, even though it is unable to show how it is the true fundemental basis of reality. I could only guestimate that another dimension of expansion would be too large, unless maybe the rate of movement into this extra dimension was very slow. Even then it would seem like it would have made the news if the rate of expansion was seen to increase this much over long periods of time.

 

Simplistic uninformed conflagrations, isn't that you, origin?
You try to tell me the 'ions' that make up the Solar Wind, that these ions, once they have left the surface of the sun, accelerate and keep accelerating - propelled by your imagination, up to the speed of light, and beyond?

I'd rather go with the evidence, that these ions eventually slow down and stop. This was found by Voyager 1. Sounds logical to me, but I guess we're always going to see things differently, so I'd ask you not to bother me again, and you have a nice day.

 

I don't remember specifically if the Voyager sattelites were measuring the velocity of the solar wind so much as just detecting its presence. Not detecting the solar wind could be that it has slowed to a stop; it could be that it has dissipated to a particle density that is below the detectable threshold of the instruments; or it could be that it has become obscured by other background noise.

Since the solar wind is composed of changed particles, I think it is likely that the velocity of those particles does diminish as it moves away from the sun. I cannot say that they actually ever come to a stop, which would suggest the potential they they then begin to fall or be pulled back toward the sun.

We don't even know enough detail of the solar wind within the solar system, to claim any definitive understanding of what is happening at the edges of the heliosphere. What does seem probable is that there is a point where the sol system, as an isolated inertial system stops being distinguishable from the interstellar regions of the galaxy. That is what they were trying to measure is it not? The point at which the sol system's heliosphere ends and interstellar space begins?

The Voyager data is just one more piece of a puzzle.., a puzzle that still has far too many missing pieces to say we really understand what we are looking at.

 

Please don't lie. It is bad enough that you try to come up with a theory about physics when you have no knowledge about physics but when you start lying to make yourself seem correct that is just sad.

Is english not your primary language or do you just have a reading comprehension problem? Maybe I am wrong, but I saw nowhere that Voyager said that it has evidence that the solar wind slows down and stops. Please supply the evidence that this has been stated or I will have to assume this is also just more made up stuff.