There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Peter Lamont, Jul 21, 2012.

  1. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Well thank you, Quantum Quack. You have written very much in just a few sentences.
    Of course I will consider closely what you have said.
    I have to go back and read it again, and I will read it as many times as it takes me to understand.
    Thank you, again, for your invaluable information.

    Yes, of course - everything is relative. I understand Einstein perfectly. He, like Newton, was a very smart man. But he came up with his own Anti-Gravity - his 'Cosmological Constant,' and then all of a sudden he changed his mind on it.
    Actually, he didn't just change his mind on it, he denounced it in the strongest language possible, calling it 'the biggest blunder of his career.'

    I agree with Einstein, and knowing as I do (and I hope you do too) that AntiGravity doesn't exist, I can understand this perfectly. Einstein lived another 33 years or so after his denouncement, never saying anything about it except what a mistake it was.

    That's all Dark Energy is, Anti-Gravity renamed. The Universe isn't run by anti-gravity, but by gravity. It's a gravity operated Universe, and we're going in so Gravity is all we need. There was no Big-Bang - the Universe evolved slowly - from a huge cloud of Hydrogen, rather in the manner of our sun (Sol) just on a bigger scale.

    This is the truth, whether you like it or not. Our Universe is just one of trillions. We have to stretch our minds - people think the Universe is much too small.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,276
    this... I totally agree with....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Imost definitely agree, Only Me, that as ions (charged particles) propelled by some reaction with the sun (Sol) they should slow down as they move away from Sol. I agree also that we don't know much about the Heliosphere, but this is all about my claim that all Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. The Solar Wind, from the evidence and from what I would expect - slows down.

    But that's just the nature of the beast - I would say.

    But what kind of expansion speeds up, Only Me? Can you give me an example of one? And I don't mean your Universe. I think you should try this, as a mental exercise...

    I think Niagara Falls is a good example of a system that expands as it accelerates? The water goes over the edge as a solid stream, for about five feet. After that, the stream breaks up as it falls. All I'm saying is that the water (gram for gram) in its broken up form takes up more room than the stream in its solid form. The actual stream has expanded. In addition, the water is accelerating as it falls toward the bottom. That's an expansion that accelerates, wouldn't you say? Now, how about one from you? It's just a bit of fun - nothing more.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    What evidence? Provide a direct quote or reference. From what I remember the Voyager data is not measureing the velocity of the solar wind, only that it is detectable.

    I know why I think charged particles should slow down as they move out of a gravity well. Why is it that you think they should?

    As far as situations where things that are expanding speed up, observations suggest that that is exactly what is happening with the expansion of the universe or space....

    It seems that you have been exposed to explanations about the universe that don't match up well with your back yard experience, so you are working very hard insisting that it must be as it seems when you look out the back window. If it were only that simple... There is far more in heaven and earth than in your philosophies.., or even in mine. (paraphrased from Shakespeare circa the 1600s.)
     
  8. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Only me, First:- I'm quoting a Wiki article that says the Solar Wind hitting Voyager I had slowed to zero. You can find it.
    Second:- I aked for a situation where a system is Expanding as it accelerates, and I deliberately said,' Not your Universe.'

    Still, this is the example you offer me. Nobody has seen the Universe. How do you know it's expanding? We know all about the Observable Universe, how it's expanding (exponentially).

    But this accelerating expansion - can't you tell me of a single one? And I don't, Only Me, mean your Universe. I mean some other one. There are other ones.
     
  9. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Prof.Layman,

    Climb down from your 'Relativistic Inflation,' for just a moment, into this real world.

    What I want you to do for me, if you would be so kind - give me an example of a system that expands as it accelerates. Not your Universe, some other system,.

    I'll give you one - a fan that brings fresh air into a building causes the Outside Air to speed up, Lose Pressure and Expand as it is pulled into the building. That's a system that expands as it accelerates.

    Now, you give me one.
     
  10. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    PL: "I'll give you one - a fan that brings fresh air into a building causes the Outside Air to speed up, Lose Pressure and Expand as it is pulled into the building. That's a system that expands as it accelerates."

    Poor analogy . . . . is your 'universe' in the example the 'building' or the building + outside air? Of course you realize that if a fan brings fresh air into a building, that same volume of air must exit the building (somewhere) to remain in equilibrium within this ex. universe.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,276
    Peter Lamont, You have no doubt seen images of the Eridanas Void.
    see:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    revealed in 2007 [ hubble ] although considered a CBR cold spot for some years prior.

    image source: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=182868
    and I think you are trying to expain how this "thing" works regarding cosmic "expansion" when it is really a form of cosmic contraction in disguise.

    I think you are quite correct but let me suggest a way of clarification.
    Imagine you are on a step ladder and sitting on the top looking upwards to a star in the sky.


    Everything looks fine and stable until someone comes along and pulls the step ladder from under you.

    You remain looking at the star but it is now receeding as your plummet to the ground. It looks like the universe is expanding.

    In a sense it is like a balloon that is deflating to a central point from the center, the outer boundaries lagging in their contraction [fall] behind the inner areas as they collapse towards center goes on.
    Therefore the appearance is one of expansion as the observer gets swallowed up due to his freefall into oblivion. The event is actually one of deflation from the center outwards and accelleration is inevitable as the the shrinkage occurs. [at first slow then gradually and in exponential terms [ as per the inverse square rule] it accellerates until there is ..uhm nothing left...]

    Apply this in 4 dimensioanal space terms and you have a person standing on the gournd observing the universe expansion and wondering how this this so...when the ground beneath his feet is actually contracting. [shrinking]
     
  12. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    As far as I know there is only one universe. Though there are some who speculate about the existence of multiple or parallel universes, as far as I am concerned, if they believe that to be true, they walk a fine line between reality and delusion. Again as far as I am aware, multiple or parallel universes remain for the present the stuff of science fiction and abstractions of theory, as yet unsupported by any empirical evidence.

    As far as what the Voyager sattelites can and cannot detect, getting your information from Wiki may not always give you an accurate account of the facts. What you read there is very often the boiled down assessment of some researcher, and heavily weighted by opinion and interpretation.

    A better reference for what the Voyagers are really capable of and have acomplished might be the NASA.gov site, one page of which is linked here, VOYAGER.JPL.NASA.GOV. What is published there suggests that the Voyager 1 has a number of detectors that can detect among other things detect cosmic rays or particles in a variety of energy ranges.

    While it might be possible to backwards project a velocity from an particle's energy, there would be a very significant margin of error or variation, since the sattelite has no mechanism to run a baseline, in its own reference frame. IOW Any such backwards projection must assume that all conditions where the sattelite currently is, are exactly the same as, where baselines here on the earth have been run. It may be so, but it has not been confirmed.

    Again as I said before, the assumptions and conclusions of some researchers aside, the diminishing data could as easily, be the result of the particle density dropping below a critical threshold for detection.

    Now I don't know what universe you live in or what it looks like, but from where I sit in the only universe I know to exist, there is still more that we don't know, than we do know with any certainty.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,568
    Actually wiki does give an accurate discussion on the solar wind - it is just that Peter Lamont does not appear to understand it or is being dishonest and is giving and incorrect assessment of what wiki says.
     
  14. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Perhaps you have misundestand me. Wininex. I don't mean to imply a giant fan is dragging our Universe into some celestial building - no, that's not what my example was about.

    My model (the fan bringing in the outside air) is only designed to show one thing - one thing I hope you can see (let me know if you don't) - an accelerating expansion!

    In my model, the fan draws the outside staionary air towards itself, causing it (the outside air) to accelerate, losing pressure too, which equals expansion. It's my belief that my model qualifies as an accelerating expansion.

    Perhaps I'm wrong - maybe you can show me where. Otherwise you should agree with me - it's a genuine expansion that accelerates.

    The whole point of raising this 'accelerating expansion,' is to point out that it's Inward, Into the building. The accelerating expansion (in this case) is Inward. I'm looking for people who can give me an 'accelerating expansion' of their own, and I don't mean 'The Universe' I want to be clear on that.

    Well there's another point I'm trying to make - well quite a few points really - and it's that the expansion of the Observable Universe is accelerating also. I think we're going IN! not out. The Observable Universe? Well yes - the part we can know about.

    The Universe? Nobody has actually seen the Universe. It could be expanding or contracting. I myself think it is growing.

    But by looking at the Observable Universe and its 'accelerating expansion,' and figuring out what this means, we should be able to extrapolate what the Universe is doing,

    It's rather obvious to me that the Observable Universe, because the expansion is accelerating, just that fact alone tells us we're going in. Going in? You ask. Yes, I'm responding. We're falling into the Center of Mass of the Universe, drawn by the Gravity emminating from that Central Point.

    If we're going in it means there was no Big Bang, Dark Energy doesn't exist, and Einstein was right (to denounce his Cosmological Constant so forcefully).

    Anti-Gravity (which is all Dark Energy is) doesn't exist. In Science Fiction it does - but not in the real world. If you're so sure it does - show me some! Gravity is all there is.

    We're accelerating into the Center of Mass of the Universe. All we should be asking ourselves is what's there at the center?
    Easy! If our Rate of Acceleration is declining - there is nothing there at the center, but everything I read tells me the Rate of Acceleration is increasing - and it could only be Mable causing this - the black hole at the Cosmic core.
     
  15. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Brilliant, Quantum Quack - I couldn't have said it better myself!
    I particularly appreciate your understanding of the 'collapse' - where pressures and temperatures would be highest in the center, and the center would have evolved fastest. Black holes would have appeared in the center first, 'eating out' the center, causing it to go from a slow, hot, compressed and highly compacted zone - to the high-speed, cold, decompressed and toally expanded zone we can see developing from here, tonite.
    The rest would lag behind, but would slowly (relatively) start to move (here's your one-mile-per-hour expansion) into this void. THe outside edge of this system would be unnaffected, especially if the outside edge consists mainly of 'newly arrived material'.
    This is the CBR, still warm from the original compression. This is a 'peaceful' zone, strongly akin to the 'Original Cloud' (of Hydrogen) and completely 'un-evolved'.

    Going in we'll find star nurseries (this is the densest zone) and further in, a long way in - you'll recognise the Constellations! The expansion here is much faster, and this zone is more 'evolved' with Galaxies and Black Holes, and Stars. THey're finding planets around these stars - we're not alone.

    In the center is a void, populated only by a few high-speed Super Black Holes. There is no light or heat (it gets eaten) and you'd have to be a black hole just to survive here. This is a war-zone.

    The Big Bang is a backward looking theory, all about what happened 13 billion years ago. The Mable Theory looks forward, to where we're going and what's there when we eventually get there. How many eyes do you have looking back, and how many looking forward? To me that's a pretty forceful message that the future is much more important than the past!

    I'm going to go back to what you wrote there. It is brilliant - you are a very smart person, I can tell. You have already helped me more probably than you know. (I figured out your, 'What's it relative to?') and your scientific way of explaining what I'm trying to say - I'm going to have to study that!

    So thanks, thanks a million. I owe you.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,276
    Thank you for your thanks!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Deflation models do exist however they are not strongly recognised at the moment. A work in progress I think.
    I am not sure about these explanations you have made above... However I am confident that when you consider the notion of deflation a little further your elastc mind will no doubt make leaps in intuitive understanding of what you are actually trying to tell the world.
    I do believe that you have raised a signifcant issue in your own, dare I say, convoluted fashion. I appreciate the import of your basic message... think...deflation deflation deflation. Relative perspectives, the inverse square rule [re: relative non-accellerating gravitational freefall ] and how when people are looking up they see universe is expanding but if people look down the universe could be indeed deflating
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,276
    this is a rather amazing consideration IMO. We all suffer from the complexity of our beliefs. The visible universe may indeed be deflating yet appear not so with out proper assessment as the visible universe gains more content of what is visible coming into range....from the outer
    so the visible size may appear the same due to the limitations of our visibilities, yet the content may be shrinking .
    The visual boundary only being the limits of our abiity to assess and not an actual physical limitation on the size of the universe... correct?
     
  18. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Only Me,

    We can see that the expansion is accelerating. That tells us a great deal. It's really the expansion of the Observable Universe, the part we can know about.

    All Outward Expansions (Solar Wind included) start fast (from an initial 'kick') and immediately begin to slow. That's just the nature of the beast. Now, what about an expansion that accelerates? Why would it accelerate? Because it's being pushed by Anti-Gravity? No. Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. The expansion accelerates because it's being attracted by Gravity from the Universe's center of mass. We're going in.

    There can be no other explanation for the acceleration of the expansion of the Obserable Universe. This is probably new to you, but that doesn't make me wrong. Get back to me, on this.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,568
    You keep saying this but there is a rather huge flaw in your thinking. You claim that mainstream science thinks the acceleration is a due to a repulsive force between masses (anti-gravity), which is not true. Mainstream science does not theorize that masses are accelerating away from each other through space, for one thing that would violate SR. Mainstream scientist understand that the expansion of SPACE ITSELF in accelerating. So it is a bit of a chalenge to give another example of the accelerating expansion of space.

    Ignoring the absurd claim that, distant galaxies in every direction in space are moving away from us and you say somehow this mean they are moving to one single point, why in this case can the galaxies can exceed c? Do you have any other examples of masses that can exceed c?
     
  20. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Hi, Quantum Quack,
    You say think deflation, deflation, deflation. No doubt you're right, but I always prefer to think 'expansion, expansion, expansion.'

    If I concentrate on the expansion, and the fact that the expansion is speeding up (as per the 'inverse square etc.') I can more easily show that we are going in.

    I guess the scientific term is, 'we're deflating, with the center deflating fastest, and the mid point (where we are) deflating much faster than the (unmoving?) outer edge, the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation).

    If, as I have shown, the expansion started only slowly (one mile-per-hour) then that is going to make the Universe much older than 13 billion years old. The13 billion figure was reached by drawing a straight line graph, and it should really have had an exponentially rising curve. For this reason I say the Universe is so old it's not even worth trying to figure out how old it is. Now, what do you think of that?

    By the way, I loved your picture from Eridanus. Absolutely fascinating!~!!!!! Well done!
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I see a question within the bold portion of the above statement...

    Since, SR has no difficulty accepting closing velocities in excess of the speed of light, how can separating velocities exceeding the speed of light be excluded? The only qualifier here would seem to be that while closing velocities greater than the speed of light would result in blue shifted light, and thus be observable, where if a separating velocity greater than the speed of light exists, no information could be transmitted, between the two frames of reference, since the transfer of information would remain limited to the speed of light.

    In fact think about the proton beams in the LHC. Two groups of protons accellerated in opposite directions, to relativistic velocities. At some point during the process the two groups of protons pass in opposite directions and the velocity they move away from each other must exceed the speed of light, while neither group independently even reaches the speed of light itself.
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,568
    Really?? Since no frame is a prefered frame, then you are saying that from the vantage point of a proton in one of the streams it will 'see' the passing protons exceed the speed of light? I did not realize that the LHC was capable of this.
     
  23. Peter Lamont Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    You have to give me one good reason why I should talk to you. You're obviously so in love with your Big-Bang you're blind to any other point of view. I don't know, I really don't! So bye! And do have a nice day!
     

Share This Page