# There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

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

1. ### Peter LamontRegistered Member

Messages:
72
Exactly, MM, if I may call you that. It's my belief that as the Universe contracts, it is refilled by incoming dust and whisps of hydrogen. In a void, a black hole will be forced to eat its Aquisition Disc. In a particularly rich area of space, a black hole's disc will probably grow. I believe Mable's disc is growing - in this case, tho', the expansion is limited, and in no way resembling any Big-Bang. Hence the 'newly arrived material.'

Beyond that, I can only repeat myself - we're Expanding Inwardly, into Mable.

Thanks for all your invaluable help. You have given me much room for thought.

3. ### Peter LamontRegistered Member

Messages:
72
Look, omison, Speeding up leads to a loss of pressure and that equals expansion. If you can't see this, you're blind. I've noticed that before. Yes, we're expanding and the expansion is increasing exponentially. At the same time we're falling into a black hole. How can this be?

Go back to my vacuum cleaner experiment. As the air travels toward the nozzle it not only speeds up, it loses pressure (expands).
Now, how is this expanding air going to fit into a tiny nozzle? It's actually very simple, so do try to understand.

The air is being sucked into the nozzle faster than it is arriving. This is what creates the low pressure area around the nozzle. Actually there is a vortex at the nozzle, and the nozzle represents a point of Maximum Speed, Coldest temperatures, Minimum Pressure and maximum expansion.

Black holes are nothing more than celestial vacuum cleaners, and they absorb matter in exactly the same way. I hope this clears things up for you. And do have a nice day.

5. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
As the protons approach one another they would — if they could — see the other as blue shifted. As they pass and move away from one anther, they cannot "see" each other at all. Their relativistic velocities are in the rest frame of the LHC. Not in the rest frame of the other proton group. And their pre-passing velocities, near 0.9c does not suddenly decellerate as they pass.

As I said....., SR has no problem with closing velocities greater than the speed of light. Since it does not, it can have no problem with parting velocities exceeding the speed of light, as long as the exchange of information does not exceed the speed of light.

Why.., did you think that two proton bunches, each with independent velocities, approaching 90% of the speed of light, in the LHC rest frame, as they approach one another, suddenly decellerate to less than 50% of the speed of light as they pass one another?

If this were the case the LHC could not produce the collision energy levels it does.

We are talking closing and parting velocities.

I was not taking exception to your comments about the expansion of space, just that original bolded portion that suggested that, objects in space could not have closing and parting velocities, greater than the speed of light.

7. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
We must be misunderstanding each other. It sounds like you are saying that if there were 2 space ships traveling at .6 c towards each other then they would each see there closing velocity at 1.2 c which is not possible.

8. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
Bastardizing someones name is against forum rules.
Do you have evidence that they vacuum of space is deepening? Or is this just something you think is true?

The fact that you make clains and have no evidence to back it up, does not mean people are blind when they do not accept your beliefs!

Do you have any evidence that the expansion is increasing exponentially? You ask "how can this be?" I answer it clearly cannot be.

I understand. Do you understand that the universe is not a vacuum cleaner. Do you understand that this is an absurd analogy?

It makes it clear that you do not understand blackholes.

9. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
That is what would be happening. The velocity of each is realive to what was their mutual rest frame.., in the example the LHC. Both are then accelerated in opposite directions, to near the speed of light. As they head toward each other, their closing speed exceeds $c$, while their intrinsic individual velocities both remain less than $c$.

If these were spaceships and you were on one, yes you would see the other, approaching you at greater than $c$ and the light emmited or reflected by the approaching rocket would be blue shifted.

Again, the point was, that since closing speeds CAN exceed $c$, parting speeds must also be able to exceed $c$. However, in the case of objects, particles or photons moving away from one another, no information could be exchanged, so an observer in a spaceship, could not see the other ship or determine the parting velocity. If it were possible to do, observers in both ships would see the other approaching at greater than $c$, and then vanish as they pass and begin to move away from each other.

See.., OK the reference is from Wiki, just because it was the first hit on a google search, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Closing_speeds.
Closing speeds
The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles travelling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame.

10. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
Sorry but this is wrong. For an observer at rest relative to the 2 ships he would say that the closing velocity between the 2 ships is 1.2 c, but of course neither ships is exceeding c. I am rather flabbergasted that you think an observer can ever measure a mass exceeding c, which is precisely what you are stating above. Do you not agree with the theory of special relativity?

11. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
There is nothing about closing and parting speeds exceeding the speed of light that is in conflict with SR. When an observer on one ship sees the other ship approaching, if they also can acurately determine its distance, they will conclude that it is approaching faster than the speed of light. The observer being a bright and educated sort will also understand that he/she is in a ship moving toward the other at 0.9$c$ and automatically understand that the other ship while closing with them at greater than $c$, is also only traveling at 0.9$c$. The velocity of both ships being relative to a third frame of reference, we can assume is essentially at rest relative to the two ships.

If the observer were ignorant of SR, they would be very confused and think that they were at rest and the other ship was moving at greater than $c$, but we have very bright and educated observers on all of our spaceships. They know that the closing/parting velocities are not indications of the velocity of just one ship.

Think this through..., closing speeds are not the same as absolute velocities of objects. And as proton's in the LHC approach and pass each other in opposite directions they don't slow down to make sure their closing and parting velocities, never exceed $c$.

12. ### Peter LamontRegistered Member

Messages:
72
Only Me, I don't want to argue about the Heliosphere, Voyager 1, or the Solar Wind. I know what I read in Wiki, for better or worst, and what I read (you can edit it, if you like) cofirms my initial post where I say, 'All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down.'

From an initial 'kick' from the energy of the sun (Sol) the charged atoms are carried Outward, but must eventually slow down in the manner of any Outward Expansion. The only kind of expansion, Only Me, that speeds up is your Inward Expansion. I have gone to some lengths to explain this Inward Expansion in the course of this thread - I do hope you understand it.

It's where a system accelerates as it expands (Solar Wind not withstanding). It accelerates toward a point that is emminating an attractive force - it could be an eletric motor, Gravity or simply a low air pressure. All of these attractive forces cause the system to accelerate, which causes Loss of Pressure (which equals expansion,)

Take an 'air compressor.' It draws in the outside air and compresses it. Imagine please, in this particular situation - the outside air is stationary. Well, as the compressor draws the air in, this stationary air finds itself moving - it has sped up. As the attractive force (it could be gasoline induced) continues to draw this outside air inward - the outside air continu8es to speed up - we can say it is accelerating.

As this air accelerates it loses pressure. Daniel Bernoulli was the first, I believe, to associate Acceleration with a Loss of Pressure, but Robert Boyle said any Loss of Pressure equalled Expansion.

So this system, this Outside Air - Expands and Accelerates as it goes In!

It's not hard. All I'm asking you for is a system, any system, that Expands as it Accelerates.

Was it you who said, 'As the air goes into the building, a corresponding amount of air will leave the building - which is true, of course. The only one-way journey I know of is into a black hole. It's my understanding the only thing that comes out of a black hole is the musical note 'B flat'.

Do try to understand this Inward Expansion. It's the kind that (opposite to your Outward Expansion) speeds up, and the expansion of the Observable Universe is speeding up - it makes me think we are expanding inwardly, into the Center of Mass of the Universe. I think it's a much more 'Natural' movement than the whole Universe expanding Outward, fighting Gravity, in a Universe run by Anti-Gravity - doesn't sound too nice. Not to me. How 'bout you, Only Me? Can you think for yourself or do you still believe what the rest of the world believes. The Big Bang is almost a hundred years old. A hundred years ago they didn't know much. Not about Cosmology, anyway.

Get back to me on this - remember, what I want from you, Only Me, is an expansion that accelerates. You can do it..!

13. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,522
Mr. Lamont, I also welcome you to Sciforums.
First off, I must confess to being The Dumbest Man On Earth, so therefore I must confess that I can follow all that you are saying - but can only understand about 00.0000003% of it! That small percentage being from the first page, 2nd or 3rd posting where you said, and I quote; "Event horizons? I never even thought that far."!
If you "KNOW" of the Black Hole at the Cosmic Core and have not thought as far as the Event Horizon(s)... well this gives me PAUSE!!? That and the way that you cite "Wikipedia" in your posts and DEMAND that we accept your P.O.V. as FACTUAL leaves me truthfully wondering about adding "Second" to my moniker!7
Also, in one of your first few postings, you said ; "I'll abandon this theory soon as someone can tell me of a speeding up expansion that isn't Inward (other than your messed up Universe) OR an Outward Expansion that speeds up (other than your messed up Universe.)"! Okay, I am Dumb, but I think I get that what you are trying to say is (and I am paraphrasing); The TRUE universe encompasses only one Pedestal with only enough room for The "ONE TRUE HOLDER OF INFINITE KNOWLEDGE ( Mr. Lamont ! ) and that loud sucking sound is all the "messed up Universe(s)" that have crossed Mr. Lamont's Event Horizon and have no choice but to blindly accept the inevitability of HIS (Mr. Lamont's) Point Of View.
Now, remember I claim to be the Dumbest Man On Earth, so I could be wrong. Then again as someone mentioned earlier - maybe this posting is accelerating toward (inward, of course!) the CESSPOOL!
Once again Mr. Lamont, I could quite possibly be WRONG which begs the question; Could You?

14. ### Peter LamontRegistered Member

Messages:
72
Origin,
So it's Space that's expanding. Isn't that just another way of saying 'The distances that seperate these bodies is increasing?'
What is causing it? Gravity? If you expose an object to a gravitational force, said object will accelerate in response to such a force. Acceleration leads to a Loss of Pressure, which equals Expansion. Now you might think it's Anti-Gravity that's pushing things apart, causing the distances between these bodies to increase. In that case, Anti-Gravity rules your Cosmos. Well, mine is run by Gravity - the same Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth. Newton said Gravity was Universal. If I agree with Newton, does that make me wrong?

You're slippery. I give you an example of an Inward Expansion, and I refer, during the experiment, to the Nozzle toward which some system is progrressing, and you try to make it look like a discussion on 'Nozzles,' and you reply by telling me you don't know much about nozzles. Some people don't want to see - and I think you're one of these. Too bad. Too bad you won't pay attention to an idea you've never heard of before - so it must be wrong, right? I mean, if you've never heard of Mable, and the Mable Theory, then it can't be true, can it?

It says in Wiki, and you can edit it, if you don't like it- that the Solar Wind affecting Voyager 1, had slowed and (even) stopped.
You think I'm being dishonest. When you point the finger at somebody, Origin, there are three fingers pointing back at you!

Yeah, you're slippery. You certainly don't stick on me, and I'm only allowed one (two if I'm lucky) posts every day. So I really have better things to do, Origin. Do have yourself a real nice day!

15. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
There is a big difference between saying 2 objects are moving away from each other through space and saying that the space between 2 objects is expanding.

No, gravity is not causing space to expand.

The statement that acceleration leads to a loss of pressure is nonsensical

No and no

No you are wrong because your conjecture is preposterous.

No you are being dishonest again - I never said anything of the sort. I am quite sure I have forgotten more about nozzels than you ever knew.

No the problem is that I DO see and I DO think and your conjecture is silly. Just hand waving devoid of logic and physics.

You do not have anything remotely resembling a theory.

I don't know what else to think since it does not say that!

How do you know that I haven't lost a finger from a nasty sausage grinding accident? Right back atcha.....

Is that all you mom will let you do or something?

16. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
I just am amazed that you are sticking with this idea... This mean of course that if we are moving towards a star fast enough and that star is moving towards us fast enough and the star goes super nova then, based on your understanding of closing velocities we should detect superluminal neutrinos. I do not reacall that we have seent that - but I guess it is just a matter of time.

Think about that!! Reread the wiki entry especially the section about if you were moving with the particle.

17. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
This is one of the apparent paradoxes that comes up in relativity. But there is a very significant difference. In an attempt to keep things as simple as possible let us stay with the LHC and two protons, each accelerated in the LHC rest frame to a relativistic velocity, in opposite directions. Their velocities are not additive as one would generally expect within the context of SR. The relativistic velocity of neither proton is relative to the other proton. They remain relative to the LHC throughout. Neither proton ever exceeds its 0.9c in the LHC rest frame. Their velocities never become additive. We are only talking about closing speeds.

Generally when discussing additive velocities in SR, the situation is that you have one object with a specified velocity relative to some arbitrary rest frame and a second object that has a specified velocity relative to the first object. That is not the case with the protons. The velocity of both protons is define in the rest frame of the LHC. They are not additive.

If you want to imagine that you are riding on a proton and somehow are able to observe and measure the velocity that the two protons approach one another, then yes theoretically, the clocks and measuring rods will be dilated and contracted such that your measurements will always return a velocity less than c. But that really is not practical or possible, and it does not change the fact that in the only frame of reference that the velocities of the protons can be measured, the frame of the LHC they do have a closing and parting velocity greater than c.

18. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
Ok, that I can agree with.
So when you said,
"If these were spaceships and you were on one, yes you would see the other, approaching you at greater than and the light emmited or reflected by the approaching rocket would be blue shifted."

You misspoke and meant that an observer that was staionary relative to the 2 space ships would say there closing speed was 1.2c. Because it is not possible for any observer to measure the speed of a mass exceeding c.

19. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Any light exchanged between the two would be measured to have a constant velocity of $c$. Neither ship has any pratical means to actually measure the velocity of the other, other than by comparing the relative location of the other ship over time. Assuming that an observer on either ship does have the abitlity to know the location of the other ship at any given point in time, for that to have any meaning, they would also have to be aware of length contraction and time dilation and be able to transform the information to their frame of reference before they accelerated. They would have to understand distances in what would have been a common rest frame before, both ships accelerated to 0.9$c$. Without this they could not know who was moving or how fast.

Anyone who could be in one of the ships would have to understand the transforms for all three frames of reference. However by using the time as measured by their own clock and the closing distances, they would still conclude that the other ship was closing the distance faster than reported by the clocks and measuring rods on their ship. The dilation and contraction that each observer experiences is proportional only to their own velocity, not the combined velocities, yet the closing distance is the result of the velocity of both ships.

If you were to, place these ships in a universe void of anything other than the two ships, it would seem that the closing speed would have to be treated as an additive velocity, under SR. But that is not a condition or situation which can exist anywhere except in a hypothetical. Though the whole exercise is limited to a hypothetical, to reflect what the observers would experience it must include a universe external to the two ships... And with that external frame of reference, the true dilation and contractions emerge, which for each observer are relative only to their own motion/velocity. So each observer with the assistance of external points of reference will detect or "see" closing distances that are affected by the motion/velocity of both ships, while their clocks and measuring rods are affected only by their own motion/velocity. The result will be that they will determine that both ships are moving and have a closing speed greater then $c$, toward a common point were they will meet or pass.

Once they pass, they will seem to one another to disappear... Because their parting speed will be in excess of $c$ and any light from either ship will never reach the other.

This whole closing speed issue highlights one of the "apparent" paradoxes that arises from SR, because what one would expect within the context of SR, is only applicable to a completely flat spacetime and in the abscence of any outside frame of reference. What is happening here is far more difficult to grasp than the time dilation paradox in the twin paradox, because clocks retain the effects of time dilation as they move from one frame to another and measuring sticks or rods do not. Travelers who shared a frame of reference, at relative rest, one or both departed that frame of reference and then returned, can compare clocks and see who was moving, while when they compare measuring rods they find no difference.

Closing distances cannot be conceptualized in isolation, that is without any outside frame of reference. In the case of the protons and accelerator, the LHC frame. In the case of spaceships, their initial common frame prior to acceleration.

When someone or something is moving relative to me it doesresult in time dilation of my clocks or length contraction of my rulers. Yet closing speeds are determined by the velocities and thus the dilation and contraction of both frames in motion, relative to a common rest frame.

20. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,502
So what you saying in a nutshell is a massive object cannot attain c relative to an observer. So my earlier statement holds: "Mainstream science does not theorize that masses are accelerating away from each other through space, for one thing that would violate SR", but only for an observer 'on' one of the masses, which was the context of the statement I was addressing.

21. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Closing and thus parting velocities can exceed $c$. My original post on this quoted a signle sentence and was meant to address only the accuracy of that statement. I was not commenting on the expansion of the universe generally.

I do have some reservations as to whether it is possible that complex matter (matter composed of atoms) can be accelerated, from a relative state of rest, to relativistic velocities. The reason(s) for this stray from the initial discussion. And I don't believe it would add anything, other than further complexity to the current discussion.

However, in the case of charged particles, the situation is fairly straight forward. They can be accelerated to relativistic velocities both naturally and artificially in accelerators, like the LHC.

Back to your original discussion, involving the expansion of space. When we look out into the universe in any direction and see that objects, at least appear to be accelerating away from us, and that — that acceleration increases proportionally with distance, the velocities of the objects we are observing, would seem to be subject to the restrictions, for the additions of velocities within the context of SR. However, this does assume that space as the medium through which these objects move, is in fact uniform. (I do not use the word medium here as any reference to substance or any ether, only that we do have evidence that space is a dynamic counter part, when observing the relationships of objects within it (space).)

This qualification is based on the fact that all we know about space is defined in a relatively localized frame of reference. Everything we know is from how things in a gravity well behave. In fact the evidence for expansion and accelerating expansion all originates from, how it appears that space between galaxies and more specifically galactic clusters, seems to be, behaving. Gravity appears to be dominant above some threshold of matter density associated with gravitational inertial systems and not so much between those gravitational inertial systems. (To be clear, I use the phrasing "gravitational inertial systems" to define solar systems, galaxies and galactic clusters...) It maybe and seems likely that to some extent the helosphere of our solar system represents the boundary between the solar system's inertial system and the Milky Way galaxy.., and it would seem likely that similar boundaries exist, for galaxies and galactic clusters.?. And that between the boundaries of galactic clusters, space/spacetime appears to be behaving differently than within a gravity well.

Since even though space cannot within the context of GR be completely homogenous, or the same everywhere, SR cannot apply in exactly the same way it would in a hypothetical. Still, it does seem more reasonable to me that space is expanding, than that objects are receding with velocities that approach or even exceed $c$. The mechanisms for that expansion remain a mystery and necessitate the need for the inclusion of unknowns like dark energy, to reconcile GR with observation, at those cosmological scales.

Basically what I am saying is that, IF what we understand of SR and GR from our locally defined perspective, can be accurately applied to the universe generally, space appears to be expanding, even at an excellerating rate. On the other hand, it could also be that at some time in the future we may discover that just as Newton's field equations are a locally consistent approximation of GR, SR and GR may be similarly locally defined approximations, when viewed at a far larger scale.

22. ### Peter LamontRegistered Member

Messages:
72
Only Me,
I agree with your statement, about the meeting speed of particles and it makes a lot of sense to me.

That's all I wanted to say, okay?

23. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
But from either of the two frames approaching each other, the closing speed will be measured as less than c. And since we're talking about the relative velocity of these two frames, all measurement must be done from one frame or the other.