|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 15, 2012 10:15:49 GMT
Einstein may have been wrong. Given that all predictions generated by his theories have born fruit, he can only be wrong in the same sense that Newton was wrong. Newton was right enough for his theory on gravity to be the basis of NASA's navigation to the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Nov 16, 2012 14:58:50 GMT
I think that the term Big Bang still brings to mind an explosion where the force of the explosion forces material away from the center. The correct term is "Sudden Expansion of the Universe" If you look at it as all the matter and energy in our Universe condensed into the size of a point, then the gravity of this body would have stifled any expansion type radiation. A force greater than the gravity forced it apart. Smaller bodies Black Holes are proof that given enough mass and when the density of this mass reaches a crytical point nothing escapes from the Black Hole. This interpretation, I suspect, stems from an invalid perspective. From outside the Black Hole, it appears to us that gravity is 'the irresistible force' but 'within' the singularity all bets are off. The singularity exists in a quantum domain just as the Universe exists in its own Space/Time and here there is no valid external perspective. There is a long standing hypothesis, that enchants me, that the Universe is a Black Hole within a 'mother universe' and Black Holes within our Universe are 'daughter universes'. The 'mechanism' that I envisage for this is that, because the singularity exists in a quantum state, it has access to all the 'dimensions'* hidden from us and can self-organize its own space-time. Once it has established its own space-time it now has mutually entangled particles with which it can self-organize (by Quantum Computing) its own 'laws of physics' (including its gravitational constant) to ensure its 'fertility' at a later stage of its development. In this scenario we are no longer the arrogant anthropocentric 'purpose of the Universe's existence' but merely a component part in an 'organic' process. It is this perspective that I find so enchanting and humbling. [ * I use the term 'dimensions' figuratively because I suspect that our perception does not delve, yet, far enough beyond the recognition of the existence of quarks and that these are only 'shadows' of a deeper reality.] I suspect this conversation is perhaps verging onto a one way trip to tatarus. ;D "This interpretation, I suspect, stems from an invalid perspective." How so? the only theoretical particles that escape the event horizon of a BH are those that make up Hawking radiation, which to my knowledge has not yet been detected. So there is no evidence to show anything has escaped from a BH. If matter/energy gets to a critical mass or equivalent mass density it forms a black hole. The gravitational mass without the nuclear reactions collapses the core of a massive star past the point where a neutron star stops the collapse due to the repulsive force of the electrons. to a singularity although to my mind the black hole must move through this stage. Like a ice skating ballerina drawing her arms in the spin increases. The relevance of which is unclear to me at this time. So this once matter is spinning in a space that is distorted past theoretical determination, all its quarks compressed into perhaps the quantum domain but perhaps some other yet to be defined domain. Bombarded by photons which the energy levels have been greatly blue shifted and the spaghettified remnants of matter also accelerated and moving to an impact through this distorted space.  this is the speculative vision I have of the domain that is a black hole Now that I don't see your version as set out as probable it is most likely due to a lack of education on my part.  |
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 16, 2012 15:42:25 GMT
Now that I don't see your version as set out as probable it is most likely due to a lack of education on my part. Just as equally probable that it is due to a lack of education on my part. I first encountered the rather outlandish (at the time) hypothesis that the Universe may be a Black Hole, way back and immediately was drawn to the 'poetry' of the concept. A recent exposition on the idea can be found here. |
|
|
|
Post by unavailable on Nov 16, 2012 16:22:13 GMT
As I understand it, Hawking radiation does not actually escape through the event horizon. From Wiki:
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[10]
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 14, 2014 1:12:25 GMT
I've been watching "How the Universe Works" and thinking about this for a while now, so I just wanted to run this past the rest of you and see what you make of it.
In the very first episode, Michio Kaku explains that whenever a student of his asks the question, "Where did the Big Bang take place?", he explains that it took place everywhere at once, which is why it looks like we're right at the centre of everything when we measure the cosmic microwave background. At some point, someone says something like, "it would look the same way if you were in a different galaxy, millions or even billions of lightyears away".
Wait, what?
General concensus on the subject tells us that the universe was created in the Big Bang, which was an explosion/expansion of spacetime and that spacetime continues to expand at an ever increasing rate. We know the last part because in every direction we look, things seem to be flying away from us. Now, in my laymans' mind, if something expands, it must have an edge. That's still up for debate in the scientific community, but the existance of the cosmic microwave background seems to say that there is. If something has an edge, it also has a center. It's a simple observational truth that can be applied to anything and everything in the universe that we've been able to see so far and not just theoretically calculate.
Assuming there's a centre and an edge to the universe, there are only two possible explanations to why everything seems to be flying away from us.
The first one is that Earth is at the centre of where the Big Bang began, but this doesn't seem very likely, since we already know for a fact that we're not even at the center of our own solar system.
The second one is that we're nowhere near the center. We're just being pushed away by expansion like everything else and the doppler effect that we can see in all directions is because the further away from the center you get, the faster expansion pushes you, so the things that are further away from the center than us are moving faster than us and the things that are closer to the center are moving slower than us. This would mean that in very direction we look, things are either moving away from us and we can't catch up or moving toward us, but at a rate so slow that they can't catch up with us. The doppler effect would then be observable from every point in the universe, except the very edge.
Here's my problem:
If we observe a doppler effect everywhere we look and we can safely assume that we're not at the center of everyting, then that must mean space is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. However, when we look at the cosmic microwave background, the distance is the same in all directions, 13.8 billion lightyears. It just doesn't add up.
Say you could travel through a wormhole and instantly come to a planet in a galaxy 3 billion lightyears away from here. By the current concensus, if you were to measure the cosmic microwave background from there, you'd still get 13.8 billion lightyears in every direction. Using that logic, if you looked in the direction of the Milky Way and beyond, you'd be missing those 3 billion light years on the other side of the Milky Way. But we know they're there, because we've seen them.
The only conclusion I can come to from this is that if the universe is truly 13.8 billion years old, you should be able to see 16.8 billion lightyears back in time from there, if you look in the direction of the Milky Way, and only 10.8 billion lightyears in the opposite direction. If that's the case, then there IS an edge to the universe and also a center. If that's NOT the case and we can still only see 13.8 billion lightyears in every direction, then the universe is much older than we think and we just can't see the edge. Light and cosmic microwaves are just not able to travel any further/faster than a maximum of 13.8 billion lightyears for some reason.
Even if there's no edge to the universe and it goes on forever, we've still got the age wrong if what we see is a boundary 13.8 billion lightyears away, no matter where in the universe we place ourselves. Things that are 10 steps to the right of us don't magically cease to exist, just because we take one step to the left. They're still there. We might not be able to see them anymore, but they ARE there. We know this for a fact.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2014 5:57:55 GMT
I've been watching "How the Universe Works" and thinking about this for a while now, so I just wanted to run this past the rest of you and see what you make of it. In the very first episode, Michio Kaku explains that whenever a student of his asks the question, "Where did the Big Bang take place?", he explains that it took place everywhere at once, which is why it looks like we're right at the centre of everything when we measure the cosmic microwave background. At some point, someone says something like, "it would look the same way if you were in a different galaxy, millions or even billions of lightyears away". Wait, what? General concensus on the subject tells us that the universe was created in the Big Bang, which was an explosion/expansion of spacetime and that spacetime continues to expand at an ever increasing rate. We know the last part because in every direction we look, things seem to be flying away from us. Now, in my laymans' mind, if something expands, it must have an edge. That's still up for debate in the scientific community, but the existance of the cosmic microwave background seems to say that there is. If something has an edge, it also has a center. It's a simple observational truth that can be applied to anything and everything in the universe that we've been able to see so far and not just theoretically calculate. Assuming there's a centre and an edge to the universe, there are only two possible explanations to why everything seems to be flying away from us. The first one is that Earth is at the centre of where the Big Bang began, but this doesn't seem very likely, since we already know for a fact that we're not even at the center of our own solar system. The second one is that we're nowhere near the center. We're just being pushed away by expansion like everything else and the doppler effect that we can see in all directions is because the further away from the center you get, the faster expansion pushes you, so the things that are further away from the center than us are moving faster than us and the things that are closer to the center are moving slower than us. This would mean that in very direction we look, things are either moving away from us and we can't catch up or moving toward us, but at a rate so slow that they can't catch up with us. The doppler effect would then be observable from every point in the universe, except the very edge. Here's my problem: If we observe a doppler effect everywhere we look and we can safely assume that we're not at the center of everyting, then that must mean space is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. However, when we look at the cosmic microwave background, the distance is the same in all directions, 13.8 billion lightyears. It just doesn't add up. Say you could travel through a wormhole and instantly come to a planet in a galaxy 3 billion lightyears away from here. By the current concensus, if you were to measure the cosmic microwave background from there, you'd still get 13.8 billion lightyears in every direction. Using that logic, if you looked in the direction of the Milky Way and beyond, you'd be missing those 3 billion light years on the other side of the Milky Way. But we know they're there, because we've seen them. The only conclusion I can come to from this is that if the universe is truly 13.8 billion years old, you should be able to see 16.8 billion lightyears back in time from there, if you look in the direction of the Milky Way, and only 10.8 billion lightyears in the opposite direction. If that's the case, then there IS an edge to the universe and also a center. If that's NOT the case and we can still only see 13.8 billion lightyears in every direction, then the universe is much older than we think and we just can't see the edge. Light and cosmic microwaves are just not able to travel any further/faster than a maximum of 13.8 billion lightyears for some reason. Even if there's no edge to the universe and it goes on forever, we've still got the age wrong if what we see is a boundary 13.8 billion lightyears away, no matter where in the universe we place ourselves. Things that are 10 steps to the right of us don't magically cease to exist, just because we take one step to the left. They're still there. We might not be able to see them anymore, but they ARE there. We know this for a fact. Thoughts? if you get far enough away from a light, it will be so dispersed that you can no longer see it. this could also apply to our view of the universe. as for the age of the universe, we can postulate and theorize until it becomes a moot point and it will still be likely that we don't have enough hard data to be confident of our answer. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 16, 2014 9:25:01 GMT
Time of travel.
You can only see 13.8 billion years (at the time of writing) because its taken that long for the information to travel back to you.
Therefore, 13.8 billion years was when the bang happened and that information started travelling.
Can anyone spat the flaws yet?... 'cos I can.
Being able to travel via wormhole to another galaxy and still only being able to see 13.8 billion years worth of information, its not the same information.... it will be slightly different, unless you can travel more than 13.8 billion light years in any direction that is, then you may see a whole different scene.
Its just the beam that you can see at that point.
Its like having a candle that will only illuminate 100 yds in any direction... its still only illuminates 100 yds wherever you take it.
In the beginning, matter travelled faster than light, but we have only had 13.8 billion years since then, so anything past that, light has not had the time to travel back to us yet... or any other point more than 13.8 billion years away....
We can not see anything that is more than 13.8 billion light years away.
Yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 16, 2014 14:28:50 GMT
Strange things happen when you get close to the speed of light.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 17, 2014 8:03:10 GMT
And how close are we anyway?....
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the 'milky way'
The question is, relative to what?....
Where is "Bang Zero" in actual spacial coordinates, and how do we know that hasnt moved anyway...
thought experiment...If you measure the distance between three or four boats moving in different directions, you can find a spot in-between that is sort of stationary, but of they start moving in the same direction, that central spot you thought stationary then starts to move.
So if you have no reference to something that definitely isnt moving, how do you know what is moving and what isnt.
If all the stars are moving at a minimum of a thousand miles an hour to the left, what is not moving, because if just one is moving less than a thousand miles per hour, it would appear to be moving to the right.
And if that hasnt just confused you, read on, because I havnt made up my mind yet on where the centre of the galaxy should be.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 17, 2014 10:08:07 GMT
Its called 'relativity' for a reason; Your point of reference is yourself.
Space and time are basically one and the same (hence space-time). Time is a measure of movement and movement is a measure of time. So 'how far' is actually a meaningless question when you start to get close to the speed of light because the laws of physics and space-time get messed up.
Likewise the 'center' of the universe or the origin of the big bang is ultimately wherever you happen to be standing. For us on Earth the center of the universe is our galaxy, because everything else if moving away from us. Go to another galaxy and everything is moving away from that, so that is the center of the universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 17, 2014 10:27:34 GMT
So you have made the centre of the universe meaningless.
I can see why, but I dont agree.
This is why I use the term "Bang Zero".
If we could point at universe central point and say that is where the bang happened, the centre of the blast, then we have the centre of the universe, because everything must be moving away from there, unless a collision has bounced something backwards.
So can we trace that by making note of where everything is, or where most things are, moving away from.
As in the point where all galaxies are moving away from....
Be that in a straight line, relatively, with velocity, obliquely, at a tangent to, but there must be "Something" that has a common reference point to everything else where everything else is putting distance in-between, say the origin that passed gas at a party.....
Do we have the technology to invent such a computer to track every known object in the universe to do that trigonometry?....
Finding that point may help a hell of a lot to understand how the universe works.
And where the rest of it is.
I have a strange idea that the centre of the universe may be out of sight....
Reason?.. oh yes, I have one.. its here somewhere... I must have confused it with that Phone bill... will they get a shock when they open that?...
Ok,
Reason.
If everything started moving away in the beginning at faster-than-light, we were moving away, ok, so the bits that make up this solar system, were moving away from that point, faster than light.
Is it possible that we still are?... "Relative" to that point?...
If so, light from the other side of that point may not have started moving back this way yet.
If it has, it may not have had time to "Catch up".......
We can only see a bubble 13.8 million light years in radius.
If that bubble is a cloud that may be say 1,300 million light years from central point?.....
We are a bubble-in-a-bubble, but we can only see so far... 13.8 million light years.
Am I making sense to you?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 17, 2014 12:40:36 GMT
In regards not being able to see the edge of the universe yes. It is possible that objects at the 'far' side are just so far away the light from them has yet to reach us.
Of course these models are linear thinking, which might not actually apply to conditions at the time the universe was formed. For example we consider the speed of light to be an absolute fixed figure and assume that nothing is capable of going faster than that. However we can't be sure that the speed of light has always been what it is now - it might have been faster. Which leads to the interesting scenario of the oldest/earliest matter moving faster than light does now (and as I noted some very strange things start to happen when you get close to light speed, so quite what would happen if an object was technically moving faster than light is anyone's guess.
Likewise, assuming that there was a 'center' to the big bang is linear thinking. You can't have a location without space and time, things that just didn't exist prior to the BB. Therefore the 'center' would be...everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 17, 2014 15:16:11 GMT
And how close are we anyway?.... Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned A sun that is the source of all our power The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see Are moving at a million miles a day In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour Of the galaxy we call the 'milky way' The question is, relative to what?.... Where is "Bang Zero" in actual spacial coordinates, and how do we know that hasnt moved anyway... thought experiment...If you measure the distance between three or four boats moving in different directions, you can find a spot in-between that is sort of stationary, but of they start moving in the same direction, that central spot you thought stationary then starts to move. So if you have no reference to something that definitely isnt moving, how do you know what is moving and what isnt. If all the stars are moving at a minimum of a thousand miles an hour to the left, what is not moving, because if just one is moving less than a thousand miles per hour, it would appear to be moving to the right. And if that hasnt just confused you, read on, because I havnt made up my mind yet on where the centre of the galaxy should be..... 'Murica. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 17, 2014 15:21:08 GMT
Its called 'relativity' for a reason; Your point of reference is yourself. Space and time are basically one and the same (hence space-time). Time is a measure of movement and movement is a measure of time. So 'how far' is actually a meaningless question when you start to get close to the speed of light because the laws of physics and space-time get messed up. Likewise the 'center' of the universe or the origin of the big bang is ultimately wherever you happen to be standing. For us on Earth the center of the universe is our galaxy, because everything else if moving away from us. Go to another galaxy and everything is moving away from that, so that is the center of the universe. no, theoretically, if you could plot the motion of everything from Earth, spanning over a year so you could use our relatively small orbit as a point of triangulation. and then go to a completely different planet (as in, in a different star system or even a different galaxy) and do another plot, you could use those two plots to calculate the relative motion of your two plot origins, and theoretically calculate a new reference point that everything is moving in relation to. it might be called the two boats in the fog scenario. if you take radar plots from two boats, then you should theoretically be able to calculate which moving blip on the screen is actually the lighthouse. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 18, 2014 9:11:35 GMT
I need to propose a thought.
Time space and light are NOT interconnected as you think.
Sod the rules, look at common sense.
Things happen in time, you can not undo what happened.
If you compress space, there will come a point when it all goes gravity well and you create super dense space.
Light travels at a know speed through certain mediums dependant on temp opacity and gravity.
Strange things happen at speed... this indicates we dont know everything we dont know there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 18, 2014 14:27:46 GMT
I need to propose a thought. Time space and light are NOT interconnected as you think. Sod the rules, look at common sense. Things happen in time, you can not undo what happened. If you compress space, there will come a point when it all goes gravity well and you create super dense space. Light travels at a know speed through certain mediums dependant on temp opacity and gravity. Strange things happen at speed... this indicates we dont know everything we dont know there. Space-time and light are connected, in so far that nothing we know of can go faster than light. And that strange things happen to time as you get closer to the speed of light. It is, of course, possible that we could be wrong about the speed of light being the speed limit for the universe although we have no evidence to indicate this. Not that this means much since we have no idea what would happen to anything going faster than light. Relativity says that if you were able to reach the speed of light you'd exist at every point in the universe simultaneously*. What would happen if you could go faster than this is anyone's guess, and it would certainly require its own branch of physics and laws to explain. (*I'm not sure if this applies to everything, including energy, or just matter. If it applies to everything that we could logically conclude that light isn't actually moving at the universes speed limit, since it doesn't appear everywhere at once.) Things happen in time yes, but they also happen in space. Without time you can't have distance and without distance (or at least movement, which requires distance) you can't have time. If you are capable of manipulating space you are also manipulating time, and in theory if you could 'warp' space you could warp time to the extent that you might be able to 'turn back the clock'. The reality is that such manipulation would probably require more energy than exists in the universe...or at least more energy than you could hope to produce in any type of device. The interesting thing about the speed of light is that the speeds we have measured have all been light in a gravity well. We can't be sure that light doesn't move faster between galaxies, or for that matter slower, than it does on Earth, in orbit or even within a galaxy. Objects in your telescope may appear closer than they are.... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 18, 2014 14:57:17 GMT
I need to propose a thought. Time space and light are NOT interconnected as you think. Sod the rules, look at common sense. Things happen in time, you can not undo what happened. If you compress space, there will come a point when it all goes gravity well and you create super dense space. Light travels at a know speed through certain mediums dependant on temp opacity and gravity. Strange things happen at speed... this indicates we dont know everything we dont know there. Space-time and light are connected, in so far that nothing we know of can go faster than light. And that strange things happen to time as you get closer to the speed of light. It is, of course, possible that we could be wrong about the speed of light being the speed limit for the universe although we have no evidence to indicate this. Not that this means much since we have no idea what would happen to anything going faster than light. Relativity says that if you were able to reach the speed of light you'd exist at every point in the universe simultaneously*. What would happen if you could go faster than this is anyone's guess, and it would certainly require its own branch of physics and laws to explain. (*I'm not sure if this applies to everything, including energy, or just matter. If it applies to everything that we could logically conclude that light isn't actually moving at the universes speed limit, since it doesn't appear everywhere at once.) Things happen in time yes, but they also happen in space. Without time you can't have distance and without distance (or at least movement, which requires distance) you can't have time. If you are capable of manipulating space you are also manipulating time, and in theory if you could 'warp' space you could warp time to the extent that you might be able to 'turn back the clock'. The reality is that such manipulation would probably require more energy than exists in the universe...or at least more energy than you could hope to produce in any type of device. The interesting thing about the speed of light is that the speeds we have measured have all been light in a gravity well. We can't be sure that light doesn't move faster between galaxies, or for that matter slower, than it does on Earth, in orbit or even within a galaxy. Objects in your telescope may appear closer than they are.... or further. as SIlver says - we don't know everything that we don't know. That is what makes Science worth doing. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 19, 2014 9:47:56 GMT
But according to Brian Cox (Prof) at the beginning, space was expanding at faster-than-light, and may be still doing so, for the reason of a body in motion stays in motion.
If it is expanding that fast, we can not detect it, because so far, nothing has come this way from there that we can detect.
What happens at light sped, and beyond, is all myth.
Remembering that the myth that going faster than a galloping horse was widely believed to be a sure way of suffocation by the majority of the world until steam trans broke that "Barrier" and no one died....
Well...
Not many died.....
There was this one mayor who didnt think the train would hit him if he stood in front of it?...
And a couple of people who stuck their heads out the window whilst approaching a tunnel at speed....
Anyway.
The proposals of hyper-light-speed are, to be quite honest, hyper-bunkum, we wont know until we get there.
But as the holder of the downhill gravity racer speed record says, if you aint crashing, you aint trying hard enough.....
I dont believe the hype that "**Beyond here be Dragons**", which is why I adopted the monica SilverDragon, I am one of the Dragons who will go beyond here just to find out what everyone is scared of.
Especially if I can prove it aint that scary, and we all should have a go....
And there, science begins?...
(Monica... slang, Cockney, Monica James = names, Monica James was a writer well loved by cockneys...)
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 19, 2014 19:40:45 GMT
I need to propose a thought. Time space and light are NOT interconnected as you think. Sod the rules, look at common sense. Things happen in time, you can not undo what happened. If you compress space, there will come a point when it all goes gravity well and you create super dense space. Light travels at a know speed through certain mediums dependant on temp opacity and gravity. Strange things happen at speed... this indicates we dont know everything we dont know there. Space-time and light are connected, in so far that nothing we know of can go faster than light. And that strange things happen to time as you get closer to the speed of light. It is, of course, possible that we could be wrong about the speed of light being the speed limit for the universe although we have no evidence to indicate this. Not that this means much since we have no idea what would happen to anything going faster than light. Relativity says that if you were able to reach the speed of light you'd exist at every point in the universe simultaneously*. What would happen if you could go faster than this is anyone's guess, and it would certainly require its own branch of physics and laws to explain. (*I'm not sure if this applies to everything, including energy, or just matter. If it applies to everything that we could logically conclude that light isn't actually moving at the universes speed limit, since it doesn't appear everywhere at once.) Things happen in time yes, but they also happen in space. Without time you can't have distance and without distance (or at least movement, which requires distance) you can't have time. If you are capable of manipulating space you are also manipulating time, and in theory if you could 'warp' space you could warp time to the extent that you might be able to 'turn back the clock'. The reality is that such manipulation would probably require more energy than exists in the universe...or at least more energy than you could hope to produce in any type of device. The interesting thing about the speed of light is that the speeds we have measured have all been light in a gravity well. We can't be sure that light doesn't move faster between galaxies, or for that matter slower, than it does on Earth, in orbit or even within a galaxy. Objects in your telescope may appear closer than they are.... And maybe that's what dark matter is. Some of the very first matter that was created, which moved faster than the speed of light then and is still doing so. General relativity predicts that as objects approach the speed of light, their mass increases. Maybe that's why dark matter is heavy enough to hold galaxies together. It's going faster than the speed of light, which would also be why we can't detect it by any other means than its gravitational energy...? I still don't buy into the idea that there's no "starting point" of the universe. I know, there was no space outside of it, but there was space inside of it. That space expanded, which means that as it expanded, you should (theoretically) have been able to sit at the edge and point back towards where you started. The analogy they used in the program was a balloon. Imagine there's nothing outside of it, but space is expanding inside. If you could have been sitting on the inside of the balloon's rubber when it was crumbled up into a single point, you should, as the balloon was blown up, be able to point back toward where you were at the beginning. If the balloon was expanding faster than the speed of light there would come a point where you would no longer be able to see that starting point, but as long as you weren't rotated while you moved, you'd still be able to keep pointing towards it. Thing is, we're assuming that space expanded in every direction from a single point. But what if it didn't? What if our universe was born from a black hole in a different universe and that "bubble" of space-time expanded in the same direction, but just as different speeds? Think soap bubble. You have some kind of circle (black hole) that you blow air through. That bubble won't expand from the middle out, but from the side out. There's nothing on the other side of that point, but everything you see is moving away from it. Actually, that would also explain expansion and the so-called "dark energy" that's driving it. Dark energy is the force of all the new matter and energy being sucked into the black hole from the parent universe, pushing the existing matter further into the black hole... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2014 8:35:21 GMT
Couple of thought experiments.
We presume the event was stationary...
What is it wasnt?...what if the event was its self moving at high speed.
Again, what if there was more than one "Balloon"......
What if its still happening?....
|
|
this is the speculative vision I have of the domain that is a black hole
