New Scientific Theory on Black Holes

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

New Scientific Theory on Black Holes

Post by roxybeast » August 28th, 2009, 6:54 am

I'm going to pose a new scientific thought regarding black holes. I just don't buy the current notion that they are the end all to end all. That everything gets sucked in and destroyed never to reappear. The destruction of matter in the most final sense.

That's just nonsense.

Look, Einstein was correct when he postulated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is true on earth. And it cannot be disproved in space. Result: the matter, energy, and light entering a black hole must be coming out somewhere. The problem is that we can't see what is produced with the limits of our current technology, telescopes or measuring instruments. We are just presently unable to capture or measure the change.

My theory, and feel free to prove me wrong, is that the matter, energy and light pulled into a black hole are transformed and dispersed in the proximity of the black hole in a different form of wave particles much smaller than quarks not yet detected which essentially comprise the vastness of space creating an ever flowing and growing field of invisible waves. Space, in other words, is not space. It is a near-never ending sea of tiny wave particles which we do not see and cannot yet measure. It fills the void between earth and moon and on to the ends of the known universe. Scientists can calculate and measure that the entire universe is expanding. Black holes create the tiny wave matter particles that help sustain that expansion. Much in the same way that a sea were to expand if we continued to pour water into it. The expansion is the result of the new material created not being anywhere near as dense as the materials and energy destroyed by the forces within the black hole that create it. This also explains why large masses, like stars, tend to look like their gravitational masses are warping the universe causing smaller objects to rotate around them. They are like a heavy object in the sand. A sand that we cannot yet see or measure. But it exists.

There is one true universal rule always at play and that is BALANCE.

It is because of this "rule" that we can establish this new theory to be true.
Last edited by roxybeast on September 14th, 2009, 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 28th, 2009, 7:40 am

This is an article describing the latest best scientific theory addressing the issue:
(AP) Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Wednesday that black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."

Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking: How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?

Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came.

Previously, Hawking, 62, had held out the possibility that disappearing matter travels through the black hole to a new parallel universe — the very stuff of most visionary science fiction.

"There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe," Hawking said in a speech to the conference.

"I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes," he said. "If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state."

At that point, the audience of about 800 people, including many of his peers, laughed.

He added, "It is great to solve a problem that has been troubling me for nearly 30 years, even though the answer is less exciting than the alternative I suggested."

In a humorous aside, Hawking settled a 29-year-old bet made with Caltech astrophysicist John Preskill, who insisted in 1975 that matter consumed by black holes couldn't be destroyed. He presented Preskill a favored reference work "Total Baseball, The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia" after having it specially flown over from the United States.

"I had great difficulty in finding one over here, so I offered him an encyclopedia of cricket as an alternative," Hawking said, "but John wouldn't be persuaded of the superiority of cricket."

Later, Preskill said he was very pleased to have won the bet, but added: "I'll be honest, I didn't understand the talk." Like other scientists there, he said he looked forward to reading the detailed paper that Hawking is expected to publish next month.

Hawking pioneered the understanding of black holes — the matter-consuming vortexes created when stars collapse — in the mid-1970s. He has previously insisted that the holes emit radiation but never cough up any trace of matter consumed, a view that conflicts with subatomic theory and its view that matter can never be completely destroyed.

Hawking, a mathematics professor at Cambridge University, shot to international fame with his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time," which sought to explain to a general audience the most complex aspects of how the universe works.
Last edited by roxybeast on September 14th, 2009, 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 28th, 2009, 7:41 am

I just e-mailed my new theory to Professor Hawking ... we'll see if he responds! :),

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 28th, 2009, 5:58 pm

Wikipedia on Black Holes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

The current scientific research shows that black holes are cold. The more massive they are, the colder they are. Yet they emit a heat signature or Hawking radiation, as it's called.

There is a connection between the waves created when approaching absolute zero, e.g., in Boze-Einstein condensate, and the ultimate wave particles created by a black hole. It is an extension of the same phenomenon. Except that ultimately in absolute zero the formation of these waves is presently undetectable. Think of the black hole as the ultimate engine of creation - it is creating the most basic elemental waves that make up the vastness of the void of space, the multi-dimensional fabric if you will, by destroying measurable matter, light and energy to do so.

I just sent this addition to the theory of to Professor Hawking. :),

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 31st, 2009, 3:46 pm

Further confirmation ... per a recent NASA science episode on the center of the universe - the universe is not expanding away from a central point but each galaxy seems to be expanding, and not due necessarily to planet momentum as you might think, but due to other unseen forces ... per the Hubble law ... (and at the center of each galaxy is a black hole creating the unseen waves which aid in that expansion as discussed above).

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 2nd, 2009, 8:02 am

I have been watching documentaries on time travel & Einstein's theories.

My theory is that time moves at whatever rate we measure it by, as a constant. An alien form another universe, if he/she existed, may measure time at a different rate. But time is not changing. It's speed, if you will, is constant. Only the measurement of it's increments changes.

I think Einstein's theory is upside down so to speak. Light is not the constant. Time is. Time moves on a single axis or line forward at a constant rate. Light moves at variable speeds. Why? Because it is a waveform. Each wave can be stretched or squeezed. It travels at different rates, or even not at all, depending on the density of the material through which it has to travel. One example would be a light on shore would seem to turn on at different times from the perspective on a person a million miles away through the air than if the same person were a million miles away at the bottom of the sea. The person in the viewing the light through the filter of the far less dense material would see the light before the person viewing the light through the filter of the far more dense material. Consider that we know, and can easily establish scientifically, that different colors of light are actually different wavelengths on the light spectrum. Red light is slower than violet light. But light we see, or white light, actually comprises all colors. Prism effect. X-rays are an example of variable speed of light waves. The fact that light is a waveform proves that it must be the variable. Time is constant and cannot, and despite claims to the contrary, has never been varied. Thus, we can conclude the speed of a wave is relative to both the type of wave and the density of the material through which it travels.

Further, because light is a wave, it is subject to gravitational pull at extreme pressures, such that light could actually travel faster than the established speed of light as it enters a black hole - the gravitational pull of the black hole would actually pull the light towards it such that with this force added to light's normal speed or rate of movement, it would actually be and appear to move faster than it's "established" speed. This is because light is actually a thing. Perhaps infantessimally small and presently unmeasurable particles, or more likely, they may create an energy chain reaction in the particles that are affected by gravity. If gravity can pull light into a black hole, then one of these two scenarios must be occurring at some level.

I believe that every experiment regarding time travel done performed using the current assumption/formula/equation that the speed of time is variable and the speed of light is constant to date could be duplicated with exactly the same results if you simply swapped it so that the formula/equation was written so that time was moving at the constant speed and light was moving at the variable speed in the equation. They have not proven time travel and never will. It is not possible because time is the constant rate and the speed of light, because it is a waveform, can be subject to extreme forces and necessarily travels at different rates which vary depending on the density of the material through which it is traveling. These differences in speed can be as subtle as the difference between air and space, or as dramatic as light being absorbed by a door or wall, ... or reflected off it.

Time travel is therefore not scientifically possible. They will never prove the current speculative theory. The real scientific truth is that Einstein had these two factors (light and time) in the opposite position in his formula/equation from where they should be placed in the actual valid formula/equation. Time is actually not a separate dimension at all. It exists and moves at a constant rate, so from that standpoint you could say it is. Perhaps they will eventually discover a way to bend the other three dimensions to make it appear as if time travel has occurred, but it won't be time travel, it will be the appearance of such due to the bending of the other three dimensions to create that appearance, although I'm not sure if they ever will or even could accomplish that feat either. But current theories claiming time can be bent to allow time travel are just invalid and will never be proven. Ever. Wait and see. Time will prove me right.

Just a thought ...
Last edited by roxybeast on September 20th, 2009, 8:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Nazz
Posts: 888
Joined: July 3rd, 2008, 10:28 pm
Location: oh, here and there.

Post by Nazz » September 7th, 2009, 4:45 pm

Great stuff. So many things seemingly impossible to answer/test. What is the universe expanding into, if not itself in some form? Sure, the universe is expanding, and maybe even at expanding rates, but has it always been so? Is the rate of expansion's momentum enough to indefinitely sustain itself, or will there be a reversal back toward "central aggregate mass" at some point? "Jump into a black hole"... haha, that was pretty funny. Might have to use that one. So you're saying the old theory-- that years and years would transpire in earth if you could fly around for a few weeks at light speed and come back to earth-- is false? Impossible to verify anyway, so no matter.

And anyone knows from Star Trek et al that you use wormholes (or the occasional acid hit) to zip over to parallel universes, not black holes. Black holes put the hurt on ya. I'll be curious to read what Mr. Hawking has to say. Good stuff.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 14th, 2009, 4:30 pm

Nazz ... at the equator, the speed of the earth's daily revolution is about 1000 miles per hour ... but at each pole, the speed is relatively nil.

See NASA's calculation: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0401c.html

So if you can go back in time by simply circling the earth backward as the theory goes ... then why can't they just do that ... go to one of the poles, build a track, and drive a car really fast in a circle around the pole until you step back into yesterday. You wouldn't even need to go 1,000 mph at the pole, you could literally just walk circles back into the past. So we have the speed and technology to test this theory right now. We could all watch the scientists' car doing donuts & see if we can still see them when they finally stop.

The reality is that we would still be able to see them & they would still be able to see us ... but the scientists' would be a little bit dizzier.

And yes, I suppose there's that whole nasty thing about having to go faster than the speed of light to make this happen, but it sure seems like the pole scenario puts a serious dent in that being true either. Think about it, even if you're traveling at the speed of light doing circles around the North Pole, your going to get there a lot quicker than if you're traveling at the speed of light around the equator - where the earth's circumference is much much much larger & the distance is much much much greater. So if two ships travel 5,000 light years speed around the pole and the equator does the one at the pole just go back in time farther? You can quickly see where & why that whole scenario breaks down.

And that raises the inevitable question ... if you're at the exact point of the North Pole (or South Pole), how fast do you have to go & in what direction to go back into time? How does the current time travel theory explain around the fact that there are two points on earth which are somewhat stationary? Why couldn't you just walk into the past at either one of the Poles - as many years back as you like? And going forward into the future at the poles, how do you accomplish that trick?

Perhaps you're right Nazz ... acid trip!

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 14th, 2009, 7:05 pm

OK, so what if we send a lady in a spaceship and go faster than the speed of light & get 5,000 light years in front of it that same distance away from earth. What does she see?

The answer is NOW.

The traveller would see whatever she looks at as it appears at the time of her arrival. She would not be able to see 5000 years into the past or future. She would see now.

Scientists postulate that we are currently seeing the past light emitted from distant stars or reflected off planets in the time that it would take light to travel from there to here. I slightly disagree. What we are seeing is now. Vision can move faster than the speed of light. My point is that we see at whatever distance our eyes or our technology allow us to see. Now. If a telescope allows us to see things that are a billion light years away, that's what we see - distance. Think about it. The lenses alter viewing distance - but that effect is instantaneous. Ergo, we can see things located far beyond the distance it would take light to travel one year. Light doesn't speed up or slow down just because we get a better lens in our telescope. We will create even more powerful telescopes to see even farther into the night. But we will still be seeing what is now. Scientists will never be able to view the "big bang," only what is now.

On the other hand, a TV signal emitted by a distant planet that takes 5,000 light years to travel across space to reach our receiver would be received whenever it arrives & so we might watch the other planet's history show 5,000 light years after it was first broadcast.

Popcorn anybody? :)

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » September 16th, 2009, 11:22 am

Good stuff here. Some fine thinking going on.
Yes, I'd like some popcorn, please. With the "butter" on it, yes, please. Mmm, thank you. More sodium? Very nice.
I have a problem with your theories on time, however. I myself suspect time is nothing more than an intellectual construct employed by consciousness to measure entropy. I stumbled on this while imagining a universe without consciousness, no observer to watch what goes on. Entropy would still take place, erosion would happen, things would break down. Accumulation and accretion, ablation and sublimation, all these would still unfold. Change would be a constant in such a universe, a shaping force, as in ours, but would "time" be passing if there were no one to observe the change taking place? I can't answer that question for myself, nor for anyone else, because I do exist; I am conscious; and while I can imagine a universe in which I did not exist, I can't honestly answer questions about what it would be like. I can only speculate. I speculate that in a universe with no consciousness, time would not exist. Ergo, time is an intellectual construct employed by consciousness to measure entropy, i/e; change.
I always wanted, and now my son wants, though he and I never spoke of this, to be the one to a invent time travel machine. But how does one invent a machine to travel through an intellectual construct?
This popcorn is fantastic! Thank you. :)

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 20th, 2009, 8:30 pm

Barry, I don't disagree with you. Time is a measurement, an intellectual construct if you like, ... but on the other hand, it is not imaginary or just an idea ... it is a constant movement that we can measure, that aids change, and has all of the other effects that you point out.

It is real.

To clarify an earlier point on light, I'm not saying that light emitted by far away stars or reflected off far away planets does not make them easier to see. Obviously it does. Because of this light, we can certainly see things farther away than we would with just the telescope.

But consider this ... are we only seeing the black between planets and stars and other cosmic phenomena that is at the outer viewing limit of our present telescope or are we seeing the black between planets and stars that is the same distance away as the planet or stars, etc.? I.e., would you be able to see planets and stars that are much much farther away than the space that actually surrounds them because of the light emitted by those stars or reflected by those planets? My eyes and intellect tell me that is not true. We see both the planet or star and the space that actually and contemporaneously surrounds it, and even the blackness of space that is far behind it. We don't just see light shining through dark space that is physically much closer to us. We see them next to each other, in spatial context. Or maybe it is just that appearance of spatial context is deceiving ... interesting thought.
Last edited by roxybeast on September 22nd, 2009, 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 22nd, 2009, 2:24 am

More proof of my theory about black holes ...

Scientists have recently discovered the existence of dark matter ... and in particular, think that expansion of the universe is speeding up at an increasing rate due to the existence of "dark energy" the existence of which is proven by the observable & measurable effect it is having on large galaxies, stars and other objects in the universe ...

Here are two recent documentaries from the History Channel with interviews with some of the world's leading astro-physicists discussing the phenomena:

Watch this Video, discussion of dark matter & dark energy occurs towards the end of the program:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/95024/the-uni ... n-galaxies

Here's another Video, discussion of dark energy occurs towards the very end of the program:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/92281/the-uni ... s-p2-so-i0

My theory postulates that black holes are creating this dark energy.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 22nd, 2009, 4:37 am

You have to admit that it's a little astounding for someone like myself with little to no formal scientific training to come up with the black hole theory postulated in the first post before having read, viewed or even knowing of the existence of the scientific data included in the subsequent posts, and without having access to the latest scientific theories and materials available to someone working in this field, which increasingly seems to support and prove my theory to be very reliable and on the cutting edge of scientific theories in this field!

After all, Stephen Hawking is a genius, so what does that say about me? :)

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » September 23rd, 2009, 7:30 pm

You have to admit that it's a little astounding for someone like myself with little to no formal scientific training to come up with the black hole theory postulated in the first post before having read, viewed or even knowing of the existence of the scientific data included in the subsequent posts, and without having access to the latest scientific theories and materials available to someone working in this field, which increasingly seems to support and prove my theory to be very reliable and on the cutting edge of scientific theories in this field!
I will admit that. It's pretty amazing.

I just think that we (human science vis a vis Einstienian physics) went wrong somewhere along the line. Fundamentally so. And that this holds us back from a full understanding of the universe as a whole, as a complete dynamic system in which we are embroiled, embedded, emplaced and, therefore, perhaps unable, ultimately, to fully grasp. I think you might agree with this notion, hence your theory re: light.
Pretty amazing that two people lacking formal education and training in the field might come up with two theories that while on the surface seem disparate are in fact incredibly similar, don't you think?

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 28th, 2009, 10:24 am

Barry ... yes, interesting that we both are in the camp believing that time is merely a theoretical construct. Of course, that thought is not original to either of us and has been around for a long long long time.

My thoughts on black holes creating the material that is making space expand is however original and on the cutting edge of current science.

I don't agree that science went fundamentally wrong somewhere along the line, but I do appreciate any and all input in the discussion of these issues as it's helpful to kick around ideas in arriving at an answer.

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests