Jump to content

The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe


Recommended Posts

Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole.

The Observable Universe is expanding - exponentially. Lee Smolin agrees with me in his book 'String Theory.' Are you going to debate this expansion? Why don't you just accept it?

 

 

 

 

This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just because your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity.

An experiment, Justin W. There are only two kinds of expansion, the kind 1) that starts fast and slows down, and the kind 2) that starts slowly and speeds up.

The first kind 1) is your Outward Expansion. All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. That's your explosion or Big-Bang.

The second kind 2) is the opposite - Inward Expansion.

 

Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the middle of a room and the Nozzle will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly, slowly at first but then faster and faster-yet-again as it nears the Nozzle. As the experiment runs, even air from across the room will begin to move, slowly at first and only gradually speeding up, but then faster and suddenly faster-yet-again into the Nozzle.

At the Nozzle there is a vortex, and air there travels at Highest Speed, Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion.

Maximum Expansion, and this is going in (into the Nozzle).

Note a) the slow start b) the speeding up 'Expansion' and c) the 'Inward' direction. These three effects qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

All Expansions that speed up are Inwards. We're going in.

 

 

 

Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.

Sure, Modern Scientists say the black hole at the center of our Milky Way is just sitting there. Of course, you and I know the center of any Galaxy is a very busy place. It's the Growing gravity of this black hole that 'bends Inward' the ortbits of the stars, and it's the growing gravity of the central black hole that gives galaxies their spiral shape.

 

I'm pretty sure like almost no evidence suggests we're falling into a black hole, it's a fringe theory and its very illogical because the hubble constant is relatively constant in all directions, and if there was a black hole massive enough to pull all matter in the universe, everything would be moving towards a single point.

Furthermore, we wouldn't slow down if we were moving outward because of Newton's first law of motion, if the universe contains everything, then there's nothing stopping it from moving outward and slowing it down.

We are moving towards a single point. It's just that we are expanding inwardly, starting slowly and speeding up. We are falling into a black hole. Everything is moving towards this central point. As we fall we must speed up, lose pressure, expand and cool down, like any falling object. This is exactly what happens to the Observable Universe as we go in.

In Nature, we're speeding up because we're falling, due to Gravity. In your man-made Universe we're speeding up because of Anti-Gravity pushing us - Anti-Gravity they call Dark Energy.

Because we're falling, at an increasing Rate of Acceleration, that's proof we're going into a Black Hole. If there was nothing there. we'd be speeding up, sure, but our Rate of Acceleration would diminish all the way to the center. This is not what's happening.

A black hole works a lot like a vacuum cleaner. Air approaching a vacuum, cleaner speeds up as it goes, losing pressure and expanding all the way - except this expansion speeds up as it goes, just like the expansion of the observable Universe.

Anyway, nice of you to contribute, Question Poster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Newton's equations that got us to the moon, but it's GR that gets you to the shops and back without getting lost.

This is observably not true. The same phenomena (red shift) that tells us the universal expansion is speeding up is the same phenomena that tells us that the universe is expanding. You cannot pick o

Then how do you explain the vacuum of space. To my way of thinking the less mass you have in a space the greater the vacuum. I've been trying to find information on any changes in vacuum, but I haven'

In Nature, we're speeding up because we're falling, due to Gravity.

 

I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet.

If, as I say, the Observable Universe is falling into a black hole, it would be like falling into a celestial vacuum cleaner (both are vortices) or an Earthly one. As we fall into a vacuum cleaner, we'd be speeding up, losing pressure, expanding and cooling down - all the things happening to the Observable Universe. The a) slow start of the air and b) speeding up 'Expansion' and c) the 'Inward' direction qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

In Nature, all 'Expansions' that speed up are 'Inward.'

The expansion of the Observable Universe is speeding up. In Nature (I don't know about your man-made stuff) we're going in.

Inward Expansion is as real as your Outward Expansion, Justin - and much more common. Inward Expansion can be found in the center of any vortex, every time a bird flaps it's wings (it's the Inwardly Expanding air in the vortex created by the flapping wing, the low pressure there - that allows the bird to fly.

Every time you move your hand, you set up vortices in the air. A vortex starts slowly at the outside, but speeds up as the pressure drops toward the center of the vortex. That pressure drop is expansion according to Boyle, and at the center of the vortex you will find air of the maximum speed, coldest temperature, minimum pressure and maximum expansion.

I don't think that's too hard to see. The main point of all this is to show you all expansions that speed up are inward.

Modern Scientists will tell you we're speeding up because of a man-made Anti-Gravity that's pushing us at an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration.

In Nature, we (in the Observable Universe) are speeding up because we're falling into a black hole. If there was nothing there at the center (of mass of the Universe) we'd be speeding up, as we are - but our Rate of Acceleration would decline until at the center, all forces being equal, we would not be accelerating at all. As it is, the increasing Rate of Acceleration can only be caused by a black hole - Mable, the black hole there at the center of the Universe.

 

Now, you can go with your man-made Universe - outwards 'ad infinitum,' pushed by an Anti-Gravity Force called Dark Energy (except Anti-Gravity doesn't exist) fighting Gravity - or you can submit to Gravity and conform to it. In Nature, we're speeding up because we're falling - naturally, and I hope I've shown you that:- a) we're expanding inwardly and b) that it's a black hole we're expanding into. Okay, Jason W?

All expansions that speed up are Inward - in Nature. The man-made Universe is therefore unnatural. Too bad!

 

I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

Not all things speed up - Earth in it's orbit around Sol is a good example. But things in free-fall (I know you've got man-made forces keeping everything up) are going to speed up and with nothing holding us up, we (in the Observable Universe) can only be falling.

 

Why shouldn't we be conforming to Gravity instead of fighting it? Nature doesn't have any beef with Gravity. If you're pushing a Big-Bang, it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity.

If we're going in, Gravity is more important, eh?

Your man-made universe is full of repulsive forces. Einstein's Anti-Gravity (his Cosmological Constant) he denounced later as 'the biggest blunder of my career.' Your Cosmological Principle has been blasted full of holes so often it's a joke. As for your 'Age of the Universe) I understand that it was made of an evenly expanding Observable Universe, but in fact, the expansion is speeding up - and that makes a huge diffrerence.

As for speeds, I'm sure one end of our stream is travelling very much faster than our part, maybe even at the speed of light or even faster - relative to us. But nothing speeds up 'ad infinitum,' except your man-made universe. I'm saying we will eventually reach a terminal speed, as do all Inward Expansions - I don't have any problem with this.

As for your 'even' expansion, why is every picture of the expansion pinker at one end than the other? That's because the expansion is not even. Those stars farthest from us are expanding fastest. Does that sound like an 'even' expansion to you?

As for direction, we are faling into the Super-Cluster in Hydra-Centaurus but in such a way we can never reach it, for the Hydra-Centaurus Super-Cluster is moving away fro us even faster, headed for 'The Great Attractor,' which it can never reach (discovered by the Seven Samurai, an international group of scientists fropm the 1980s) and it was later found out that the Great Attractor is falling into an even more massive body called 'The Shapley Concentration.'

Now, why are we speeding up if the Shapley Concentration is leaving us? It can only be that somewhere beyond tye Shapley Concentration is an even bigger gravitational attraction that we do not yet know about (well I do.)

As for mass being flung out of a black hole, I think you're mistaken. Near a black hole, things only go in.

Unless you know different?

 

I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

Not all things speed up - Earth in it's orbit around Sol is a good example. But things in free-fall (I know you've got man-made forces keeping everything up) are going to speed up and with nothing holding us up, we (in the Observable Universe) can only be falling.

 

Why shouldn't we be conforming to Gravity instead of fighting it? Nature doesn't have any beef with Gravity. If you're pushing a Big-Bang, it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity.

If we're going in, Gravity is more important, eh?

Your man-made universe is full of repulsive forces. Einstein's Anti-Gravity (his Cosmological Constant) he denounced later as 'the biggest blunder of my career.' Your Cosmological Principle has been blasted full of holes so often it's a joke. As for your 'Age of the Universe) I understand that it was made of an evenly expanding Observable Universe, but in fact, the expansion is speeding up - and that makes a huge diffrerence.

As for speeds, I'm sure one end of our stream is travelling very much faster than our part, maybe even at the speed of light or even faster - relative to us. But nothing speeds up 'ad infinitum,' except your man-made universe. I'm saying we will eventually reach a terminal speed, as do all Inward Expansions - I don't have any problem with this.

As for your 'even' expansion, why is every picture of the expansion pinker at one end than the other? That's because the expansion is not even. Those stars farthest from us are expanding fastest. Does that sound like an 'even' expansion to you?

As for direction, we are faling into the Super-Cluster in Hydra-Centaurus but in such a way we can never reach it, for the Hydra-Centaurus Super-Cluster is moving away fro us even faster, headed for 'The Great Attractor,' which it can never reach (discovered by the Seven Samurai, an international group of scientists fropm the 1980s) and it was later found out that the Great Attractor is falling into an even more massive body called 'The Shapley Concentration.'

Now, why are we speeding up if the Shapley Concentration is leaving us? It can only be that somewhere beyond tye Shapley Concentration is an even bigger gravitational attraction that we do not yet know about (well I do.)

As for mass being flung out of a black hole, I think you're mistaken. Near a black hole, things only go in.

Unless you know different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why shouldn't we be conforming to Gravity instead of fighting it? Nature doesn't have any beef with Gravity. If you're pushing a Big-Bang, it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity.

Not exactly. This would be assuming the velocity created by the big bang had less force than the gravity of masses that were present at the time. That could be argued either way.

 

 

As for speeds, I'm sure one end of our stream is travelling very much faster than our part, maybe even at the speed of light or even faster - relative to us. But nothing speeds up 'ad infinitum,' except your man-made universe. I'm saying we will eventually reach a terminal speed, as do all Inward Expansions - I don't have any problem with this.

This would be true if there wasn't a force acting to accelerate. This is where the man-made part comes into play. There needed to be a reason that explained the acceleration, so poof. . . you have dark energy. Man made, yes. Likely to have another explanation, yes. But that theory holds more water than yours does so far, and until you have some documented evidence that can be observed, no one will be obligated to agree with you.

 

 

As for mass being flung out of a black hole, I think you're mistaken. Near a black hole, things only go in.

Unless you know different?

 

As a matter of fact I do. Not everything that orbits around a mass has a trajectory which pulls things into it. Some are pulled into the object, others steady into a locked orbit, while others use the energy of that gravity and are slung out like a slingshot.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. This would be assuming the velocity created by the big bang had less force than the gravity of masses that were present at the time. That could be argued either way.

There was no Big-Bang. We're going in, not out. All expansions that speed up are inward. Our own expansion is speeding up - we're going in.

There are only two kinds of expansion. The first 1) starts fast and slows down and the second 2) starts slowly and speeds up. The first 1) is an Outward Expansion - your Big-Bang. The second 2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward expansions start slowly and speed up. Air approching the nozzle of a Central Vac starts slowly and speeds up as it nears the nozzle - losing pressure and expanding as it goes - Inward, into the nozzle. That's just one example. Every vortex shows this Inward Expansion - every time a bird flaps its wings it creates a vortex. The outer part of this vortex turns only slowly, but air in this vortex speeds up as it expands and loses pressure toward the low pressure at the center. As this air goes inward, toward the center - it's expansion speeds up. The expansion of the Observable Unverse is speeding up. In Nature, all 'Expansions' that speed up are 'Inward.'

 

This would be true if there wasn't a force acting to accelerate. This is where the man-made part comes into play. There needed to be a reason that explained the acceleration, so poof. . . you have dark energy. Man made, yes. Likely to have another explanation, yes. But that theory holds more water than yours does so far, and until you have some documented evidence that can be observed, no one will be obligated to agree with you.

If we're going in, Gravity is all we need. Actually, Gravity is all there is. Dark Energy (Anti-Gravity) doesn't exist. If you're so sure it's real, show me some. You shouldn't put your faith in these man-made forces - they're fabrications all.

 

 

As a matter of fact I do. Not everything that orbits around a mass has a trajectory which pulls things into it. Some are pulled into the object, others steady into a locked orbit, while others use the energy of that gravity and are slung out like a slingshot.

It's the growing gravity of the black hole at the center of a galaxy that 'bends' inward the orbits of the stars. If this gravity wasn't growing, the stars would orbit in steady ellipses, like we orbit Sol. That's according to Orbital Mechanics, anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will someone please enlighten me? This thread goes on and on about what is in "the Center of The Universe," but no one has explained whether the universe even has a center or not! That could, after all be important since it is what this whole long thread is about!:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it was to astrocat5...

 

I can't see anything wrong with what you say there. It must be remembered that when things are gravitationally bound (or closer together any of the other 3 forces) then that interaction overrides the expansion, which is why locally we don't see say atoms getting bigger or the earth expanding.

Yes, I agree. When things are close together, that would override the expansion.

What I'm saying is that we are falling into the Supercluster in Hydra-Centaurus, but that we can never reach it because the Hyrdra-Centaurus Supercluster is moving away from us even faster, on its way to the Great Attractor, discovered by an international group of astronomers called the Seven Samurai in the early eighties. Certain 'Alumni' of these Seven Samurai discovered that the Great Attractor itself is falling into the Shapley Concentration but, of course, the Shapley Concentration is moving away from the Great Attractor, so these two can never meet.

Now, why is the Shapley Concentration moving away from us? It can only be that somewhere beyond the Shapley Concentration is some immense gravitational attraction that is unknown to us.

Any expansion that speeds up is Inward.

If you were falling into a vacuum cleaner, you'd be speeding up (Newton) losing pressure (Bernoulli) which equals expansion (Boyle) and cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect.) At the nozzle of this vacuum cleaner the air is travelling at its Highest Speed, Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion, the same things that would happen to you if you were falling into a Black Hole.

We in the Observable Universe are also speeding up, losing pressure, expanding and cooling down.

There is much more, of course, but I would first like to know what you think of this, Klaynos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that.

Robert Boyle discovered that when things expand, they lose pressure - and vice-versa. The Observable Universe is expanding, and according to Boyle, it's also losing pressure. That's the Law, anyway.

s that the expansion part is general consensus.

It does seem to be that way.

 

At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

I have no idea of the rate at which the Observable Universe is cooling down, only that it is cooling as it expands, in accordance with the Joule-Thomson Effect. You should also be aware that compression causes warming up, tho' I don't know who first discovered that. Was it Boyle?

Fortunately Science is built on Laws, Laws which were only arrived at, sometimes - after bitter dispute. These Laws were fought for, and they must be respected, else you could do whatever you wanted, in Science.

The Law of Gravity is another such Law. If you're pushing a Big-Bang (which couldn't have happened in a slowly expanding Universe - a big wheeze, maybe, but no sudden explosion) it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity. What's needed is a simple Theory that conforms to all the laws of Science - including Gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know who interjected this. Was it you, Justin? Asfor pressure, all you have to remember is speeding up causes loss of pressure according to Bernoulli. I believe this is pretty well accepted, no?

 

Will someone please enlighten me? This thread goes on and on about what is in "the Center of The Universe," but no one has explained whether the universe even has a center or not! That could, after all be important since it is what this whole long thread is about!:unsure:

Ok, now please undrerstand this as it's important. Everything with mass must have a center of mass - that's not me, that's Physics 101. There is nothing (with mass) in existence that does not have a Center of Mass, including the Universe. Can you tell me something with mass that does not have a Center of Mass? No, you can't. That proves what I am saying.

They'll tell you the Universe is Infinite. They say the Universe started in a Big-Bang, but even after the first second, the Universe could not have been more than 400,000 miles across, even travelling at the speed of light.

That 400,000 miles is a finite number, wouldn't you agree? So how do you go from Finite to Infinite? Is it something that happens fast, or only very slowly? This infinite Universe is ridiculous.

 

Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

Well at least you agree there is a center of the universe. How it can be 'everywhere' is beyond me. I know in your man-made universe you have some pretty strange goings on, but this one takes the cake. Nice to hear from you tho' 'Ophiolite'. Can you contribute anything else?

 

Everywhere is the centre of the universe.

Well at least you agree there is a center of the universe. How it can be 'everywhere' is beyond me. I know in your man-made universe you have some pretty strange goings on, but this one takes the cake. Nice to hear from you tho' 'Ophiolite'. Can you contribute anything else?

 

Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole.

The vacuum, according to you, must be getting stronger as the Observable Universe is expanding. Check out Boyle's Law.

 

This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just becaus0e your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity.

Any vortex expands Inwardly, Justin. Any expansion that speeds up is Inward. Ok, let's check out this vortex, say when a bird flaps its wings.

wHEN a bird flaps its wings, or even if you move your hand, vortices (plural 0f vortex) will occur.

The outside of any vortex moves only slowly, speeding up as it goes toward the center, losing pressure (or expanding) all the way to the low pressure (increased expansion) at the center of the vortex. Please note 1) The slow start 2) the speeding up expansion and c) the inward (towards the center) direction of this expansion.

I'm kinda surprised that you can't see that a snowball rolling down a snowy bank is expanding inwardly - on it's way to the central point of Earth's Center of Mass?

Why do you call a vortex a contraction? It reminds me of one guy I was explaining Inward Expansion thing, who scoffed 'That's an implosion.' I cannot see how a snowball doing the Inward Expansion thing is an 'Implosion.' Nor is it a 'contraction.' But it is an Inward Expansion.

What's important is that any expansion that speeds up is Inward.

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.

Maybe i've answered this post before. Ah well, it bears repeating.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Astrocat5,

Okay you keep pointing to Bornoulli to prove that expansion creates pressure change, but point me to a study that shows that this change IS occuring. Give me some measurements or numbers or SOMETHING to prove that the universe is acting the way that you imply. It seems that all of your theoretical musings have little to go on besides the observable expansion.

 

You keep reffering to Newton for gravity speeding things up and Boyles for the expansion, but it seems that in your scenario of the blackhole, that Newtons law should overpower Boyles law. If something was drawing us in at a faster and faster rate, this would definately override an expansion of things in all directions. We might expand, but it would be a directional expansion and speeds would be different in different regions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Astrocat5,

Okay you keep pointing to Bornoulli to prove that expansion creates pressure change, but point me to a study that shows that this change IS occuring. Give me some measurements or numbers or SOMETHING to prove that the universe is acting the way that you imply. It seems that all of your theoretical musings have little to go on besides the observable expansion.

 

You keep reffering to Newton for gravity speeding things up and Boyles for the expansion, but it seems that in your scenario of the blackhole, that Newtons law should overpower Boyles law. If something was drawing us in at a faster and faster rate, this would definately override an expansion of things in all directions. We might expand, but it would be a directional expansion and speeds would be different in different regions.

No, Justin - actually it was Boyle who (perhaps not the first) discovered Volume and Pressure were related - inversly. That means if you increase Pressure you diminish Volume, and vice-versa. Daniel Bernoulli was, I think - the first to associate speeding up with a loss of pressure. The Observable Universe is expanding - I thought you had accepted that. Now, if I want to say that the Observable Universe (OU) is also losing pressure that's because I like to compare the behaviour of the OU to the behaviour of Earthly things, the better to demonstrate the point I am trying to make.

 

Are you going to tell me the Observable Universe is compressing? I don't think so. But am I wrong to think the Observable Universe is losing pressure because it's expanding? I don't believe that either.

 

The OU is expanding in exactly the same way as air is sucked into a vacuum cleaner - exponentially. Now I should tell you Lee Smolin of String Theory agrees with me, in his book, that the expansion is increasing 'exponentially,' so it's not just me.

 

I think Newton was the first to make sense of Gravity. Newton said Gravity was Universal - across the Universe, and that's why he called it 'Universal Gravity.' I happen to agree with Newton, but you may feel free to differ, I suppose.

 

To me, if it can happen on Earth then it can happen in Space. If it can't happen on Earth (like an outward expansion that speeds up exponentially) then it can't happen in Space either. That is to say, the Laws of Physics are - to me, Universal - across the Universe.

 

We're presently up moving thru' Space up to 15 million miles-per-hour and with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration to boot. As for the expansion 'appearing' uniformly, that's because if you expand a system, with all forces acting on it equally, this system will tend to expand evenly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure like almost no evidence suggests we're falling into a black hole, it's a fringe theory and its very illogical because the hubble constant is relatively constant in all directions, and if there was a black hole massive enough to pull all matter in the universe, everything would be moving towards a single point.

Furthermore, we wouldn't slow down if we were moving outward because of Newton's first law of motion, if the universe contains everything, then there's nothing stopping it from moving outward and slowing it down.

I am very sorry for not having replied to this post before, Questionposer. Let me answer it now.

If you were out there in Space, and you were in free-falling into a very distant black hole that you couldn't see (they're invsible anyway) you wouldn't know it. It would seem to you that all forces acting on you were equal. And they would be.

 

So it is with the Observable Universe (OU). We're in free-fall, speeding up as you'd expect (Newton) and losing pressure (Bernoulli) expanding (Boyle) and Cooling Down (the Joule-Thomson Effect). We are in obeyance of all the Laws of Physics, including Gravity. Are we in agreement so far? If not, the onus is on you to show me where I am mistaken.

 

Now, if all forces acting on us (in the OU) were equal, why would we not be expanding evenly? We must be expanding because we're losing pressure due to speeding up on account of Gravity. And the expansion is even. Well, I hope I've explained that.

 

Never mind the Hubble Constant - it's been shot full of holes so many times now ... It's man-made, of course - and based on a Big-Bang that never happened. You see the expansion is speeding up and that means it was once slower. Now if I say the expansion started off at one (1) mile-an-hour, you can't tell me I'm wrong - because that's what really happened. And if I say it took forever for the expansion to get to two (2) miles-per-hour, you stillcan't say I'm wrong - because that is the way it went.

 

We're going in. There are only two kinds of expansion, the kind that (1) starts fast and slows down, and the kind that (2) starts slowly and speeds up.

The first kind (1) is your Outward Expansion, your basic explosion or Big-Bang. All Outward Expansions start fast and slow down.

The second kind (2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start slowly and speed up.

 

Inward expansion? A snowball rolling down a snowy bank. It started slowly as the kids just managed to push it over the edge, and it grows as it speeds up - headed inwards to Earth's Center of Mass (C of M).

 

Note:- a) the slow start b) the speeding up expansion and c) the Inward direction.

That's an example of Inward Expansion.

 

Take a rubber ball bouncing down a flight of stairs. Let's take it from the hand of the person who dropped it, to get it going.

It falls, and as it falls it speeds up (you with me so far?) and that speeding up causes it to lose pressure and expand a bit, cooling it down. That expansion is Inward, inward toward Earth's C of M. The faster it goes, the more it expands until it reaches terminal velocity. You should be able to see that.

 

When it lands, it slows down and stops, compressing and becoming more compact as it warms up. In no time at all it seems, it is rebounding (now an Outward Expansion, away from Earth's C of M.) and as it rebounds from it's stationary position on the step, it speeds up fast, for as long as it takes the ball to go from its compressed, compacted, warm state to its normal shape - a fraction of a second, springing up, having already lost pressure and expanded on its way up (outward) where it gradually slows down (in the manner of every outward expansion.) and stops, regaining its normal state.

 

Its normal state - but it also sped up as it reached its normal shape and that caused it to lose pressure and expand somewhat, cooling down as it went. But such an Outward Expansion could only slow down as it reached the top of its flight, where it stops,

regains its normal compession and expansion and cooling down, before falling again, this time inwardly, slowly at first but then speeding up to terminal velocity, losing pressure and expanding as it cools.

 

Here is your Outward Expansion, compared to your Inward expansion. Note how the outward expansion started fast (in a fraction of a second) and slowed down, and your inward expansion wich started only slowly, at the top of its flight and sped up to terminal velocity when it hit the floor.

 

The expansion of the OU began only slowly, speeding up, losing pressure and cooling down as we head towards terminal velocity before we hit Mable (the black hole at the cdenter of the Universe.)

 

Any expansion that speeds up as it goes is Inward. That's my evidence. I'm wrong? Please show me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Name=astrocat5' timestamp='1328491789' post='656299]

Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?

Somebody is interfering, I can tell because even the 'visitors number' has stopped growing.

 

Supposedly, there is freedom of speech - here in North America. Who has 'blocked' or otherwise stopped my thread? In the name of Democracy, I ask for my thread to be returned to its normal status.

 

Thank you,

 

Peter Lamont

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?

There are several reasons. Here are some of them:

 

1. You are talking rubbish.

2. You display a singular ignorance of the findings of science.

3. You fail to justify any of your assertions.

4. You repeatedly reveal that you misinterpret or misunderstand current theory.

5. Your observations are boring as well as wrong.

6. There is nothing of value in your writing.

 

Freedom of speech is a right: stop abusing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

There are several reasons. Here are some of them:

 

1. You are talking rubbish.

2. You display a singular ignorance of the findings of science.

3. You fail to justify any of your assertions.

4. You repeatedly reveal that you misinterpret or misunderstand current theory.

5. Your observations are boring as well as wrong.

6. There is nothing of value in your writing.

 

Freedom of speech is a right: stop abusing it.

1. Please explain to me where I am talking rubbish. It makes pretty good sense to me. One man's rubbish is another man's gold!

2. In what way do I disagree with the findings of Science. The big-bang is almost a hundred years old, from somebody Einstein said 'His mathematics are good, but his knowledge of Physics is 'abominable.' Georges LeMaitre. On news that the Observable Universe had been seen to be expanding, he ASSUMED the whole Universe was expanding. Such ASSUMPTIONS are dangerous. Please remember that nobody has seen the expansion of the Universe and it remains unproven to this day.

3. I can justify any of my assertions. The reason we're speeding up is because we're falling due to Gravity - pain and simple - not because we're being pushed by Anti-Gravity. Anti-Gravity doesn't even exist. It's you who are being deluded.

4. Because I say speeding up leads to a loss of pressure? Modern scientists say you need a 'surface' to demonstrate Bernoulli's Theorem, but there are no 'surfaces' in Space. Are you therefore saying Bernoulli's Theorem works only on Earth? That's garbage!

Any time you see the words 'Speeding up,' you can be sure that it's followed by a 'Loss of pressure.'

5. Boring? 1700 people have observed this thread. Boring? Hardly.

6. Just because it's new to you, doesn't make it wrong. I read up about the Big-Bang but Mother Nature didn't. Mother Nature says we're speeding up because we're falling due to Gravity. Makes sense to me. Better than Anti-Gravity, I'd say. Maybe you're jealous 'cause you didn't think of that. Your Big-Ban is so complicated you need a Phd in Math to figure it out. But Space isn't complicated - it's all pretty simple. except to you.

We're speeding up because we're falling and it's the ever increasing Rate of Acceleration that proves we're falling into a black hole. If there was nothing there at the center of the Universe our Rate of Acceleration would decline all the way to the center.

But you don't know everything with Mass must have a Center of Mass. That's not me, actually - that's Physics 101.

Nice talking to you, Ophiolite. What's an Ophiolite. Somebody from Ophiuses? So you're an alien?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, how come nobody is answering my thread?

Somebody is interfering, I can tell because even the 'visitors number' has stopped growing.

 

Supposedly, there is freedom of speech - here in North America. Who has 'blocked' or otherwise stopped my thread? In the name of Democracy, I ask for my thread to be returned to its normal status.

 

Thank you,

 

Peter Lamont

!

Moderator Note

astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

 

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

 

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

 

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

 

There is no need to respond to this modnote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

!

Moderator Note

astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

 

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

 

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

 

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

 

There is no need to respond to this modnote.

That's okay, I don't mind responding.

 

Spoken like a true mathematician. Unfortunately (for you) Math isn't a science. That's because you can do anything in Math - you can prove two plus two is five. I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten). Science tho' is governed by hard and fast Laws, Laws which were sometimes bitterly fought for, Laws that must be respected.

Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

 

Tesla said, 'Modern Scientists have substituted experiment for math. They go off in equation after equation until they have built something with no relation to reality.'

He's a scientist I respect greatly.

 

I don't mind being sent to 'Speculations' - I just wish it had been by a scientist and not a mathematician.

Thanks anyway - I'm very pleased with 'Science Forums,' as they have tolerated me so far. I hope it keeps up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread.

 

It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving.

 

Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here.

 

Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads.

 

There is no need to respond to this modnote.

That's okay, I don't mind responding.

 

Spoken like a true mathematician. Unfortunately (for you) Math isn't a science. That's because you can do anything in Math - you can prove two plus two is five. I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten). Science tho' is governed by hard and fast Laws, Laws which were sometimes bitterly fought for, Laws that must be respected.

Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

 

Tesla said, 'Modern Scientists have substituted experiment for math. They go off in equation after equation until they have built something with no relation to reality.'

He's a scientist I respect greatly.

 

I don't mind being sent to 'Speculations' - I just wish it had been by a scientist and not a mathematician.

Thanks anyway - I'm very pleased with 'Science Forums,' as they have tolerated me so far. I hope it keeps up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I( myself, can show you, Mathematically that you have eleven fingers, not ten)
Now that would be interesting. Why don't you give it a go and we'll all stand back in awe.

 

Because I stay away from Math, using only Physics, you say 'I'm waving my hands in the air.'

Probably because you seem to be misjudging the strengths of certain forces and the way that those forces act on one another in different situations. You give no observable examples other than to give what we already observe and say the opposite of what we think is happening, is happening.

Not to mention, things don't JUST get sucked into a black hole. They first enter an orbit. We would see such an orbit in the movement of the galaxy clusters. The movement wouldn't be an equal expansion, as we observe now, but would corollate with any orbit we happen to enter. If we entered such an orbit of a blackhole, especially one that big, then we would first notice the clusters entering the orbit either disappear or move very far very quickly. If we were already in orbit, especially an orbit that would draw us into the center, then we would see the clusters around us acting accordingly. Instead they are expanding at an equal rate everywhere.

 

One thing I just remembered you saying also. You said that exspansion is in, like the air at the nozzle of a vacuum. Care to show me where the air at the nozzle of a vacuum expands equally in all directions? I would enjoy seeing that.

Edited by JustinW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that would be interesting. Why don't you give it a go and we'll all stand back in awe.

You hold up your fingers and start counting, beginning with your pinkie. That's number ten, so now you can put it away. The rest follow naturally - nine. eight, seven and six. Put them away. Now, you have five fingers remaining, so six plus five equals..? Well, you do the math,

 

Probably because you seem to be misjudging the strengths of certain forces and the way that those forces act on one another in different situations. You give no observable examples other than to give what we already observe and say the opposite of what we think is happening, is happening.

We're going in because the expansion is speeding up (accelerating). Not just that, but we are going in with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. It's the ever increasing Rate of Acceleration that proves it's a Black Hole we're falling into. Now, which part are you having difficulty with, Justin?

That's all I'm saying at the moment. If you want to be fair to me, you should let me know what part of the above statement you're having difficulty with.

Not to mention, things don't JUST get sucked into a black hole. They first enter an orbit. We would see such an orbit in the movement of the galaxy clusters. The movement wouldn't be an equal expansion, as we observe now, but would corollate with any orbit we happen to enter. If we entered such an orbit of a blackhole, especially one that big, then we would first notice the clusters entering the orbit either disappear or move very far very quickly. If we were already in orbit, especially an orbit that would draw us into the center, then we would see the clusters around us acting accordingly. Instead they are expanding at an equal rate everywhere.

If you were in outer Space and you were falling into a distant black hole, you wouldn't feel anything.

That's because all forces acting on you would seem equal. What do you feel in a descending elevator? Not much, right? If the elavator fell fast enough, you might find yourself rising off the floor - but that's all you'd feel.

If you're falling (and we are) with all forces seeming to act equally on you, you'd speed up (Newton) and that would cause you to lose pressure (Bernoulli). If you lost pressure, because all forces acting on you would seem equal, you'd lose pressure equally, not in one direction only. If you lost pressure you'd expand (Boyle) and with all forces seeming to act equally, you'd expand equally, and not in one direction only. You'd also cool down (the J-T Effect). All this is what's happening to the Observable Universe. Now, are you clear on this also? If not, you should tell me.

 

One thing I just remembered you saying also. You said that exspansion is in, like the air at the nozzle of a vacuum. Care to show me where the air at the nozzle of a vacuum expands equally in all directions? I would enjoy seeing that.

Expansion just means we're coming apart. The air at the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner is, in a way, falling. The air doesn't see it's going into a nozzle - it just knows it's expanding as it loses pressure. If it's falling into the nozzle, all forces acting on it would seem equal - at any given moment. With all forces seeming to be equal, the air will expand evenly, and not in one direction only.

That's what I think, Justin. Now, how about you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.