Popcorn Sutton Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 It depends on how you choose to define universe. I tend to lean towards NounAll existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. It's hard to conceive of a point that has no existence or space to house it. For that reason, I think that everything that exists, exists within the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 It is a matter of definition then if one conceives of a galaxy as it's own universe for example . An unadvanced species with limited tech might by definition think our small galaxy was the whole universe.So it is a matter of getting the right information so we can define the actual physical universe we exist within accurately. My theory has only suggested there are two universes so far but I am still working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 20, 2013 Author Share Posted July 20, 2013 It is a matter of definition then if one conceives of a galaxy as it's own universe for example . An unadvanced species with limited tech might by definition think our small galaxy was the whole universe.So it is a matter of getting the right information so we can define the actual physical universe we exist within accurately. My theory has only suggested there are two universes so far but I am still working on it. Whoa, what? Our galaxy, combined with the holographic principle, may be the entire universe. It hasn't been ruled out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) I was mostly referring to the definition we were all using In this thread also I forgot to add my name to my theory Shawn James. I would really like any help that could be given to figure out if my theory is mathematically provable . I would greatly appreciate any feedback along those lines and thanks again for reading my theory . I'm actually done with the structure of it. Now I'm just working on details and proving it.Also if anyone would endorse my theory that would be great , and perhaps I would consider letting that individual assist with my time modulation electromagnetic field theory just a thought . Edited July 21, 2013 by PureGenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Good luck creating a computer simulated big bang. It has never been done before Not to my knowledge at least -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Pop I do not think the big bang model is accurate, there is no reason I would want a computer simulation of it. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 I think it's very plausible, but I have a different story of how it happened. I actually dreamt about it last night again. Basically, you slam two black holes into each other (which I think are actually two super solid objects). Whats your take on that possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Basically, you slam two black holes into each other And you get one bigger black holes. Black holes are not solid objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 That is am argument of definition. Of course a hole is not solid. What if we called them black reducers instead? It takes everything caught in it's gravitational field, and reduces it, even the small stuff like light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Good luck creating a computer simulated big bang. It has never been done before Not to my knowledge at least There are a number of computer simulations of the BB. http://www.space.com/17530-universe-dark-energy-supercomputer-simulation.html http://io9.com/5846159/a-computer-simulation-of-the-universes-complete-14-billion+year-evolution http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120412133058.htm That is am argument of definition. No, it's an argument of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you take the earth, which is obviously a solid object, and you crush it down to the size of my thumb, it will still be solid. I'm not aware of any evidence to support your "it's a fact" claim. I'm not a fan of black "holes". I cannot conceive of how they would occur, and all explanations of them have been in vain to the best of my knowledge. As a linguist and a logician, I have to ask, has anyone ever witnessed even one single non-computer simulated implosion? Where would the hole go? I cannot accept that there is a singularity that is also a hole. It makes no sense to me. I'd much rather prefer black reducers to black holes. Edited July 21, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you take the earth, which is obviously a solid object, and you crush it down to the size of my thumb, it will still be solid. When an object compresses down past a certain limit, there is no force which can prevent a gravitational collapse. This is an outcome of the Einstein field equations. All your objections are arguments from incredulity, and all your arguments are made from ignorance. I'd say something not making sense to you is a point in it's favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yes, it is an argument of incredulity, but I'll stand my ground on that one because I don't think that incredulity is a bad thing. A lot of highly respected scientists say something along these lines "singularity is just another term for 'we don't know'." I'm giving up on this one because I'm not a particle physicist. What I do know is that when I squeeze an orange, it requires more force to squeeze it when it gets smaller. It would probably get to a point to where it is so small that no force could possibly make it any smaller. The only argument against this that I can conceive is that it will get so small that the particles pop out of existence, which is strange to me because there's no place that they could go. But, even if this did happen, by Newton, gravity requires mass, and if the particles are popping out of existence, then they won't have mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) Yes, it is an argument of incredulity, but I'll stand my ground on that one because I don't think that incredulity is a bad thing When your incredulity springs from ignorance, it is a bad thing. But, even if this did happen, by Newton, gravity requires mass, and if the particles are popping out of existence, then they won't have mass. Newton's gravitational laws are only an approximation with a limited range of applicability. You need to apply Einstein's equations. Edited July 21, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arc Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Yes, it is an argument of incredulity, but I'll stand my ground on that one because I don't think that incredulity is a bad thing. A lot of highly respected scientists say something along these lines "singularity is just another term for 'we don't know'." I'm giving up on this one because I'm not a particle physicist. What I do know is that when I squeeze an orange, it requires more force to squeeze it when it gets smaller. It would probably get to a point to where it is so small that no force could possibly make it any smaller. The only argument against this that I can conceive is that it will get so small that the particles pop out of existence, which is strange to me because there's no place that they could go. But, even if this did happen, by Newton, gravity requires mass, and if the particles are popping out of existence, then they won't have mass. Popcorn, I become quickly overwhelmed by these discussions and struggle to place them in a context that I can even remotely conceive as accurate or even as rudimentary compared with the range of understanding of most members here. The expanding cosmos to my mind is a mechanism that is creating space or distance between all of the concentrated quantities of mass. A black hole is simply a mechanism that increasingly removes all of that space. It seems almost intuitive that there should be a balance in such matters but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Well popcorn, you seem to be at least familiar with Newton's laws and gravity. So consider his gravitational equation where the force of attraction is directly proportional to the two masses involved and inversely proportional to the distance squared. Force= G(mass1*mass2)/radius^2 where G is the gravitational constant. If you were to squeeze the masses to incredibly tiny sizes so that you could bring them to very,very small separation, what do you think would happen to the attractive force? Would it not get incredibly large? I assume you can do multiplication and division, can you not see the ultimate fate when the separation approaches zero? I think ACG52 is right and ignorance is definitely more pertinent than incredulity in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 Are you aware of the repulsive force? The one that is inherent to our universe? The one that causes everything to be pushed away from everything else? What would happen if you took a bunch of bowling balls, threw them into a perfectly contracting spherical device, and applied all the force you could to these bowling balls? Once the sphere is too contracted, it will not continue to the point of going through itself and turn "inside out" of existence (and to make it even more complex, still exert a gravitational force). It's incoherent. I'm not saying Newton is wrong, but he could be on the details. What is gravity? This thing is being pushed to a point that is so small, that the repulsive force contained within it can sustain the super solid in equilibrium. Anything that tries to break that equilibrium is reduced and repelled until it becomes small enough to either fit inside the object, or become a part of its parameter. When you take two of these objects and slam them into each other, the effect is like cotton candifying the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 It's incoherent What's incoherent here is you. You have zero knowledge of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) I got the philosophy bit. I don't use mathematical equations. [math] u = y("LanguageBit")[/math] [math] t = y(u) [/math] [math] m = P(u|t) [/math] Besides that and some code, you guys got me beat. Numbers can obviously lie though if you guys are seriously believing in implosions and particles popping out of existence. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Black holes are probably so bright that any lens you point at them couldn't possibly see the brightness because it doesn't even disturb the lens. Edited July 24, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I got the philosophy bit. I don't use mathematical equations. [math] u = y("LanguageBit")[/math] [math] t = y(u) [/math] [math] m = P(u|t) [/math] Besides that and some code, you guys got me beat. Numbers can obviously lie though if you guys are seriously believing in implosions and particles popping out of existence. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Black holes are probably so bright that any lens you point at them couldn't possibly see the brightness because it doesn't even disturb the lens. I don't know why the moderators continue to allow you to post utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 I don't know why the moderators continue to allow you to post utter nonsense. Because they know that I have some half-way decent ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 You have yet to post any. The repulsive force which is responsible for the universe's expansion is incredibly weak. The shorter the distance, the weaker it is. It generates a repulsive velocity of 78 km per 3.26 million light years. It is completely overwhelmed by gravity out to distances of 200 million lys from our galaxy. Gravity, on the other hand, increases as distance decreases. Given a constant mass, the smaller the radius from the center of the mass, the stronger gravity becomes. At a certain point, which is completely calculable, the force of gravity becomes so strong that gravitational collapse occurs. Once this point is reached, there is no force in the universe strong enough to prevent the mass from contracting to a singularity. Nothing can stop this, not electron degeneracy or quark degeneracy. When this happens, an event horizon forms around the singularity. This is the point where the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, and nothing, matter or energy or light can get past and leave. That's what a Black Hole is. This is really very basic. There is no 'super solid', there is no equilibrium reached, matter does not become like cotton candy, and black holes aren't "so bright that any lens you point at them couldn't possibly see the brightness because it doesn't even disturb the lens." Your posts are nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 That is an argument of incredulity. Your posts don't make enough sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) That is an argument of incredulity. Your posts don't make enough sense. See, you've got that backwards too. Yours is the argument from incredulity. "I can't understand it, so it can't be so". Mine is the explanation from the physics of the universe. It's all well described by the math, but since you can't understand the math, you can't accept it. Be specific. What doesn't make sense to you? That the repulsive force of expansion is tremendously weak? That gravity gets stronger as the distance gets shorter, to the point where it becomes irresistible? That nothing, including light can escape from a black hole, and that's why it's called a black hole? This is all stuff that's covered in basic college level physics. You should learn some. Edited July 24, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted July 24, 2013 Author Share Posted July 24, 2013 Wow do you rage much? Calm down. You can't prove it wrong so you try to drive it into my skull? Calm down. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts