Jump to content

My theory of the universe


herme3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading somewhere that there is a theory that says all the energy that gets pulled into a black hole comes back out of a white hole. Then it said the problem with this theory is that white holes haven't been discovered yet. What if the stars are white holes? Although we have theories, we have never proven exactly what causes a star to burn. What if it is the light and energy that is pulled into black holes?

 

Another part of my theory is that the universe is like two pieces of paper. What if most of the stars are on the top piece, and most of the black holes are on the bottom piece? If my theory is true, we would live on the top piece. In the space between the two pieces are wormholes that connect the black holes and stars. Now, what if these two pieces of the universe slide back and forth? Whenever a black hole and star aren't aligned anymore, the star runs out of energy and collapses into a black hole. Meanwhile, all the of energy that was in the wormhole comes out of the black hole and becomes a new star? This star becomes larger as it begins to align with a black hole on the other piece of the universe. This seems to work with the life cycle of a star. Does my new theory sound realistic, or do you think it has problems? Please let me know. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well your theory herme is not bery plausible first because all of our stars are scattered through out universe nonlinear like there is no edge to which no stars are there scattered everywhere, also stars could not be "white holes" because we have observed them to be sphereical, also what would cause these pieces of the universe to slide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well your theory herme is not bery plausible first because all of our stars are scattered through out universe nonlinear like there is no edge to which no stars are there scattered everywhere, also stars could not be "white holes" because we have observed them to be sphereical, also what would cause these pieces of the universe to slide?

 

Ok, the parallel black holes would be in a whole different layer of the universe. In the other layer, there would be the same number of black holes as the number of stars in this layer. The wormhole connecting the two layers would be in a different dimension, so the white hole would still look spherical in the dimensions that we can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Occams Razor. Simplicity Rules.

 

The energy being generated by stars can be explained by experimentally proven nuclear reactions, merely happening on a grander scale. There is no need to include the complex hyperdimmensional topolgy required to link all the black holes in the universe with all the stars, to explain their power output.. Nuclear reactions also account for stellar evolution and death quite sussinctly, no need to re-write the text books just yet.

 

While your reasoning is not fully developed and essentially flawed, thinking about where black holes lead is an intellectually challenging exercise to say the least :)

 

White holes are one candidate but they are still confined to the realm of theorists blackboards for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly believe there are white holes; I'm not sure about Hermes theory, but I think he might be leaning somewhere towards an undiscovered phenomenoa & maybe not too far away in his therories so I ask.... is it plausible? can you all work this one out if condemning this theory state your logic. If theory is poss' that would be awesomely amazing; so let's put this one to the board in an unbias way,I for one like your theory Hermes looking forward to logical answers & theories...us.2u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we have theories, we have never proven exactly what causes a star to burn.

 

Do you realize that "theories" are as good as it gets in science? Yes we have a theory that it's nuclear fuson, which means there is a bunch of evidence that supports the theory. Nothing is ever proven, deductively, because that's not how science works. But one reaches the point where the evidence is so great that to withold provisional assent would be perverse (to paraphrase S. J. Gould) We can consider the case closed, and not have to reinvent the wheel, or reconfirm that round things roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly believe there are white holes; I'm not sure about Hermes theory, but I think he might be leaning somewhere towards an undiscovered phenomenoa & maybe not too far away in his therories so I ask.... is it plausible? can you all work this one out if condemning this theory state your logic. If theory is poss' that would be awesomely amazing; so let's put this one to the board in an unbias way,I for one like your theory Hermes looking forward to logical answers & theories...us.2u

 

Thank you, I don't know how I can prove this theory, but I can't think of any reason why it is not possible.

 

we can detect Black holes, surely there would be an equal number of white holes just as easy to detect if such a thing existed?

 

The white holes are the stars. For every star in this layer of the universe, there would be a black hole in the other layer of the universe. For every black hole in this layer, there would be a star in the other layer.

 

wouldn't we in some way or another feel that effects of the black hole that is parallel to our Sun, if your theory was correct?

 

We are feeling the effects of the black hole. We are receiving the light and energy that is getting pulled into the wormhole from the other layer of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok you understnad that lots of stars in the universe are very close together especially in galaxies if all these stars were black holes then the black holes would stuck all them selfs up around them which should destroy our stars which doesnt happen. also antoher thing a black hole isnt a "hole" its an object the sucks things in even light into a very dense spot, not a hole to another location that in itself is imossilbe for it to be a hole, also if the blackholes on one layer take light and energy form that side in the place with lots of blackholes there probobly would not be enough energy for all the stars out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok you understnad that lots of stars in the universe are very close together especially in galaxies if all these stars were black holes then the black holes would stuck all them selfs up around them which should destroy our stars which doesnt happen. also antoher thing a black hole isnt a "hole" its an object the sucks things in even light into a very dense spot, not a hole to another location that in itself is imossilbe for it to be a hole, also if the blackholes on one layer take light and energy form that side in the place with lots of blackholes there probobly would not be enough energy for all the stars out there.

 

In the other layer of the universe, there would be different sized black holes. The largest stars would be linked to the largest black holes. Asking why the black holes don't suck themselves up is like asking why the stars don't burn themselves up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest gamelord_01

ok listen im gamefreek but the point is that the stars in this side are round thus have to have a side to have energy come from or come from the other black holes but because there round there is no position for the corresopnding black hole to be unless its inside the star but then it would be sucked up so thats incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok listen im gamefreek but the point is that the stars in this side are round thus have to have a side to have energy come from or come from the other black holes but because there round there is no position for the corresopnding black hole to be unless its inside the star but then it would be sucked up so thats incorrect.

I don't know which part of that to correct first...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does my new theory sound realistic, or do you think it has problems? Please let me know. Thank you.

 

Yes, two really large ones. It explains by analogy and predicts nothing. There is no mechanism, either internal to the theory or applied, others might use to evaluate for internal coherence and against meaningful experiments/observations. That is in its explanatory mode, we're left with these unoperationalized (effectively "undefined") notions of "sheet (of paper)," "top," "bottom."

 

Second, it draws on two subjects well understood in present physics--stars and blackholes--but offers nothing in the way to cohere this vague hypothetical relationship between the two you proposed with what we know about their statics and dynamics.

 

IMO, the beauty and fun of scientific systems lies in discovering models that describe the empirical world around us. If this stuff really excites you, take the time to prepare yourself to approach, penetrate and master the arguments and tools used to derive and explain these models. It's not too overwhelming, a decent amount of exciting stuff is accessible to someone who's at least been exposed to freshman year mechanics and calculus. Some more coursework in linear algebra would just about put you on track to teaching yourself some of the necessary maths to get into the really interesting stuff.

 

Rev Prez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by swansont

Do you realize that "theories" are as good as it gets in science? Yes we have a theory that it's nuclear fuson, which means there is a bunch of evidence that supports the theory. Nothing is ever proven, deductively, because that's not how science works. But one reaches the point where the evidence is so great that to withold provisional assent would be perverse (to paraphrase S. J. Gould) We can consider the case closed, and not have to reinvent the wheel, or reconfirm that round things roll.

 

Fusion does not explain the origin of stars, only the process by which they remain. And the evidence is not great enough to claim that every star was created shortly after the big bang.

 

An interesting model, herme3. I would have to object, however, on the following grounds:

 

1) Stars produce vast amounts of heat energy, which is propelled outward to sometimes great distances. The mass of an expired star is significantly less than that of a star at the beginning of its life cycle (as it has burned off its fuel mass).

 

2) Generally, black holes are tiny compared to the stars from which they are formed. Most have a lifespan far less than the stars from which they are formed.

 

Therefore, the amount of energy or matter propelled outward by a star is far greater than the energy it's black hole will "suck-in". If your model is accurate, we would expect to see new stars created constantly, and these stars will become smaller and smaller over time.

 

Then we must consider the vast majority of observable stars, that do not form black holes upon exhausting fuel sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we can detect Black holes, surely there would be an equal number of white holes just as easy to detect if such a thing existed?

maybe black holes explode like miniature big bangs after all the other bodies of the universe die off, then there would be a huge flow of space time, so the universe gets even huger, and the white hole creates matter, so the universe is filled with primordial hydrogen all over again. Then all that we know happens again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe black holes explode like miniature big bangs after all the other bodies of the universe die off, then there would be a huge flow of space time, so the universe gets even huger, and the white hole creates matter, so the universe is filled with primordial hydrogen all over again.

 

...or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fusion does not explain the origin of stars' date=' only the process by which they remain. And the evidence is not great enough to claim that every star was created shortly after the big bang.

 

...

 

1) Stars produce vast amounts of heat energy, which is propelled outward to sometimes great distances. The mass of an expired star is significantly less than that of a star at the beginning of its life cycle (as it has burned off its fuel mass).

[/quote']

 

Who is claiming that every star was created shortly after the big bang? Our sun is about 5 billion years old.

 

The fractional mass of a star that is converted to energy is quite small. The proton-proton asequence of reactions forming He liberates about 25 MeV, and represents less than 0.5% of the mass involved. Much of the mass of a star never gets involved in the fusion process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is claiming that every star was created shortly after the big bang? Our sun is about 5 billion years old.

 

The fractional mass of a star that is converted to energy is quite small. The proton-proton asequence of reactions forming He liberates about 25 MeV' date=' and represents less than 0.5% of the mass involved. Much of the mass of a star never gets involved in the fusion process.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry my comment was a bit ambiguous. What i meant to say is theories on the origin of stars are inconclusive, and the process of fusion does not aptly explain how exactly they came to be.

 

I'm a bit confused about the second part of your post. Are you asserting that the mass of a black hole or neutron star would be equal to 99.5% of the mass of the star from which it formed?

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.