It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time is funnel shaped

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Iknowthelies, could you please get an updated picture of your friends time theory it might help us out to keep the forum on track.I dunno how this can help but for all of you that have read about John Titor (which is probablu 100% of ya) didn't he mention something about time and how it starts off all the same but slowly other "strands" of time develop depending on the possible actions to a situation??




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
f the matter is transported back in time, how do the black holes maintain their gravitational pull? (gravitational force is a function of mass)



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Yeah the more I think about what was posted I realize how little information we have been given with, if a blackhole really put us back in time the type of technology that could withstand the rapid and sporactic changes on the vessel not to mention the insane amount of radation, by then we would most likey thing is we would already have time travel though I doubt that it is possible to do so. Also if time is a funnel what would be in the middle??? More "time" but that would mean its a cone. I really need clarification


Nox

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Wait, has anyone bothered considering the implications of what I posted?

If there is a loop in space-time continuum from black holes back to the big bang, why do black holes have matter at all? Why do they have gravity?

This is HUGE. I was trying to imply that if there was a "gate" back to the Big Bang through black holes, and that IF gravitational fields could pass through this gate, we'd have an infinite loop, where gravity approaches infinity.

A contradiction arises because it's basically suggesting that a black hole doesn't just exibit gravity proportional to its Schwartzchild (spelling?) Radius, but actually be proportional to that of ALL black holes combined. That is clearly false.

That was what I was implying was wrong about the theory. I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear (no more implications or inferences from me
).

What gave your physicist friend the idea that black holes had anything to do with the big bang?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Good thoughts Nox
I don't think there is enough information on blackholes yet to think of theories that would hold any water. Anyone know any good sites where I can find more information on blackholes thanks.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Time is Our construct, not the universe's. We measure the orbit of planetary and solar bodies and reduce them into manageable time periods. The Universe does not need us to measure its progress, we need it to measure ours. When humanity is gone one day, the universe will not blink, nor mark our passing. it will continue on its path.
Eternity, is the absence of measurable Time.


Nox

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Where to begin...
There's simply too much for me just to post a single link. I have no idea what the best sites are.

Most of my knowledge on black holes comes from readings I've done on Stephen Hawking.

He's a genius in the world of physics. I suggest you just google Stephen Hawking along with black holes.

He related the "size" of a black hole as its entropy.

He also predicted that black holes actually release radiation, an assertion that was ridiculed by the scientific community (stuff LEAVING a black hole? That does sound strange...).

The truth is, nothing is really leaving from the event horizon, Hawking's radiation is the phenomenon where virtual anti-particles are being sucked in, cancelling with the matter inside, the virtual particle that was originally paired with the virtual anti-particle is "spat" out. So in fact, he didn't have to explain how matter gets spat back out. I was just testing (or you could say I was busting his balls
).
It doesn't matter anymore, because I got tired waiting for his response or for his physicist friend to come onto these ATS forums.

However, it's still very relevant to discuss how if matter is transported back in time, why does each black hole retain its own identity (as in its own unique mass). Shouldn't all black holes have the same mass since they all transport their matter to the same location?

On a large scale, since an abundance of evidence seems to point to a hyperbolic or expanding universe, space might become so cold that black holes will dissolve (by cold, I mean it has less density). In that case, the matter being tranported back to the Big Bang would also be lost?

This is why the symmetry the thread starter suggested only sounds right, but it doesn't add up.

Besides that there's not much more I know about black holes. I'm sure Stephen Hawking knows more, but I haven't gone in depth into his research.

You're absolutely right that we know very little about black holes. When the only attributes we can use to identify a black hole are its charge, location, spin, and mass (aka horizon diameter, photosphere diameter, inertia), you know we don't know much.

Hawking hit the jackpot when he said that an increase in the size of a black hole's horizon is an increase of entropy in the universe (lack of information). We know pretty much nothing about anything inside a black hole; information is lost forever.


Nox

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

Time is Our construct, not the universe's. We measure the orbit of planetary and solar bodies and reduce them into manageable time periods. The Universe does not need us to measure its progress, we need it to measure ours. When humanity is gone one day, the universe will not blink, nor mark our passing. it will continue on its path.
Eternity, is the absence of measurable Time.


Interesting you mention that. I remember while reading a theory (VSL Theory) by an author that introduced the same concept.

I'm not sure if he took that concept from someone else, but it was the first time I heard it. He suggested that time is just an illusion. Since we, as humans, are living within the boundaries of time, we can't see reality for how it is, a set of "snapshots". Our logic and reasoning (using increasing entropy as a guideline) puts the snapshots in order, setting the illusion of continuity and time.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Thanks Nox for all the great info
Well does anyone know of any recent research of expierments on blackholes? I agree when you say that Time is our construct not the universe and about eternity being the lack of time has to be the best thing I have heard on ATS. Well maybe one of these days Iknowtheselies will respond ,maybe?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
neonantichrist: No offense, but you are terrible with analogies.

The sink-thing? That one should have been taken as far as water spilling, and then dropped. Going into poorly made pipes and kitchens and all that, whether useful for humor or not - just confused the idea you were attempting to get across.

Nox: Erhm, you, didn't .. agh.

I especially don't mean to offend you, because you're obviously knowledgeable.

The thing I have to ask you, is, why did you keep going to such lengths to stress the implications of what you said?

Logic + Logic = Falsity = Proven Wrong - we got it. If not by the first, then the second time you said it. Then the third and fourth were just redundancy, and it was disconcerting to read the same thing 4 times. Sorry again, I just found that ..not fun.

As for the theory of things being sucked back to the big bang through a black hole, I have little comment. It's been beaten down to the ground enough.

One thing to.. tim_uk74 - and I suppose all the rest that know 'what's going on' here.

The Large Hadron Collider is being built at CERN. It will essentially create mini-black holes, and will hopefully detect the Higgs-Boson particle - theoretically responsible for mass.

At the same time, the possibility was mentioned on here that two singularities could exist in one black hole, allowing matter to freely 'fall through' - one that would allow for wormholes.

Then you have a 5-year old possible hoax yet to be proven wrong.

Of a man whose time machine worked on the principle of two mini-singularities allowing him to travel back in time.

A machine whose creation owes to an unnamed testing beginning at CERN laboratories a few years after 2000/2001.

Sounds like we have a massively strengthening theoretical infrastructure for two proofs:

John Titor

Time Travel

- The plot continues to thicken.


Nox

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Um, I made 2 posts against the theory.

The other ones were in response to other people asking questions (I think The_Final was one of them) about black holes.

If I reiterated my point in those other posts then I'm sorry. I'm redundant that way. I think all engineers are. It comes with the job. Better safe and redundant than... spending 20 hours finding out what you've been missing later on.


Nox

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
About the 2 singularity to forming a wormhole suggestion. It makes sense. It's already been suggested.

A spinning black hole (a Kerr black hole) unlike a Scharzchild is assumed to have a Ring Singularity, where the core of the black hole is not an infinitessimal point, but an infinitessimal thick ring with a finite radius. The cross section is 1 dimensional, like a normal singularity should be.

It's been suggested that if you went into a black hole at the absolute perfect angle, and shot through the center of the ring, rather than hitting the ring itself, you'd be transported to another dimension or universe. I'll try to refresh my memory on this. Insomnia and stress are keeping me from doing so right now. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Yeah it was me you were explaining Blackholes to. Whats the idea behind the thought of someone going through the center of the ring and goind to a different dimension/universe? I can't seem to find a connection?



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
oK in the beginning this was made, there were stars and planets and black holes in a different stage.
but there is also argued that there was a ant universe that was a mirror image of ours, it is said they would have been attracted to destroy each other or shoot apart a great speeds like magnets south to north or north to north. one universe the(anti-universe) which is reverse of our color spectrum on a twin paradox this is impossible, but on a mutable demission universe it is possible. the black holes that were created with the beginning connect the two universes. these black holes are found at the center of galaxies. then there are stage 2 black holes these are made from imploded stars and planets. as Steve Hawkins proved there is a significant amount of radiation coming from black holes. this is because all the energy theses black holes suck in they have no where to put it unless it goes to dark matter. but this is just a theory. the stage 1 black holes take a mass and compress it then form it to an energy to be moved across the universe at light speed if the mass was not turned into energy it would disintegrate. but we do not know what will happen when they come out on the other side. there needs to be a controlled worm hole.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Please, for the love of god, retype that, or rethink it, I don't know.

You're basically describing a very low form of Ekpyrosis, which is good if you thought of it on your own - if you didn't it's still good that you roughly understand it. But for all that is good in this world - learn how to spell before you try to explain complex, abstract physics ideas. Mutable demissions? That's 'multiple dimensions' - right? You're either a billion times smarter than me, using english I've never even heard myth's of - or you need to get someone (a friend, or family member) to quickly look over it and check it for you.

I hate to say it - because I have friends that aren't that great at spelling and are really smart - but in a pure text medium, you can not attempt to express insanely complex thoughts in incorrectly spelled and worded english. Of course, little things like calling 'dense' 'desne' are overlookable, but .. Just too much in one post.

That's a great theory though, most of it, the theory of Ekpyrosis. Traditionally it uses a donut-shaped bulk and 2 large branes, one with matter and one with a uniform spread of energy. I like mine better. A cylindrical bulk with a continuous flow of uniform energy, continuously splitting branes slowly floating through the energy, colliding into each other and the like, it just works better.

..Anyone here know much about Ekpyrosis? I'd love to discuss some modifications to it with someone who knew what the hell I was talking about. The friends I have that are good enough with physics to get it never want to.

Oh, P.S. - Nox, I'm sorry, I did forget that the next one was to help The_Frantic, and I'm just too picky anyway.


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Viendin]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Did you mean me man?? The_Final lol thats cool though
Anything u guys can show me would be great because I don't wanna have to surf and read through pages of stuff I know its how u learn it but I don't have to have a PHD in it
Oh and Ekpyrosis??? Sorry ,I hate looking stuff up easier if I get babied please


[edit on 7-12-2004 by The_Final]


Nox

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
Please, for the love of god, retype that, or rethink it, I don't know.

You're basically describing a very low form of Ekpyrosis, which is good if you thought of it on your own - if you didn't it's still good that you roughly understand it. But for all that is good in this world - learn how to spell before you try to explain complex, abstract physics ideas. Mutable demissions? That's 'multiple dimensions' - right? You're either a billion times smarter than me, using english I've never even heard myth's of - or you need to get someone (a friend, or family member) to quickly look over it and check it for you.

I hate to say it - because I have friends that aren't that great at spelling and are really smart - but in a pure text medium, you can not attempt to express insanely complex thoughts in incorrectly spelled and worded english. Of course, little things like calling 'dense' 'desne' are overlookable, but .. Just too much in one post.

That's a great theory though, most of it, the theory of Ekpyrosis. Traditionally it uses a donut-shaped bulk and 2 large branes, one with matter and one with a uniform spread of energy. I like mine better. A cylindrical bulk with a continuous flow of uniform energy, continuously splitting branes slowly floating through the energy, colliding into each other and the like, it just works better.

..Anyone here know much about Ekpyrosis? I'd love to discuss some modifications to it with someone who knew what the hell I was talking about. The friends I have that are good enough with physics to get it never want to.

Oh, P.S. - Nox, I'm sorry, I did forget that the next one was to help The_Frantic, and I'm just too picky anyway.



The_Final,

Have you heard of another theory that's challenging the Big Bang? It's called the "Big Crash". The Ekpyrotic Universe theory basically is suggesting that instead of a Big Bang and inflation forming the universe, our universe was formed by a higher dimensional collision of two universes.

Anyway, Viendin,

even though I'm busy any should be sticking to my own work, I'd like to discuss ekpyrosis with you, but you should really be more specific when describing your theory, because I'm a software/hardware engineer, not a theoretical physicist. When you mention "donut-shaped" and "cylindrical" bulks, are you just describing the topology of space?

If you are, mind if you explain a cylindrical topology and how that would work? Donut makes much more sense, as people are far more used to that kind of topology (*points to traditional 2D Atlas/Map*).



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I won't comment on the time issue here as I've addressed it in other threads.. feel free to search ..

but from my perspective, which is nonscientifical, I would say that blackholes are a great and most ideal place for most of our destructive weapons here on earth.

it does just so happen to be the only place to put them and so far to our knowledge NOT have them come back to haunt us later.... they are kind of a waste disposal. .? Perhaps if you feed them they get smaller? or larger? who knows? .. Anyone have any facts? or is it all guess work so far?


Nox

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
dnero6911,

Not only can you dispose matter, but you can get energy out of it. I have a design I thought up.

If you have a small enough black hole, we could build a belt around it like this:


___X_________________________
( o )
(_____________________________)


o = singularity
X = Nuke

Since one side of the belt is more massive than the other side (the side with the nuke), the side with the nuke will fall towards the singularity. This will make the belt turn.

As soon as the nuke gets close enough to the singularity such that no more potential energy can be squeezed out of the nuke, the belt would let the nuke go. The nuke would fall safely into the singularity.

This has the effect of turning the belt, which in turn would turn a turbine (unless we find a design in the future more efficient than a turbine).

Obviously the diagram is a gross simplification (we'd be putting more than one nuke on the belt), but you get the idea. One side is loaded with nukes and much heavier than the other side (which is empty). Nukes will be continually loaded on the side of the belt opposite to the singularity.

I hope this answers your curiousity!

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Uh huh.... a belt....... You can't get anything near a black hole..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join