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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
Nox

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnero6911
Uh huh.... a belt....... You can't get anything near a black hole..

Care to explain what you mean by "near"? Your subjective way of speaking is what I was criticizing in that other thread (where you and some others were talking about the topology, "shape" of time).


Beyond the event horizon?

Beyond the photosphere?

Assuming this is a small black hole (perhaps a primordial one caught by us, carrot and donkey style) with a small horizon diameter, the belt would just need to stay out of range, supported by a frame (so it wouldn't collapse inward).

If you don't know anything about black holes, then I can't help you.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Nox]




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Here is \another possible hypothesis:
there are 3 phases in light travel.
1.pre phase-when matter and light is traveling at a speed very close to the (c^2) the matter's mass is so increased that it creates an extremely strong magnetic field in which light can not travel in, it just goes around.
2.main phase-when matter breaks into hyperspace then to us observing becomes energy or dark matter, and light is present.
3.post phase-when light-energy and mass-energy enter a another speed to light speed in hyperspace then this energy breaks hyper-space to enter another hyper-space in this current hyper reference, (we will call this hyperspace ^3)

These are made on the thought that Black holes are in phase 1&3 in which phase 2 could not exist since it is light energy.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by THORASGARD
Here is \another possible hypothesis:
there are 3 phases in light travel.
1.pre phase-when matter and light is traveling at a speed very close to the (c^2) the matter's mass is so increased that it creates an extremely strong magnetic field in which light can not travel in, it just goes around.
2.main phase-when matter breaks into hyperspace then to us observing becomes energy or dark matter, and light is present.
3.post phase-when light-energy and mass-energy enter a another speed to light speed in hyperspace then this energy breaks hyper-space to enter another hyper-space in this current hyper reference, (we will call this hyperspace ^3)

These are made on the thought that Black holes are in phase 1&3 in which phase 2 could not exist since it is light energy.


The idea is good. I've thought of this myself. What happens to matter once it flies past the event horizon? We know that past the event horizon, space-time is curved to the point where the escape velocity is greater than light speed. However, does that necessarily imply that the matter will be accelerated past the speed of light? From what we know, all the happens when you try to accelerate an object past the speed of light is that the object becomes blue-shifted, but gains no significant velocity (from our relative perspective, but perhaps gains monumental velocity increase from the object's own relative perspective).

Now, here is where I have a gripe with you.

Obviously, you DO read what other people write. You've changed "(speed of light)^2" to c^2 so perhaps you read what I wrote in a previous post (maybe previous thread). Also, like what Amor (I forgot what his name was) or Viendin suggested, you acknowledge what you've wrote is a hypothesis, rather than a theory. Although hypothesis are essentially just guesses, most of them are at least "educated" guesses.

Again, where did you get c^2 from? Why is that a speed limit? I'm sure you just mean c, which is the speed of light.

c^2 is the speed of light squared. It's not even a velocity. Velocity is displacement over time. Speed of light SQUARED is measured in units of displacement SQUARED over time SQUARED. Frankly, it makes very little sense to be comparing speeds/velocity to c^2 unless it was multiplied to a constant that included the units of time/displacement. You really need to explain yourself better.

Also, don't use hyperspace^3, because hyperspace quite a very broad term. It just means a space with higher dimensions than we can physically observe. That could be 5 dimensions, or 10 dimensions, in which case hyperspace^3 would be a very real term (125 or 1000 respectively).

Sorry for being picky, but I just dislike when people are mislead or confused (I certainly am).



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
thats cool nox C^2 is just really nothing it just parreles woth e=mc^2 equation i havent gon eall through the equation but possibly there is a connection with this and my hypothesis.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by THORASGARD
thats cool nox C^2 is just really nothing it just parreles woth e=mc^2 equation i havent gon eall through the equation but possibly there is a connection with this and my hypothesis.


Oh I see.


Thanks for your explanation, you've confirmed my suspicions. I think all of this confusion stems from the layman wording of Einstein's famous equation.

E = mc^2 ...

I often hear it worded in English as "Energy is mass moved at the speed of light squared."

I honestly want to punch anyone who says that. It confuses the heck out of people. It should just be worded simply as "Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared." (or "multiplied by", if you don't like "times")

E = mc^2 is just a simple relation between the tradeoffs of energy and matter.

It suggests that if we completely annihilate m amount of matter, we'd get mc^2 amount of Energy, which is a hell of a lot of energy.

The atomic and hydrogen bomb should prove that (they don't even annihilate the matter, they cause fission and fusion respectively, which is relatively a VERY small amount of mass loss).



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Nox: Um, hmm, how to put it properly...

The 'bulk' would be seen .. it is conceptualized as a 3D area, and the branes shown move throughout the volume of the area, as opposed to along the surface. The 3D area shown in most explanations is a simple rectangular prism, with 2 branes moving forward, then stopping, then falling back towards each other, which just doesn't feel right. Occam's razor my behind, that is too simple.

The second, slightly more complex thing to show is a 3D cylinder with a hole in the center - a donut with sharp edges. This shows the two cyclically smashing and moving, smashing and moving. It feels better - but it's still not a fully developed enough theory.

The model I propose eliminates the 'hole' in the center of the cylinder, and adds numerous more universes, as well as a means of self perpetuation, a cycle of creation and destruction, and a possible way to interlock this into several existing theories. The last bit is quite shaky, so I'm least sure about it.

I'd love to speak with you on MSN or AIM or the like, since this sort of conversation fares better in a back-and-forth manner as opposed to a 2-3 day delay between portions of the conversation. My MSN is willybob_s@hotmail.com and my AIM is Viendin

I'm on nightly.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by neonantichrist
Now it has slowed, and could possibly start to shrink back to a big crunch.


NO it hasn't, the universes rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Is it cause there could be an outside force pulling on the univesre, to make it appear to be getiing larger but really stretching it.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
You can't see a black hole it's invisible and it is very hard for the human brain to understand how it works. The only way to figure out what happens when an object goes through a black hole is to find a black hole and dive in. A black hole can suck light and time in! That's hard to belive but it's true. But time is an invention of man kind so................ok now I've started to confuse myself.
Ok now I'm going to make you very confused. A black hole sucks in anything near it. It is a collapsed white dwarf star.

A white dwarf star is a super compressed colapsed star or sun; a white dwarf star is super hot and small, white dwarf stars are almost as small as our moon but they have so much matter within them. One teaspoon of white star matter weighs something like 4 tons. white star matter could
also be called "black matter" becuase it is colapsed matter. A black hole is formed when a white dwarf star manages to colapse into nothing. This nothing basically creates a particle reverse and a matter hole that leads no where that we know of. The particle theory states that everything is made of particles, i.e. atoms, atomic particles. But a black hole is just a rip in particles that, like I said, leads somewhere unknown to man.

A black hole is invisible because it is the only known object that can bend light around itself, meaning that we can see right to the other side. If light was bent we could see around walls and solid objects, there would also be no shadows. Light travels in straight lines, it bounces off of objects and into our retnas. But the curved light would not bounce off of objects making everything invisble.

Ugh I hate how I remmember everything from science classes.

Ok back to whatever I was saying.................your friends theory sounds like it would maked sense and it would explain the growing universe. But whats beyond the universe? what happens when we die? confusing questions that get you thinking.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
"The earth is filled with one of nature's oldest creations...the hole.
its only natural enemy is the pile."

When you describe you're "white hole" that spews out stuff, arent you really just refering to a star? its not a hole, but it fits the idea.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join