It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

page: 153
80
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 01:18 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
so the big bang happened in the center of the universe correct?
incorrect. We are not aware that the universe has any "center" and there doesn't appear to be any place in the universe we can point to and say "That's where the big bang happened.

so its totally impossible that the space only seems to be expanding on itself when it fact its just matter continuously travelling through space leading to an exponential distancing from eachother along the journey?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
and matter spread out in all directions creating a diameter of 93billion light years so far observed. so we've got planets and star systems that are at least 47billion light years from the center(radius).

Close, but the fact it's observABLE doesn't mean it's been observed. We will be observing more and more of it as we use better telescopes to do it.

this i understood already. observable only means.. SO FAR. im just working with the figures we have now. giving it the benefit of the doubt as it were

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333my main question is this.

how did matter travel 47billion light years in all directions, in just 13.8 billion years?
That is a question many people arrive at sooner or later, where if you combine the logic that "nothing can go faster than light" with "the universe is 13.8 billion years old", then the radius shouldn't be any bigger than 13.8 billion light years. But, that's not the way it works. I can provide a good technical reference on this if you want to read more but it gets into math.

It didn't "travel" in any conventional sense, it couldn't as it would have to go faster than the speed of light and that's impossible. What happened was the space between galaxies expanded, and as it turns out metric expansion of space can result in apparent recessional velocities greater than the speed of light without breaking any laws of physics.

ok i get from both replies that according to you. science claims that empty space itself is expanding behind the objects. so now i have another question. has this expanding empty space phenomenon been observed within our own galaxy and solar system. or is it a phenomenon only observed, between galaxies. meaning only the empty space between galaxies is expanding but somehow within the galaxies themselves everything remains static(somewhat)?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
causing matter to travel 3x faster than the speed of light to reach it's current position on the outer fringes of the observable universe?
Again displacement via the metric expansion of space is not the same as traveling THROUGH space. The latter is limited to the speed of light, the former is not.

i understand what is being said about displacement as empty space expands behind the travelling matter between galaxies.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333if so can you explain how it was deduced that empty space is expanding/multiplying itself as it were? is it because the longer you look the more you see?
I think it's time to give you the technical reference, as it gets technical, but the answer to this question can only be simplified so much. If you really want to know, you need to read this:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe

We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common
misconceptions about the expansion of the universe. To show the abundance
of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted,
statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard ΛCDM cosmol-
ogy we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon,
the “observable universe” and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession
velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have
had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does
not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.
Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a
special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent
magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic
Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ.

sure.. go for it. i love math

so just to be clear...
we've completely ruled out that

A. an explosion happened in a vaccum and thus being the starting point would make it the center wherever that explosion occured
B. galaxies are moving apart and empty space only seems to expanding because they are constantly travelling through a vaccuum and the distance between them is increasing

i also recognize that 'observable' only means the most distant star that can be detected as it is not yet possible to detect distance without a backdrop item to compare it to. so in other words we cannot see the actual border or edge or last end of the dark empty space around us. just the furthest manifested item that our telescopes can detect.

while im reading the technical reference. can you tell me how the age of the universe was deduced to be 13.8 billion years?
edit on 19-8-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 01:36 AM

originally posted by: John333
so its totally impossible that the space only seems to be expanding on itself when it fact its just matter continuously travelling through space leading to an exponential distancing from eachother along the journey?
From the technical source:

We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ.
23σ could be interpreted as "impossible", yes. Just 6σ is 3 chances in a million, and the higher the σ the lower the chances so it's close enough to impossible.

ok i get from both replies that according to you. science claims that empty space itself is expanding behind the objects. so now i have another question. has this expanding empty space phenomenon been observed within our own galaxy and solar system. or is it a phenomenon only observed, between galaxies. meaning only the empty space between galaxies is expanding but somehow within the galaxies themselves everything remains static(somewhat)?
The dark energy pushing things apart is thought to be doing so everywhere, but in solar systems and galaxies it's counteracted by gravity. Between galaxies there's nothing to counteract it.

so just to be clear...
we've completely ruled out that

A. an explosion happened in a vaccum and thus being the starting point would make it the center wherever that explosion occured
B. galaxies are moving apart and empty space only seems to expanding because they are constantly travelling through a vaccuum and the distance between them is increasing
Physicists don't like to speak in terms such as "we've completely ruled out that....", but when they say "we rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ", for all practical purposes that means it's been completely ruled out, in the language used by scientists, barring any error in the analysis of course.

edit on 2015819 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 02:08 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333

ok i get from both replies that according to you. science claims that empty space itself is expanding behind the objects. so now i have another question. has this expanding empty space phenomenon been observed within our own galaxy and solar system. or is it a phenomenon only observed, between galaxies. meaning only the empty space between galaxies is expanding but somehow within the galaxies themselves everything remains static(somewhat)?
The dark energy pushing things apart is thought to be doing so everywhere, but in solar systems and galaxies it's counteracted by gravity. Between galaxies there's nothing to counteract it.

i figured you'd say that. which makes galaxies/solar systems a sort of closed system separate from empty space because of it's powerful collective gravitational force which closes the system with the orbits that form around the central gravitational mass.

so this is where the idea of creating dark matter through particle acceleration is thought to accelerate us through space for intergalactic travel at X times the speed of light without actually moving because we'd be using the very same empty space displacement technology that the universe is using to scatter matter at rates faster than general relativity would allow. halfway through the tech ref. this is what im gathering. to mimic the universe in manifesting dark energy empty space between point a and point b.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333so just to be clear...
we've completely ruled out that

A. an explosion happened in a vaccum and thus being the starting point would make it the center wherever that explosion occured
B. galaxies are moving apart and empty space only seems to expanding because they are constantly travelling through a vaccuum and the distance between them is increasing
Physicists don't like to speak in terms such as "we've completely ruled out that....", but when they say "we rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ", for all practical purposes that means it's been completely ruled out, in the language used by scientists, barring any error in the analysis of course.

great things have happened here with worse odds. but let me continue analysing the tech ref. this whole thing with the hubble sphere seems to be an attempt at counteracting subliminal distance with math to ascertain the true distance of the object being observed. catering for the time taken for light to reach the hubble, calculating the distance, and then plotting it's true distance at present since the distance we would currently see it at has already increased greatly over the billions of years into the past we are viewing. this is the special relativity which is something like time travel,

e.g
a race 3billion light years away had a 1billion year headstart on earth and discovered faster than light speed travel (ftlst)to x amount. allowing them to get here while we were still cavemen. thousands of years later we develop the first telescope that can see their galaxy only just forming. like time travel.. but not. just a very loosely uncalculated example.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:20 AM
well after checking out this tech ref. i honestly cant say i had any misconceptions about science's produced understanding of empty space and the universe's expansion. it's just that using the same data, plus some of my own. i have come to different conclusions in some areas.

correct me if im wrong. but i understand that you use redshift to determine the velocity of superluminous objects and are then able to deduce the distance and time that it takes the light to reach hubble to plot it's age. this produces a value that confirms, apparently that these objects are indeed covering distances that are greater than the speed of light would allow within a certain timeframe. however, the claim that nothing ever overtakes a photon may be premature. since a field is required to convert dark matter into light, the field itself can travel faster than the speed of light. and the photon just appears to ride the wave when in fact its all just happening so fast that dark matter is being converted into photons wherever the field touches along it's path. fields and forces are thus not limited by relativity and act more like train tracks for the manifestation of light particles in a manner not unlike the fps of video presentations. its all just pages flicking so fast that you dont see the pages. just a continuous flowing image.

my conclusions? higg's boson does not exist. there is no dark matter particle. it's a field. a waveform that is completely and fluidly connected throughout the entire universe. everywhere there is nothing. the field is most present and discernable. and though it is still present in solid objects it is much more occulted and so difficult to pin down to one location. when the field is excited in various ways, various manifestations of light and matter occur. basically, the universal state of all creation is nothing.. empty space. with empty space being described as an oscillatory state which is unmanifested within the physical universe we know until agitated in a specific way for a specific outcome. simply because it is too fast for this universe to house. for any physical manifestation to occur. the oscillations of dark space must be slowed which means that whatever is controlling this slowing effect, exists OUTSIDE of our entire universe for which we can see no border to. the border is hidden within the oscillations. there is no physical border. there is no edge. there is no end. just an infinite howling abyss. and we are stuck in the paradox of this matrix looking for a border.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 06:06 AM
you're living in a fantasy world my friend lol

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:21 AM

originally posted by: John333
great things have happened here with worse odds.
Do you even know what the odds are of a 23σ event? I'm seriously asking you because it's off my odds chart. I can tell you that at CERN the goal is to achieve a statistical significance of 5σ or greater, since that makes the odds they will be wrong very, very low.

My other question is, if you actually know the odds, what has happened here with worse odds?

since the distance we would currently see it at has already increased greatly over the billions of years into the past we are viewing. this is the special relativity which is something like time travel
That 23σ we've discussed is the confidence the cosmological redshift is not a Doppler shift per special relativity, so you lost me there talking about special relativity, though I'm still interested to know what has happened with worse odds than a 23σ event.

a race 3billion light years away had a 1billion year headstart on earth and discovered faster than light speed travel (ftlst)to x amount. allowing them to get here while we were still cavemen. thousands of years later we develop the first telescope that can see their galaxy only just forming. like time travel.. but not. just a very loosely uncalculated example.
Yes well, it's only human to want to speculate about such things. I can both admire Sonny White's warp drive research, and be skeptical at the same time. While it's very speculative, the potential rewards justify the risk that the research may never yield a warp drive.

originally posted by: John333
correct me if im wrong. but i understand that you use redshift to determine the velocity of superluminous objects and are then able to deduce the distance and time that it takes the light to reach hubble to plot it's age.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Read section 4 of the technical reference called "Observational evidence for the general relativistic interpretaion of cosmological redshifts".

the claim that nothing ever overtakes a photon may be premature. since a field is required to convert dark matter into light, the field itself can travel faster than the speed of light.
I have no idea what that means. I'm not sure what definition of dark matter you're using but in any case I'm not aware of fields traveling faster than light in any special relativistic sense

and the photon just appears to ride the wave when in fact its all just happening so fast that dark matter is being converted into photons wherever the field touches along it's path. fields and forces are thus not limited by relativity and act more like train tracks for the manifestation of light particles in a manner not unlike the fps of video presentations. its all just pages flicking so fast that you dont see the pages. just a continuous flowing image.
For a while we knew electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light in a vacuum but we weren't sure of the speed of gravity, but it appears that while difficult to measure, the speed of gravity too may be limited to the speed of light.

my conclusions? higg's boson does not exist. there is no dark matter particle. it's a field.
Do you have an alternate explanation for the data CERN used to announce they found the Higgs boson? As for there being no dark matter particle, there are plenty alternatives to the "WIMP" dark matter candidate which is only that....a candidate. I don't claim to understand all the candidates on this chart and even the dark matter physicist who posted it says it's not his chart so I'm not sure if he can explain them all either, but I wouldn't be too surprised to find a candidate along those lines is already on this chart, though I doubt these ideas throw out the higgs:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ErosA433

Nail on head there Arbitrageur, there are different forms of dark matter, and much close examination of space has been performed and lots of different theories with different shares of matter content. They point as you say to this unobserved fraction being about 75-80% of the matter content of the universe.

As for what it is, there are as many theories as you can think of, and an interesting interplay between what the theories are and how they behave. There is a great image that shows this...

That is not my picture, I grabbed it from a blog after I saw it presented by a theorist in a conference.... To say that dark matter theory is closed minded is to deny that theory didn't put all its eggs in one basket but actually many baskets hehe

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
you're living in a fantasy world my friend lol

I'm not the one inventing "other dimensions" to explain the sun's source of energy like your source Eric Dollard.

edit on 2015819 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:22 AM

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333

ok i get from both replies that according to you. science claims that empty space itself is expanding behind the objects. so now i have another question. has this expanding empty space phenomenon been observed within our own galaxy and solar system. or is it a phenomenon only observed, between galaxies. meaning only the empty space between galaxies is expanding but somehow within the galaxies themselves everything remains static(somewhat)?
The dark energy pushing things apart is thought to be doing so everywhere, but in solar systems and galaxies it's counteracted by gravity. Between galaxies there's nothing to counteract it.

i figured you'd say that. which makes galaxies/solar systems a sort of closed system separate from empty space because of it's powerful collective gravitational force which closes the system with the orbits that form around the central gravitational mass.

so this is where the idea of creating dark matter through particle acceleration is thought to accelerate us through space for intergalactic travel at X times the speed of light without actually moving because we'd be using the very same empty space displacement technology that the universe is using to scatter matter at rates faster than general relativity would allow. halfway through the tech ref. this is what im gathering. to mimic the universe in manifesting dark energy empty space between point a and point b.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333so just to be clear...
we've completely ruled out that

A. an explosion happened in a vaccum and thus being the starting point would make it the center wherever that explosion occured
B. galaxies are moving apart and empty space only seems to expanding because they are constantly travelling through a vaccuum and the distance between them is increasing
Physicists don't like to speak in terms such as "we've completely ruled out that....", but when they say "we rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ", for all practical purposes that means it's been completely ruled out, in the language used by scientists, barring any error in the analysis of course.

great things have happened here with worse odds. but let me continue analysing the tech ref. this whole thing with the hubble sphere seems to be an attempt at counteracting subliminal distance with math to ascertain the true distance of the object being observed. catering for the time taken for light to reach the hubble, calculating the distance, and then plotting it's true distance at present since the distance we would currently see it at has already increased greatly over the billions of years into the past we are viewing. this is the special relativity which is something like time travel,

e.g
a race 3billion light years away had a 1billion year headstart on earth and discovered faster than light speed travel (ftlst)to x amount. allowing them to get here while we were still cavemen. thousands of years later we develop the first telescope that can see their galaxy only just forming. like time travel.. but not. just a very loosely uncalculated example.

Ok this post is just a mess but I think I get the idea. Assuming you donate actually mean subliminal?? Any way to answer your first question no people don't expect the LHC to create dark matter to help propel is the pitch space. On fact we know the properties of dark matter wouldn't do that. I think you mean dark energy. And again not something the LHC would produce.

Now the last part at the end if a civilization was 3 billion light years away. With relativity you do realize from our perspective it still takes them 3 billion years to get here. Even with a billion year head start would most likely find that the people at the end destination has advanced further in tech then they have. After all how much scientific advancement are they going to miss being stuck on a ship. I think we're going to find out traveling by light speed is it. That will leave creating worm holes between distant planets.

Even when NASA revisited the warp drive they found a big problem. Basically we turn on our warp energy and as we travel it collects all kinds of high energy particles. We stop at our destination and they are released destroying anything around us. It's the ultimate weapon could destroy entire planets.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:55 AM

That plot keeps coming back
and so do I every so often when time allows.

I can try and hit a few of them

Axions -
Axion like particles are a flavour of mostly light dark matter, disfavoured by the clumping that we see, but still something we can search for. An Axion like particle, it couples to magnetic fields to produce photons. As such all Axion searches these days are typically performed using super conducting magnets and RF cavities. An early example is an Axion telescope that tracked the sun built from an LHC super conducting magnet prototype, the aim was to search for axions coming from the sun.
They were proposed to fix Strong QCD CP violation, but as yet are unproven, though do offer a possible DM candidate.

Sterile Neutrinos -
These are an addition to the regular 3 flavours of neutrinos we know and love. This would be a right handed heavy neutrino which is not coupled via the weak interaction, or any other interaction other than gravity. These can be 'made' via oscillation or something similar to the seesaw mechanism proposed to mediate neutrino mass and oscillation. Many experiments have searched for signs of sterile neutrinos, thus far, none observed

Both Axions and Neutrinos would be classed as warm dark matter due to low mass, meaning the dark matter particles would move quickly like a hot fluid maybe.

Little Higgs -
I dont know a lot about this but basically the idea is that loop corrections (the reason why the higgs was proposed in the first place) can be tuned such that contributions from the top mass can be cancelled out, and such the Higgs field can yield a low mass Higgs particle. Very hand wavy but yeah its how much i can get from 5 mins of googling Its also possible to use little Higgs theories neatly with extra dimensions also, and also help Natural ness in the standard model.

Extra dimensions -
These are typically mathematically complicated but can be summarized by example that Dark Matter is an extra dimensional affect, which might work in a way as the distortion to space time that appears as Dark Matter is actually an interaction between or distortion caused by extra dimensions or branes. Like say to come up with an analogy, the classic ball sitting on an elastic sheet to represent gravity, Then you place another sheet under, which the ball is attracted too. Again, hand wavey, but the maths on all of these would take several pages... and its maths that iv not done in about 5 years... doh!

Supersymmetry -
This is a big one, it cuts through most of the diagram, and contains lots of theories. This is mainly because supersymmetry gives lots and lots of predictions and many areas we can test or search. SUSY is not 100% disfavoured, its only disfavoured if you are a believer in Naturalness in particle physics that doesn't like everything to be fine tuned. Personally... the standard model is highly fine tuned, so why must a theory beyond the standard model be none fine tuned?... anyway - The general theory is that here we have the standard model bosons and fermions, with integer and half integer spin respectively. Each of these has a super partner with plus half integer spin. Paraphrasing a little from the wiki (since i dont have my personal notes here with me from grad school) the theory is that if this symmetry exists and is unbroken, then the electron which is a fermion, should have a boson partner with exactly the same mass... all lab experiments performed thus far conclude this not to be the case. SOooo by spontaneously breaking the symmetry we can couple these super-partners to much higher mass. And hey-presto we just invented MANY MANY heavy particles

Now - There are as many supersymmetry theories as there are days in the year, all of them follow that basic premise. The motivations are for those of Naturalness - or fine tuning hierarchies - in which scaling up to higher and higher energies would require some ridiculous levels of fine tuning in order to meet other measurements or theories from cosmological scales, we have the Plank Scale which is an energy at which quantum affects of gravity become strong, evidence for it is mostly from WMAP data - looking at the electroweak phase transition theorized to of occurred shortly after the big bang. So in order to marry together all these different things into a theory of everything so to speak, SUSY is a great candidate since it allows you to tune things to the super partners and leave all the low energy stuff as is.

RIGHTO so SUSY gives us a particle that drops directly out of the theory that directly describes the WIMP, a massive particle, that does not interact except via gravity and the weak force. Due to its nature its interaction probability is greatly suppressed... thus BLOODY hard to find (Its what the experiment i pretty much built is trying to search for (basically had a hand in almost all aspects of its construction
)

So here we get Gravitinoes (Gauge super partners of the graviton), Neutralinos (Gauge super partners of the neutrino) as possible dark matter particles.

We can go further than that though and say "Well since we have all these super partners, it might be possible to create large stable/semi stable particles at high mass, similar to that of the WIMP" In a round about way you can think of Q-balls, which are lowest energy state, stable field configuration collection of massive particles. Here you create conditions in which you can collect a large amount of exotic particles which would otherwise be unstable in a stable state, stable from breaking up, decaying or evaporating. These would be similar to, or the same depending on the theory as quark matter as proposed by some doomsayers as a way of destroying everything at the LHC. OR say for example, the final stages of a supernova that forms a black hole. We can really go to home with this, setting limits on dark matter using theorized destruction of neutron stars (which absorb Q-balls, and break up, turn into black holes, are gamma ray bursts etc)

Its a fairly wide open playing field needless to say.

Q-balls and Quark nuggets are enclosed between two theories in the diagram since they are related, but not inclusive. Here a quark nugget Soliton is composed as a huge exotic quark ball, created and stable depending upon the Higgs theory you choose. An alternative name for it would be strangelet. Here though we don't have to evoke super heavy super partners in a stable field configuration, we do it using the higgs (again dependant heavily upon the theory) or independent of everything... because... why not

There are light force carriesr and a big smidge of stuff between SUSY and those but iv already spent about an hour writing this... sooo will close it for now

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:50 AM

originally posted by: ErosA433

That plot keeps coming back
and so do I every so often when time allows.
Thanks for popping in to help shed some light on some of the alternative ideas for solving perhaps the greatest mystery in the universe.

SUSY gives us a particle that drops directly out of the theory that directly describes the WIMP, a massive particle, that does not interact except via gravity and the weak force. Due to its nature its interaction probability is greatly suppressed... thus BLOODY hard to find (Its what the experiment i pretty much built is trying to search for (basically had a hand in almost all aspects of its construction
)
So that experiment has been running a while now? If so, congratulations on getting it up and running! What are you guys hoping for, maybe one or two WIMP detections a year? Or you'll take what you can get?

I think I recall you mentioning another lab claimed a detection but they weren't open with their data so the claim was subject to a lot of skepticism.

Thanks for your explanations, which I can't say I understand 100% but they do help; some I understand some better than others. I have spent a little time researching some of those alternatives but not as much as I'd like to. Your explanations are easier to understand than some of the papers I try to read which seem to be targeted at other experts in the field (nothing wrong with targeting your paper at other experts, but it can be hard for people outside the field to understand). I found this 64 page source which contains on page 4 the same graphic you posted of dark matter candidates:

Non-WIMP dark matter (pdf)

I found this caption to the graphic interesting: "Figure 1. Graphical representation of the (incomplete) landscape of candidates.", so even though that graphic shows many DM candidates, it's incomplete, and there are still more! At least there's no shortage of ideas but as you pointed out, some are less likely than others.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:14 PM
not built yet unfortunately - but so so close... in the final final stages of construction. Ours is a WIMP search. Trying to be the first single phase multi-tonne experiment... but we will see

The field is fairly open, some of the theories are a bit... insane... but they do try and be constant as possible with observation, and other theories either established or speculated.

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 08:44 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: John333

how did matter travel 47billion light years in all directions, in just 13.8 billion years?

The space between the matter expanded as well. It's not just matter on a ballistic course. From the matter's POV, it's moving in Einsteinian space, but the metric is expanding as well.

The question you SHOULD ask is, if all the matter was in one relatively small volume to begin with, why didn't the Universe fizzle into a black hole?

may be because black holes were born many but individually too small to counter and collapse back the entire caboom.))

cheers

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:37 PM
I mean, black holes could be first space objects that came to be. They could be bare scattered 'samples' of what its like 'before' conditions. Before expansion has began.
edit on 19-8-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:54 PM
and one more thing. I think it is safe to say that over all matter distribution in visible universe could be used to calculate number of massive black holes remaining.

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:12 AM
doesn't "physics" tell us there are like 11 of them?

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM

originally posted by: darkorange
and one more thing. I think it is safe to say that over all matter distribution in visible universe could be used to calculate number of massive black holes remaining.

haha...
maybe we should first stay on Earth and calculate how many apples are on earth right now ???
would still be easier and make much more sense...
then we divide it by the amount of nuts on the moon and will get a singularity !!

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:12 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam
The question you SHOULD ask is, if all the matter was in one relatively small volume to begin with, why didn't the Universe fizzle into a black hole?

originally posted by: darkorange
may be because black holes were born many but individually too small to counter and collapse back the entire caboom.))

This is kind of fringe, but Nicoderm Poplawski says our universe is a black hole, and we are in it now (personally I don't buy it).
Are We Living in a Black Hole? Our universe may reside within a vast, black hole.
I do agree with Poplawski that relativity is unlikely to be correct in its prediction of a singularity inside a black hole, a view shared by many. However, I'd expect the interior of a black hole to be something along the lines of a quantum version of neutronium, instead of what we see around us.

originally posted by: darkorange
and one more thing. I think it is safe to say that over all matter distribution in visible universe could be used to calculate number of massive black holes remaining.
I don't follow that argument and I don't think it's safe to say, but if you want to elaborate on the proposed methodology or cite some references feel free.

The reason I don't think you can do that is, we wouldn't be proposing WIMPs as a leading dark matter candidate for the dark matter that makes up most of the mass of the universe if we thought it could be in the form of black holes. I've never seen any calculation claiming to be accurate on exactly how much of the universe's mass is in black holes, however I've seen results of gravitational microlensing observations that put an upper limit on the mass of and number of black holes. The main conclusion from those observations seems to be that there must be a whole lot of other mass out there besides black holes and we don't know what it is.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
doesn't "physics" tell us there are like 11 of them?

No, though I can see how people who get their physics from TV shows like "Through the wormhole" might get that idea.
We have a well established theory that explains where the sun's energy comes from with lots of observational evidence supporting it. A hydrogen fusion bomb demonstrates dramatically how much energy can be released through the fusion of hydrogen.

We don't have any well established theory for 11 dimensions, and I'm not aware of any observational evidence supporting such a claim. There's no shortage of people working on such ideas, but until we have more evidence to support them, they are just ideas.

Those ideas about other dimensions relate to a hypothesis which some mathematicians and theoretical physicists are trying to mold into a unified theory that will bridge the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics. Also, those efforts to come up with a better model are geared at trying to explain observations, and observations show that mass/energy is conserved, so even in the 11 dimensional hypothesis, energy wouldn't be magically appearing from the other dimensions and violating energy conservation.

edit on 2015820 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
i have a question. I'm a short guy who occasionally finds myself in bad neighborhoods.

so for self protection....could one produce a field around you that would be safe to stand inside but also warp light to create a fun house mirror like effect that will make me appear taller or bigger?

if so I wanna turn it into something like a fanny pack that sits on my belt. i would like the scenario to play out like this for this device.

gangster hoodlum: "hey yo lets jack this short ful over der."

i see would be muggers approach and turn on the look big and scary field. next thing they know theyre like " yo that mofo is like 9 Nikes tall let's get out of here!!! word!!!" and they flee.

bedlam could you engineer something like this and do you do structured payment plans for favorable customers (hoping that would be me)

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 11:11 AM

I love that idea.
While you're at it, Bedlam, can you structure one of those generators to look like a condom?

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 11:14 AM

Then again, some people will attack the biggest guy in the room, so to speak, to prove something. Would it not be better to fashion a force field perhaps using taser technology to create an electrical blast around and out from the body?

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 11:19 AM

i don't wanna hurt nobody. that's uncivilized. I'm thinking if I appear to be a sasqhatch nobody is going to engage me. wonder if it will work on door to door solicitors too.

(solicitor) " um.... never mind wrong door!"

top topics

80