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.

 

Inside a Black Hole

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 06:21 PM
link   
God none of you know even the basics about the universe do you???

Midnight.....we can detect the expanding because the stuff "behind" us is travelling slower then the stuff in "Front" of us....look at it like this

We are travelling at X in y direction

Stuff 2 y from us is expanding at 2X while stuff at -2y from us is expanding at say 1/2X (don't know the actual figures for that)

and so on....as for the expanding in a sphere....NO

We are expanding on a FLAT surface...yes the universe is flat, and while we may be able to travel in a "3dimensional" space, it is the "fabric" of space that is flat....that is why gravity effects it in the sense of "dimpling" and in the case of black holes...well that's where it drags space sooo much (hence its massive gravitational effect on itself) that it is thought to warp the time within it.

Sincerely,
no signature




posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Well... I did some searching the shape of the universe...

Problem is, we still don't know for sure. There were a couple of experiments that indicate a posiblity that the universe is flat. But, we're talking about experiments that are using calulations and data that aren't entirely accurate yet. They probably won't be for many more years to come.

If the universe spins, then I could see why it would be flat. But, to find out if it does spin, wouldn't we need some central point of refrence? Currently, the universe is to vast and spread out to know wheather it spins or not (IMHO). Using local galactic clusters won't reveal much, we could be orbiting them or visa versa. This might give a false illusion that the universe spins...

Personally, I think it's spherical. It exploded outward in a 3 dimensional plane in a weightless enviroment.... I just don't see how such an explosion could yield a flat space... unless it spins...

Just my opinion though



posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Yes, I know about that FM...I was only addressing the discussion up to *that point*. Yes, I know that the astronomers have figured out that the galaxies that are farthest from us are *increasing* their distance.

...That idea about the "flat universe" is nothing I've ever run across though...Where did you get that? It sounds like you're taking a few *inconclusive* clues & regarding them as absolute fact.



posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 11:05 PM
link   
No it's fact in fact....an article in September 2002 issue of Discover magazine "how the universe will end" goes over it breifly on how the universe is flat because ok I'll just give you the quote..."The most widely accepted version of the Big Bang-the inflationary model, co-developed by Guth-predicts that the universe is just dense enough to cancel out the Einsteinian curvature of space-time and make it flat."

now of course nothing in physics is certain, for all we know the uinverse could be a loopdie loop, but when something's widely excepted like this it's usually because it ties into other more known stuff...such as the "flat" universe, which also ties into the perpetual expansion we just discussed, as a sort of prerequisite, if the universe were spherical it would eventually cease to expand, but not fall in on itself, it it were saddle shapped it would eventually have a big crunch, something like that...

they get the shapes from simple geometry, the flat universe has a triangle of 180 degrees, the sphere is greater than 180 degrees and the saddle is less the 180 degrees...surely you've gone over that in class? for instance a triangle on a sphere can have 270 degrees (3 right angles)

and so on...I'm sure you could find other references if you look at a book on gravitation, but the last book I've seen on gravitation was seriously no thinner than 3 bibles.

Well anyways that's a briefing on the flat universe...which is probably more true than not...but what WE are is another question...now they've got a Hologram theory


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostProphet
I'm not buying it..a black hole is a callapsed star..how is that a tiny universe? And the "indestructable layer" around it if I'm not mistaken is called an event horizon. If that's wrong someone correct me because I'm going on my memory here.



The event horizon (absolute event horizon) is actually the boundry line of the black hole, not an "indestructable layer".

The event horizon is the "border line" that is the black hole. If you are within the event horizon YOU are in the black hole. If your outside of the event horizon YOU are outside of the black hole.

From within the event horizon no signals, light, or anything else emitted from it can escape. From outside the event horizon signals emitted will either escape or fall into the black hole.

So if we must, we can sorta describe the event horizon as the point that seperates the inside, from the outside.

Im not sure if all this made sense though...

Its a bit odd, because I know what I want to say, but im finding it really hard to simplify it so it is abit easier to understand, without oversimplifying it. I dont want to oversimplify it so much that you get the wrong idea about the event horizon. What I mentioned above was just a basic idea of it, it gets alot more complicated than that. I'd have to get into gravitational constant, speed of light, etc. to fully explain. Actually now that I think of it I think I can explain it in a different easier way.

Ok do this.

Plot circle "B" with a radius of 4 @ coordinates (0,0). Ok did that? Good... Now lets pretend that circle "B" is a black hole. Any coordinate outside of the circle is outside the black hole, and any coordinate within the circle is in the black hole. Good. Now if we got to coordinates (4,0) you should land right on the line of the circle. That line is the event horizon. YAY!

ok once again, I must warn you! This was a very simple, caffeine fueled explanation of event horizons.

If you really wanna find out the event horizon of an object (like the sun for example) I believe its:

(2m*UGC)/(c*c)

m = the mass of the object
UGC = Universal Gravitational Constant
c = Speed of light

*Note* - I put (c*c) cause im not really sure how to put superscripts up... But anyway, its just c squared... you should know that!



posted on Nov, 7 2002 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Oh yeah. Its 12:40am and im tired as all hell, and Im way to busy studying to look over my post for spelling errors. So if you find:

a typo
bad grammar
or double negatives

dont email me 3000 times telling me about it. Its just a simple mistake. let it be...

If its a problem with any formulas, or any problems with my explanations, or theories email me, or msn me.

till next time...

see yah.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I would believe that (2mUGC)/(c^2) would make more sense...just like on a calculator...hey what happens to the matter that is trapped orbiting the black hole?

I guess it would actually be anything that is ON the event horizon...but whatever, you know...where light isn't pulled in but can't escape...what happens to that? surely it doesn't infinitely orbit.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Even as Black Holes continue to absorb all matter around them, gaining both size and mass over time, a galaxy could not exist without one. So if time is infinite (as is space), then why aren't all galaxies gone, being absorbed into their centers? It has been said that 90 percent of the mass that exists is dark matter, and that humans cannot even see this matter at this time. Is it not possible then that there are other particle flows happenning that we aren't aware of? Yes. Galaxies still exist because they are perpetually reborn in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction or 'breathing' that makes up the cosmic wind. Black Holes have been seen ejecting both MATTER and X-RAYS, so there IS a release involved with their process. This process in the apparent consumption of the host galaxy generates enough energy to transend the space/time continuum and spawn Multiple New Galaxies.



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I'm not talking about the release...I'm talking about that "0" mark where light neither falls into nor escapse from the black hole....

And NOOOOO not all galaxies need black holes, just the ones with bulges have black holes....a black hole's actuall effect on matter is actually quite smaller than that of a star, it's just usually a black hole consists of millions of stars's mass.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:04 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

Forget the idea that we live in a youthful universe.

If two American professors are correct, the cosmos is middle-aged.

And it has not got an old age to look forward to.

Despite what recent observations suggest, Professor Andrei Linde from Stanford University and his wife Professor Renata Kallosh say the universe will stop expanding and collapse in the relatively near future.
------------------------------------------------------
Earth's magnetic field 'boosts gravity'

www.newscientist.com...


In a flat universe, our universe would not collapse, yet... ^^^^ The above links suggest it will, the last link just show's how little we actually know of 'G', and let's not forget 'C' and how very little we know about the physics concerning the inner workings of a universe...



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Don't believe those French loonies for one second...They have obviously over looked a tiny fact.

As you travel to the polls the spin of the earth slows down, until at the polls the spin is probably something like1 foot an hour.
Meanwhile closer to the Equator the spin is about 1000 miles an hour.

The spin in turn slightly negates the effect of gravity...this is why NASA is located in Florida, so that they don't have to expend as much fuel to obtain escape velocity...because they are already going about 1000 miles an hour.

This is why at the polls they measured a higher amount of gravity than at the equator, not because of Magnetism.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 09:26 PM
link   
And the first link is too vague to be taken as gospel just yet...wait 5 years and physics will have a better insite on what they postulate.

Sincerely,
no signature


TN1

posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Once you enter the black hole you can never escape it !!!
Imagine you enter a blond one !!!!!!
Signature,
a weak physicist .......


TN1

posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Once you enter a black hole you can never escape it !!!
Imagine you enter a blond one!!!
Signature,
a weak physicist.................



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Hm..... I read in a book once(a rather old book, keep in mind) that black holes are more like gateways to alternate/other universes rather than being complete destroying masses or simply containing new universes. Also, it'd be pretty contoversial, even if they were these "new universes". Does anyone actually think that NASA'd waste valuable astronauts trying to go to the center of the galaxy just to see what's inside a black hole? I mean, c'mon.
Secondly, how could even a supermassive black hole contain the smallest universe? It would take billions of years for the black hole to consume the universe, and even then, could the b.h. even get that far?(we really don't know how long until the hypothesized "Big Crunch")
And, if the universes are supposedly "infininate"(which this new hypothesis seems to put down) and black holes cannot move from the deep imprint in space/time that they make, then how could one "eat" an entire universe?

Just some things to put out there in the discussion.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 07:41 PM
link   


Galaxies still exist because they are perpetually reborn in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction or 'breathing' that makes up the cosmic wind

No, Galaxies have only been formed once. It is not a never ending cycle, a black hole, 20 billion times more dense than the current black hole in our galaxy, will still not effect much more than a few surrounding light years.

I believe, the distance you can travel near a black hole the size of the one in our galaxy is 900 miles, being tugged by it as if you were only a passing comet.

Besides, any galaxy without a bulge does not have a black hole, so that blows that stupid statement to peices.

Another thing, black holes are NOT a gateway to another universe, that hasn't been a consideration since the 60s. A black hole is an INFINITELY Small point....there is in a sense no center, because it is infinately small. But it is extremely massive.

So it is mass without form, which is totally beyond our conception of physics.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 11:33 PM
link   
i dont know anything about physics so what i say could be something you could help me get over but whenever i think about the universe after watching programmes on tv surfing sites on the net or reading posts in here i always think of how small it is.i read a post in here recently of a star being discovered that contains no metal or gasses found in this or any other known gallaxy to date.this means that somewhere out there there are gallaxies with completly different laws of physics and of different composition to ours and until we have the equipment to find and see past these galaxies whatever we think our universe is just a theory.we dont know how vast it is and probably never will.we do know gallaxies are according to a programme i saw last month drifting apart at approximatly 1 million miles an hour which considering what we call the speed of light isnt very fast.it also means the big bang theory looks favorite because we are travelling away from something.the tremendous heat source they now say can be detected which they think has something to do with it might be one of a billion stars in a billion gallaxies so big weve not considered how small we really are.did the star with no metals come from the same bang or are we just one in a series of them.when you put metal on a grinder or cause sparks when welding etc etc.does every spark you create contain the same metal and gas content or does it differ.what actualy happens inside a spark and what happens if they collide with each other.are the laws of physics inside each spark the same if the components are different in any way and do they change if they collide with a bigger or smaller spark in the short time they exist.if the big bang is true then there was nothing as we know it before it happened and inside the nothing we know something a million times smaller than an atom erupted and blew its components outward creating what we say is the universe.could black holes be what existed before the bang and are simply holes appearing in the bubble before it retracts back to an atom.do they eat space as well as matter or when you create a spark are there millions of molecules too small to be detected that fail to ignite inside it eating what ever it is the spark is made of.is anti-matter the same as whatever is inside a black hole and is just matter that wasnt moved by the force of the bang.



posted on Dec, 18 2002 @ 06:39 PM
link   
No squinting cat, the stars that have no metals (key word metals, all stars are made of hydrogen//helium//and some lithium) but the transition metals that are in our stars, are not in these stars because they are truly ancient stars. Burning for billions upon billions of years longer than ours, made of the primordial soup that existed about 100 million years after the big bang.

Regaurding your spark content, if you are grinding an element yes it mostlikely is the same element, you're not going to change the element by causing it to spark, it is just really hot shavings, but I do not know if those shavings bond with oxygen as they fizzle or not.

Even black holes are moving, they are not anchored to space, they move with the big bang too.

Braine Theory has something to do with the creation of the universe, it has nothing to do with smaller than atoms sized nothingness.....our universe is the abscence of nothing, why is that so? We do not know, but in there lies God.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 18 2002 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
Hm..... I read in a book once(a rather old book, keep in mind) that black holes are more like gateways to alternate/other universes rather than being complete destroying masses or simply containing new universes. Also, it'd be pretty contoversial, even if they were these "new universes". Does anyone actually think that NASA'd waste valuable astronauts trying to go to the center of the galaxy just to see what's inside a black hole? I mean, c'mon.
Secondly, how could even a supermassive black hole contain the smallest universe? It would take billions of years for the black hole to consume the universe, and even then, could the b.h. even get that far?(we really don't know how long until the hypothesized "Big Crunch")
And, if the universes are supposedly "infininate"(which this new hypothesis seems to put down) and black holes cannot move from the deep imprint in space/time that they make, then how could one "eat" an entire universe?

Just some things to put out there in the discussion.


Well, NASA would send men to their deaths. They are involved in the alien conspiricy. NASA is a goverment branch and thus they know of the existence of aliens. Regarding the "eat" thing, uh if a black hole got enough strength it woul suck every thing in and eventually swallow every thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2002 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Things need to come close enough to black holes in order for them to be sucked in. It's a proven fact. Also, b.h.'s are like creatures: they go into "non-feeding" cycles. At least supermassive blackholes do. Not sure about normal ones.

Oh, yeah, what do aliens have to do with black holes? Off topic!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join