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.

 

Please prove me wrong, hawking is wrong

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I have been thinking about plancks temperature and the universe for quite some time. Basically plancks temperature is the hottest anything can be and only occured once in theory shortly after the big bang.
I have thought of something, I think is amazing!
Maybe after billions of years when everything is sucked into black holes, bearing that hawking radiation is rubbisha and this theory is correct (who knows hawking hasn't hard evidence!?). When all black holes then combine, all the immense pressure and heat causes all the nuclei in the universe to fission causing plancks temperature and therefore a big bang and many smaller nuclei and enough explosive power to launch out of black hole to begin cycle again -

Plausible . ...
nuff' said, heard it hear

Murphius

[edit on 1/10/2005 by l_iam]




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
If the universe was a singularity and will collapse back into a singularity then it is conceivable that there has been a long sucession of these expansions and collapses stretching backwards through time, thus our big bang would not be a unique phenomenon.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Why would the black-holes combine, they dont have a gravitational pull on one another, over billions of years a few might collide, but it would take a few trillion years for half of the known universes black-holes to collide, plus the universe being infinently large, there is an infinant amount of galaxys (in the center of a galaxy there are black-holes, ares has three).

Your theory is sorta reminescent of the big crunch theory, which most scientists believe is wrong.

Also how are you saying Hawking is wrong?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_iam
heat causes all the nuclei in the universe to fission causing plancks temperature and therefore a big bang and many smaller nuclei and enough explosive power to launch out of black hole to begin cycle again -

But Inflation, the 'big bang', wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion of space-time itself, not just a scattering of stuff thru it.


iori_komei
plus the universe being infinently large, there is an infinant amount of galaxys

The universe is thought to be finite, and there are a large but finite number of galaxies in it. But think of it like this, if there is a scattering of black holes, how fast can they possibly move torwards each other? Would take a long time for the matter in the universe to crunch in on itself when only driven by that.

I'm thinking that perhaps the great crunch and great chill ideas of the end of the univserse are less interesting than the greta shredding. THe idea is that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that it can ultimately become so fast that space time itself get ruptured and ripped apart. in the end of the universe it happens 'sort of ' slow enough that people, if they were still around, might even be able to observe it as the ripping proceeds down a size scale from ripping apart portions of the universe, to parts between galactic clusters, to galaxies planets people atoms stings to nothingness.


A5H

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
If a black hole 'combined' with another black hole I'm fairly sure that there wouldn't be a 'super blackhole' formed...
Surely one would just dissappear into the other?
Where would the heat and pressure come from anyway?
Also, what would ignite?

Ash



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by l_iam
Maybe after billions of years when everything is sucked into black holes, bearing that hawking radiation is rubbisha and this theory is correct (who knows hawking hasn't hard evidence!?). When all black holes then combine, all the immense pressure and heat causes all the nuclei in the universe to fission causing plancks temperature and therefore a big bang and many smaller nuclei and enough explosive power to launch out of black hole to begin cycle again -


There are two problems with this argument. First of all the Universe is expanding, and even if all galaxies were to collapse into black holes, they would still be moving away from each other. A black hole does not have more mass than the matter that falls into it so the galaxies would just be shaped differently. You would need to create some extra matter from somewhere to increase the gravitational pull needed to collect all the black holes. This plan is foiled by some silly law that states that the amount of matter in the Universe is constant.

Secondly, let's say that it was possible that all the black holes came back together and created another big bang...over, and over, and over....infinity. I'm now having a problem with the fact that I'm reading all of this. If the Universe has an infinite amount of cycles, then when does this point in time...that you are reading what I'm typing come about? You see there are still an infinite amount of expansions and collapses until you will come into existence. So I must wait for an eternal amount of these cycles until you can type this message.

Start at universe cycle 'x' and wade through the infinity of cycles until you get to the time when you can post a reply to this post. If you can reply then I'll take it as a sign that your theory has some huge holes in it. (Eternal expansions aren't happening)


|------- Universe cycle(x) ------------------ ~infinity!~ ---------------------- you typing----|



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Beginning and end are actually rather human abstract concepts...nature worls in cycles, not beginning and end.

Here's another issue...

We know that the universe (as we know it) is always a group of groups...

For example, we are on a planet, that is in a star system, that is then in a galaxy, that is then in a galactic cluster, etc. etc.

What if the universe as we know it is simply a group of galactic clusters, and that is a small part of a bigger group, and then a bigger group, etc. etc.? And of course, that this would be beyond anything our instruments can measure, or our math could predict. Are we so vain as to believe that we have actually figured out where the edge of the universe is? I seriously doubt it....



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok [...] And of course, that this would be beyond anything our instruments can measure, or our math could predict. Are we so vain as to believe that we have actually figured out where the edge of the universe is? I seriously doubt it....


Plus, if we accept, at least broadly, that the universe (whatever that might turn out ot be) is still expanding, then would we actually ever get to the edge anyway (in a non euclidean sort of never getting to the edge sort of way) ?

Wow, just imagine reaching it - it defies imagination, surely - what could be beyond it - (even allowing for the many universe idea, err, what's inbetween them). It can't be nothing - can it ?

This is a great question really, and one that we have absolutely no way of answering: Hell, I'd even go so far as to speculate that we will never know the answer to this one.




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Right, you can never get to the edge of the Universe. Once you reach it the Universe will have expanded to include your location. You could be further away from the middle than any other object, but there is actually no edge. (In theory. No one's actually done this
)



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Beginning and end are actually rather human abstract concepts...nature works in cycles, not beginning and end.

Here's another issue...

We know that the universe (as we know it) is always a group of groups...


Exactly. Hawking is guilty only of the same limited thinking we all box ourselves into. If we think fractally, and take mass concentrations (black holes) to be a basic building block, and we step back far enough... and then a little farther... we can see the Mother of All Black Holes, circled by an insanely big accretion disk, spewing two oppositely directed inflationary jets. If we visualize 'our' observable Universe as a small area of an immense polar jet, some interesting things happen. The mathmatical inconsistancy of Guth 'inflation' requiring 10 or more dimensions simplifies down to the known laws of physics in four dimensions.

If the jet is large enough, what we would observe from inside is a Universe expanding in all directions. One initially made of hydrogen/helium that appears on a small scale to have resulted from an initial explosion event, with blackbody background radiation and universal redshifts, but one that in realty is the result of a 'spraying' process. A fountain, not a firecracker.

This theory is testable; while we may located in a chaotic vortex at the far end of a jet, we might be able to observe a statistical variation in redshift that would point in the direction of the origin of the jet. If we look back far enough in time.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Thank you for Nygdan for pointing out my mistake.

A5H, when two black-holes collide they do indeed merge to become a bigger black-hole its sorta like when you have a water droplet and you drop another droplet very close to it, they merge to become a larger droplet.

This is how i see it,
Hyperverse-Ultraverse-Megaverse-Superverse-Multiverse-Universe.

There is most likely more, probably an infinite amount, but I like to only go as far as Hyperverse while researching and doing equasions.

[edit on 1/11/2005 by iori_komei]

[edit on 1/11/2005 by iori_komei]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Forgive me be doesnt a never ending universe go against the laws of physics?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_iam
When all black holes then combine, all the immense pressure and heat causes all the nuclei in the universe to fission causing plancks temperature and therefore a big bang and many smaller nuclei and enough explosive power to launch out of black hole to begin cycle again -


The pressure inside a black hole is already infinite. Combining two black holes will not increase the pressure or temperature.


Originally posted by Chakotay
The mathmatical inconsistancy of Guth 'inflation' requiring 10 or more dimensions simplifies down to the known laws of physics in four dimensions.


Inflation works in four dimensions. I think you mean string theory, which requires 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, depending on the version of the theory. Inflation just proposes a period of exponantial expansion of the early universe.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
And this is relevent in practical terms because..........



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I think that the Universe is taken to be infinite and with the mass-energy relation mass and energy continuously interchange and the total energy in the Universe in always constant[ since conservation of energy theorem]. Also a Universe in physics means the system + surroundings, there is no relation with the Universe edge. And time is considered as a flow so if even if the entire free mass in the universe were to be swallowed by black holes then information will still travel from one black hole to another, another interesting thing is that if all the black holes combine to form a super massive black hole then won' t this massive black hole spew mass out[infinitely minute amount of mass comparatively ] at a steady rate and this mass will be consumed again by the black hole and this process goes on till ... what?
BTW I disagree that mass can undergo fission inside a black hole how is that possible energy cannot escape a black hole!.
Is it possible to have something like a white hole that utilizes single point energy converts energy into mass[ How??? ] and spews out mass constantly!


IAF...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
i wouldnt think so because then the matter would have to come from an infinite supply, and if it was infinite it has to infinitely small or else it would be as large as the whole universe, which would make it in effect a black hole.

Maybe the universe is created as we observe it? Maybe it does exist until we observe it. But since light has been sendin us information since the begginin of this 'expansion'(if u belive in that theory) then we will never no we reach the edge of it even if we go past it.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
the universe is still expanding. I dont know the estimate of the rate of expansion, but its expanding.

i think i read on CNN somewhere that they think a black hole can fill up and will eventually cease to be a black hole, but i cant seem to find the link...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
you don't see my point,

prove hawking wrong part - no hawking radiation, therefore black holes *just* collect matter, NO egestion of matter\energy through hawkings rad.

All black holes combine making a super black hole - black holes drawn to eachother after no matter left to consume.

Once they all combine, they have no way to gain matter so compresses itself and manages to cause of all nuclei in universe within to fuse causing enough energy to escape the black holes gravitational pull, like a sine ratio of gravity to matter that is seen through universes life and bias throughout cycleto either\or



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join