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.

 

The Big Bang Cycle?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
No doubt, but i don't think it would just expel the same thing it took in. I have read that all the "stuff" a black hole consumes is converted into energy. So the big bang would simply create another universe using the energy it created.




posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
No doubt, but i don't think it would just expel the same thing it took in. I have read that all the "stuff" a black hole consumes is converted into energy. So the big bang would simply create another universe using the energy it created.

no, idont think it wud be another big bang like the one that started things, i think it wud be just a huge explosion. if it was like the big bang, well, whats the point? then its just like an explosion, so its not like the big bang.

P.S. - it is very possible that universes are popping around into existance all around us, just on different planes/branes/dimensions



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
i mean think about it, if that were true then were probably sumwhere around the billlionth universe lol.
how can sumthing that is a singularity, i pinpoint in space with un imaginable density suddenly have a force exerting more force outwards than the mass of it pushing inwards?? that would require HUGE amounts of energy right? but it just seems screwed up to think that that much energy can be compressed that much... but then i suppose the black hole is just like a simulation of what the start of the big bang was like, but then what force or where did the energy come from to make the big bang explode 'outwards' when all that mass was keeping it collapsed?



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiksilver
i mean think about it, if that were true then were probably sumwhere around the billlionth universe lol.
how can sumthing that is a singularity, i pinpoint in space with un imaginable density suddenly have a force exerting more force outwards than the mass of it pushing inwards?? that would require HUGE amounts of energy right? but it just seems screwed up to think that that much energy can be compressed that much... but then i suppose the black hole is just like a simulation of what the start of the big bang was like, but then what force or where did the energy come from to make the big bang explode 'outwards' when all that mass was keeping it collapsed?


If you drilled a six inch hole (representing the last black hole) in a table and draped a tablecloth (representing space-time) over the entire table and you started to pull the tablecloth through that hole from below the table it would soon consume the entire universe. Towards the end of the tablecloth the massive amount of gravitrons emited from the black hole would have no place to go because space-time had been removed. Then the gravitrons would rip the black hole open releasing everything inside.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
but gravitons must go faster than speed of light then? but i mean when ur coming out of the singularity where all the mass is so the exchange particles are coming from there, the particles would have to travel at tremendous speeds to get out of the black hole, either that are it is somehow instantaneous. Which would bring us to the speed of gravity. Does annyone know what the speed of gravity is or is it instant?



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiksilver
but gravitons must go faster than speed of light then? but i mean when ur coming out of the singularity where all the mass is so the exchange particles are coming from there, the particles would have to travel at tremendous speeds to get out of the black hole, either that are it is somehow instantaneous. Which would bring us to the speed of gravity. Does annyone know what the speed of gravity is or is it instant?

no. when eistein came out with relativity, saying that light is the fastest around, gravity was an obvious problem. newtonian gravity said it wud be instantaneous, which was directly against relativity. enter eisteinian gravity. gravity is transmitted thru the fabric of space-time, and thus travels at light speed. if the sun were to explode, it wud take 8 minutes (the time it take for light to get here) for the # to hit the fan



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiksilver
but gravitons must go faster than speed of light then? but i mean when ur coming out of the singularity where all the mass is so the exchange particles are coming from there, the particles would have to travel at tremendous speeds to get out of the black hole, either that are it is somehow instantaneous. Which would bring us to the speed of gravity. Does annyone know what the speed of gravity is or is it instant?


I think we can assume that gravitrons can and do escape a black hole, if they couldnt the black hole would have no influence on the things around them. After all gravity is the result of gravitrons.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Some people (me included) think gravity is the thing that would allow us or aliens to travel faster than the speed of light. If you created a gravitational bubble in front of a ship it is theorized that you would move or warp space-time around the ship rather than the moving the ship through space. That way you could travel faster than the speed of light without breaking Einsteins theory, because space-time would be the thing moving not the ship.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
or.. the exchange particles might not be effected by the forces(u no electromagnetic, nulcear, gravity etc.) so that means that they can travel through the 3 dimensions unhindered and complete their mission. the graviton must be wierd, because wouldnt its own gravity influence itself, or other gravitons??

it would make sense for gravity to be sent through the fabric of space time, but to travel at the same speed of light??? so that means you could easily escape a black hole if you only went faster than light??(not possible to accelerate to that speed, but lets say u can)

so if the sun exploded, then we would remain in orbit around nothing for 8 minutes or so??



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiksilver
or.. the exchange particles might not be effected by the forces(u no electromagnetic, nulcear, gravity etc.) so that means that they can travel through the 3 dimensions unhindered and complete their mission. the graviton must be wierd, because wouldnt its own gravity influence itself, or other gravitons??

it would make sense for gravity to be sent through the fabric of space time, but to travel at the same speed of light??? so that means you could easily escape a black hole if you only went faster than light??(not possible to accelerate to that speed, but lets say u can)

so if the sun exploded, then we would remain in orbit around nothing for 8 minutes or so??

yup! 8 minutes of ignorant bliss, then wed be screwed before we knew anything.

as to the rest, well, that depends, gravitons are part of quantum mechanics, and relativity is a bit at odds with that currently, so its tuff to say.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by quango

Originally posted by THENEO
The real question is this? What survives that cycle?


If humans survive and evolve until the time when this becomes an issue then don't be surprised if we stop the universe from ending.


I'm not sure we can do that, and even if it is possible why would you do it, why interfere with free will?



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO

Originally posted by quango

Originally posted by THENEO
The real question is this? What survives that cycle?


If humans survive and evolve until the time when this becomes an issue then don't be surprised if we stop the universe from ending.


I'm not sure we can do that, and even if it is possible why would you do it, why interfere with free will?


I see it as no different than if we were to take steps to stop an asteroid from hitting the earth, say..

And if mankind still exists when the universe is ready to come to an end, why wouldn't we try to prevent it?



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
i dunno if we wud try to stop it, i mean, there wud be nothign we cud do, really, to stop it. i think our only option wud be involving leaving that current time frame or dimension/physical realm of some sort, but that wud just be escaping it.
id imagine its hard to stop the universe from ending



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
i dunno if we wud try to stop it, i mean, there wud be nothign we cud do, really, to stop it. i think our only option wud be involving leaving that current time frame or dimension/physical realm of some sort, but that wud just be escaping it.
id imagine its hard to stop the universe from ending


I don't think it would be possible to stop. You would need more power and energy than the universe contained because the balck hole that gives us the big bang already contains everything in the known universe and converted it into energy.(I think


But escaping to another dimension may be a feasible option.

String theorists are betting that extra dimensions do indeed exist; in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.

there are a proven 11, with a theorized 27
theyre done with math, so its hard to predict how they look. a growin idea has them as little curls or jetties going off away from our 3/4 dimensions
with luck, we cud reach that point, but, in theory, leaving the 3/4 physical dimensions might not matter, the others are still part of this universe.



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

Originally posted by kinglizard
in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.

there are a proven 11, with a theorized 27
theyre done with math, so its hard to predict how they look. a growin idea has them as little curls or jetties going off away from our 3/4 dimensions
with luck, we cud reach that point, but, in theory, leaving the 3/4 physical dimensions might not matter, the others are still part of this universe.


I heard somewhere the other dimensions could be described like a stack of plates.(I will try to find a link) However I doubt if humans could survive such a thing. Regardless of what the unproved science of string theory can tell us.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
I heard somewhere the other dimensions could be described like a stack of plates.(I will try to find a link) However I doubt if humans could survive such a thing. Regardless of what the unproved science of string theory can tell us.

the problem wud come into play because we has humans exist in our three or four dimensions, and never interact with the others. but, in theory, we live and were formed in the universe with multiple dimensions, so y wudnt we exist in all? i dunno, if we cant/dont, then u can have those other dimensions where you can banish people like in movies. but otherwise, it cud be a fluid movement, to come after we leave these four. cud we then transcend time, if we leave it behind?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

Originally posted by kinglizard
in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.

there are a proven 11, with a theorized 27
theyre done with math, so its hard to predict how they look. a growin idea has them as little curls or jetties going off away from our 3/4 dimensions
with luck, we cud reach that point, but, in theory, leaving the 3/4 physical dimensions might not matter, the others are still part of this universe.


Where did you find this information. I don't think anyone can prove we have 11 dimensions, at this point it's sill just theory. Do you have a credible link to this information?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
heres a black hole in action.i think its now known that only 25% of the star is swallowed with the rest of it being flung into space.


skyandtelescope.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by squintingcat



heres a black hole in action.i think its now known that only 25% of the star is swallowed with the rest of it being flung into space.


skyandtelescope.com...


The link you provided isn't working, but I would like to read it. The only thing known to escape a black hole is the x-ray. Do you know if the star being consumed is to far outside the event horizon to be completely consumed?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join