It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


major shifts occouring in science?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:41 PM
Well, getting back to light and, for this purpose, the idea that everything around us is moving "away" due to our observation of red shift...

If all matter is continually moving toward the singularity, and at the event horizon frozen in time wouldn't everything appear to be moving "away" from the observer (because the observer is actually moving "away" from everything) on the inside which is actually moving "away" toward the singularity. It takes an unknown and assumed infinite amount of time to move from the event horizon inside the black hole, so why wouldn't light behave in the way it does to the observer?

We are all moving toward ourselves because we are all (along with everything we see) still in the singularity.

This begs the question. How would we move away from matter that is further inside the singularity? Well everything is based on the observer (our contemporary understanding of quantum mechanics describes - see the double slit experiment) and thus, in our case we are moving away. Everything is moving away from everything, even though it is not moving at all. This is a form of spooky action at a distance we have not yet discovered. Another solution is that as you get closer to the singularity, you would move faster toward it than anything farther away. On the same note, any matter closer to the event horizon would move slower. Therefore, is it either you moving away, or the matter moving away? Neither. To the observer everything appears to be moving away due to the relative nature of it to us. However, I believe everything is being 'stretched' between the event horizon and the singularity. That would explain an 'expanding' universe.

I also think this accounts for gravity being so "weak" because it is basically cancelling itself out, while the other forces move more freely because they are not forced to act within this equillibrium. This turns modern physics on it's head, because string theory says almost the opposite. It states that gravity is free flowing, and the other forces are tied down which makes them stronger. Let me ask you, which seems more reasonable?

I guess we can discuss this more if you would like, and maybe put together a theory if we can find a mathematics geek to put it into the language of numbers.

Either way, it's been a blast chatting.

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by sbctinfantry

i must admit to enjoying your model as it is clean

i am having a bit of a problem with the singularity theorised called a white hole,
we have always looked at our place in the universe with the idea that what we find locally is in fact what we find everywhere. the black hole as a "Gravity" solution to the rotation curve problem requires on object that has such massive gravity that relativistic effects are encountered. the event horizon and gravity collapse is a math matical "fit" for what is required in a galaxy to hold the galaxy together under "gravity" alone.

this produces a monster of gravitation,
i would contend that if a seconary "binding force" was used in the math (rotation curve problem) the size scales would be greatly effected.
the other point is a gravity "caustic" should be present as the center of mass for the galaxy


posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:47 PM
And all this time I've told that science had all the answers.
I guess in a way it does, at least until it's time to re-evaluate them so called theories.
Looks like even time itself has been decaying.

<< 1   >>

log in