Thread: Huge Black Hole
View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2009, 10:11 AM
Wes Tausend Wes Tausend is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota, USA,
Posts: 920
Not Ranked     
Default

...

I hesitate to start this post and then get called to work minutes later. Curse work when there is philosophy to be done..

I think that quasars were finally determined to be powerful distant galaxies rather than a single star. Perhaps confused with pulsars which are pulsing neutron stars remaining after a Super Nova. Large neutron stars (larger than 40 solar masses?) collapse into black Holes because their gravitational force exceeds the ability of the neutrons to have any atomic space between them, whatsoever.

Black Holes have been described an outer planetary edge (or radius) where no light can reflect back out. The size or look of a planetary surface of a Black Hole is very tiny. At the center of a black hole the singularity point has zero volume and infinite density.

When Einstein was imagineering his General Theory, the theory that included not just matter and light (E=MC˛) but also gravity, he imagined two scientists in an elevator being drawn up from gravity-free space at an accelerated rate of 32 ft per sec per sec. In this situation, the scientists, unable to see the exterior, would assume they are in a gravitational field identical to earth. From that simple assumption, during a thought experiment, Einstein built the mathematics to describe gravity as a pure acceleration that causes space to appear curved. The moon orbits us in a straight line (momentum makes it go straight) but the curvature of space makes the orbit appear round. Furthermore, a light beam shining straight through a hole in the side of the elevator will hit the wall slightly lower because of the acceleration and the time light takes to travel to an observer. Gravity will bend light. That is confusing to our senses.

I did find a way to make it appear simpler to myself.
But it further violates our innate belief that we are standing still, to an even greater ridiculous degree than finding out we are not the center of the universe.

What I imagined is that: suppose two elevators accelerate away from each other with a pair of scientists each, two Americans and two Chinese. Now each thinks they are in earths gravitational field. If they did look out, they would see that they are rapidly moving away from one another and the spell would be broken. But suppose matter has a natural, built-in accelerating explosion. Like a constant humongous bang. One would first think that the atoms of such matter would become jumbled beyond disarray. But think about atoms again. They are mostly open space. The nucleus and relative electrons, if they were the size of pencil dots, would be about 10 miles apart. And yet these sparse dust clouds maintain their integrity. Absolutely amazing. So, I say, whats a little controlled expansion thrown in?

So now, when our scientists look out of the elevator, they may be both moving apart, yet maintain their relative size appearance as though they were standing still. As long as the elevator is being drawn up. Or is it necessary? See, in this instance, if the elevators were foot-to-foot, the expansion itself would create an acceleration. An acceleration identical to gravity, perhaps. Nobody would know the difference. How could they measure it? With a ruler at Absolute Rest, whatever that is.

It does not take long to realise that the acceleration apart would soon exceed the velocity of light. So it seems it couldn't happen. But then think about light. If one were to shine a flashlight at a nearby wall, we assume, and observe, the light comes out of the flashlight and strikes the wall. But light has a peculiar property. At the velocity of light itself, time stands still according to the first Special Theory. So the light beam, in effect, arrives at the wall in no time at all in it's own observation. One could say, then, that the light really has no separate source and destination qualities. It can be said to travel either way. Or the walls could be moving.

So here's my theory. Light stands Absolutely Still and matter expands at observable velocity C. Matter expands faster and faster, but can never be observed to be faster than C. It can be slower, as Mike (bomelia) has pointed out concerning light, but never faster. Even the formula, E=MC˛, in it's simplest terms, basically says that energy and matter are related by a constant accelerating velocity. Otherwise it would read E=MC.

Here's my evidence. We know that we live in a four dimensional world (up, down. sideways and time) but it looks like a three dimensinal world. Or does it? Imagine you are touring a skyscraper with your grandchild. The child is asking, "Grandpa (or Grandma), why do people on the ground look so small?" You can say, "It's because everything we view is slightly historic because of the limited speed of light (or matter). Matter is expanding so fast that stuff close looks big. And stuff far away looks small because it was, a longer moment ago. The different history (time) taken to see it is the fourth dimension in all its glory. The expansion has become so fast, even slightly earlier, everything was a singularity. I read this in the Lounge, little one, so it must be true."

Of course, I have found an unmentionable flaw in it. But nothing is perfect. And time travel would really suck. Yet, it's my theory (and a few others) and I'm sticking to it. Or it is sticking to me. I have tried to shake it, really.

Rats. The phone rang. I'm called to work on an empty coal bucket.

Wes

...
Reply With Quote