:)

Buzz,

That is a very interesting description. I have always sort of envisioned the center or singularity as being like the end of a tornado funnel. Not a very scientific way to describe it I admit, but If there were another end to it as some seem to think, then I would think that it would also be drawing more into itself from that end also. To answer Steve's question, a probe or satellite wouldn't last long enough to really get any good information back. It would most likely not be able to transmit because of the distortion of space and pull of gravity even before it was crushed into a tiny mass of particles. I wish it were possible to go to the very edge of one and just observe what goes on and not get caught in the pull.
Buzz, I am going to start doing some more looking too. I know from the shows I have seen on TV that a lot of what they taught when I was in school has been discarded as incorrect. ;)

Ron :)

oops! Sorry, I edited my last post re: the probe idea while you were typing yours!

:)

Buzz,

We agree on that part for sure and I think most of what you posted will turn out to be factual so far as we now know. I have always had a problem with there being two entrances into a black hole as it just seemed strange to me and that was why I tried to use the tornado description to explain how I sort of envisioned one.

Edit: I am using the tornado just as an example of how I would envision a black hole looking if you could stand off and see the thing from top to bottom. The end of the tornado funnel would be the singularity, except in a tornado if you were at that end you would likely be pulled up and into the funnel and not down into it like in a black hole.


Ron :)

The thing about a black hole is that it pulls in towards singularity from ALL directions not just one so a good way to picture it would be as a central core with an extremely strong gravitational pull surrounded by a spherical dark "zone of no return" (like a planet's atmosphere for example) the outer boundary of which is the event horizon. The "hole" moniker is a bit misleading as it paints the picture of falling through an opening "down" towards a bottom or end. The reason it was originally called a hole is because when you look in its direction, you don't see a distinct object or mass, but because it basically imprisons all light, it is invisible and actually appears as a "black hole" against the background in the field of view. So in actuality, scientists were tipped off to the existence of black holes not because they saw one, but because they didn't!:LOL:

Buzz,

That is as good of an explanation as I have seen in any of the books. Kind of reminds me of the debates we had in school about light and colors. Since color was then determined to be the reflection of light off a surface that showed a color, then since black doesn't reflect light it must not be a color. A lot of days went into that discussion and a lot of books and theories were brought up. One of them was that since you light is absorbed by black you know it is black because you can't see it. :)

Ron

I found this while looking for something else that I had seen and read before but couldn't remember where. It is interesting to me and I located it by searching for Hubble Pictures.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/

Edit: This site may also give you some more information on just how little weactually know about black holes.

http://www.space.com/blackholes/

Ron :)

...

Geez. I knew I was going to miss some good stuff when this thread really got going. Oh, well, I'm back, a day short and a dollar long.

It has occurred to me, we have quite a brotherhood here. Curious folks that not only like to read and understand their world, but write ...and write. Imagine, if you will, a stranger stopping into this Lounge for a quick one. He would either be captured ...or severely "WTF" appalled. Gotta love it. :D

Thanks, Jamo. I wish I could take an astronomy class now ...and some political science classes too. Maybe after retirement ...along with my more stable amateur-astronomer brother. Actually I wish I was 17, again, with my reversed slim physique but generous memory, knowing what I know now.
Don't we all.


-----------



Figuratively, yes, Ron. Actually, I think the magnetism is able to bend, or sweep, an electron beam because electrons have a negative charge. The swept beam of invisible electrons cause light when they spray/strike the "light capable" phosphorus coating on the backside of the glass screen. (I know you know or knew this.) Only gravity (or the acceleration of an elevator) can bend light (or space, rather), light photons having a neutral or zero charge.

I like your idea of thinking of a worm hole as similar to black holes. Because of the extreme, nearly infinate, velocity that I imagine the expanding volume of visible matter achieved since the beginning, it is not so hard for me to imagine something with nearly infinately small volume. Perhaps, to the guy within, there is a lot of "relative" room inside black holes but not between worm hole ends.

There is a theme that runs through these posts regarding being torn apart by the immense gravity furnished by black holes. I would like to mention that a person in free fall to earth normally feels no gravity at all. So at the outer-space beginning of falling into a black hole, feet first, there would be an early point, high up, where the "attraction" of gravity would be identical to earth ...no big deal. But as ones body fell closer, and gravity increased, the significant difference of the attraction of ones feet, which were closer, would suddenly be much greater than the "attraction" to ones head which would be further away. We would theoretically be badly stretched (not sure I agree). Remember, gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the black holes center. Actually as we stand on earth, our feet are pulled only very slightly more than our head because of this principle. If we stood on our head the opposite would be true. A more extreme earthly example would be that one measurably weighs more at the base of a mountain than at the top. At any rate, anything left of our atoms in a black hole would be severely compressed, as Buzz says in his next post. If I ever fall into a black hole, I will try to lie (fall) horizontal and hope for the best. Preferably face down if any schwartzchild stretch causes a permanent, reshaping condition. Heh, heh. He said schwartz. :LOL:

-------------------


I'm glad you brought up this point, Buzz. Part of me found this hard to accept also, and still does. Stared at myself blankly in a mirror... But...

In conventional General Theory, we are led to believe that Einstein could, and did, demonstrate that gravity can be considered an acceleration, similar, identical, BUT DIFFERENT, to the momentum reaction of Newtons Laws of Motion model. Einstein goes on to describe this acceleration both mathematically and also from our preferred unique "frame of reference" where he states that anyone can consider their frame of reference to be at rest. But can we consider our frame of reference, with it's indisputable built-in acceleration (gravity) in every atom, to be at rest ...again, like we always do... and still observe the real universe.

rant on By what right do we have to claim that we "own" space with our constant, immutable size? Especially if we might to observe evidence to the contrary? Shall we have an Inquisiton to insist that God has made two laws of nearly identical, but separate, acceleration?rant off

Yet, I agree, we should accept there are two laws, and gravity is a special separate force, if that is only what we truly observe. I have no argument with convention nor the numbers. My problem is that I suspect both geometric perspectives are, and must continue to be, true ...at least true mathematically ...if that makes any sense.

...Firstly, given the speed of light at the relatively tiny distance we're talking about, any historical variation in mass or size would be way too small to be observed....

Buzz, I know you know this, but I'll say it anyway. Sunlight takes about eight minutes to get here. We cannot see the sun as it is, but only as it was in history, eight minutes ago. If a universal (literally) expansion has built up, over time, (to an extreme "fastest possible" velocity, that of C itself) it has unfortunately dawned on me the observable variation in apparent size should, and logically must, began to visually occur with very little difference in history. I think any non-linear expansion theory is stuck with it. Written formula/math-wise, because it is squared, use of the quantity C² is still equal to use of the quantity (-C²), but NOT identical geometrically. The most sophisticated math in the world doesn't automatically catch stuff like this. C, Light Speed itself, or matter speed, or half and half, depends on how one looks at it. It is a matter of interpretation of the evidence, something that has fooled us over and over. So I wonder.

You are absolutely correct in describing Euclidean geometry as ...the path of light basically radiates outward through the pupil...
But I was not the first one to throw Euclidean geometry out the window when it comes to relativity. Euclidean geometry allows for three dimensions. Einstein has demonstrated to us that there are at least four dimensions, up/down, sideways, front/back and the fourth dimension, time. (Notice how I corrected this description from my earlier hurried post? :rolleyes: )

The fourth dimension is similar to the axis of all three others (X,Y,Z) in that it is at a right angle to all three others. This is very difficult to imagine or draw. As an example, imagine a being living in a two dimensional world. Living on a flat sheet of paper, this being can see sideways, and front/back ...but cannot see, nor imagine, up/down. How would this being realise there is at least one more invisible dimension, up/down? This being might determine mathematically that this is so ...but be forever banned in the ability to directly observe such. But contrary to descriptions I have seen worded (almost identical to what I have just said), one should include both time and up/down as a possible future discovery to this being. And I'm also saying time can be directly observed, even in this two dimensional world. Lines of observable dimension simply again radiate from any given point. For a reason. The angle is time itself. Time is, always without fail, part of the other dimensions.

And that is why I said in my first post, "history (time) taken to see it is the fourth dimension in all its glory" regarding what we off-handedly know as the "vanishing point". That is part of what I love about such a theory. It IS so simple. I'm contending, contrary to popular belief, the fourth dimension can not only seemingly be directly observed, but the view is obvious to any child. It is one of those DUH things. I'm saying apparently the fourth dimension CAUSES our surroundings to appear, Euclidean, including a vanishing point, as our surroundings most certainly do appear. We all see the effect. What do you think the root cause is? That is what I asked myself ....as I stood helplessly staring in the mirror. It wasn't so funny at first.

Therefore, because of it's simplicity, and my own insane pride, I insist my theory qualifies as Elegant¹. ;)

¹Characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style.
1. attractive and graceful or stylish
2. cleverly simple and clear:

Of course, it is probably dead wrong, but Elegant never-the-less. :CRY:
Yes, I admit, I'm embarrassed how long I've been "banging" away on this (pardon the pun). :o
But I haven't lost my sense of humor over it. :3DSMILE:

At one less sophisticated time, that of Aristotle, gravity was thought to exist because "things belong on the ground". Today, we presently believe that the simple vanishing point exists because it "belongs that way".

And, in keeping on subject:
To an observer at a faster rate of "gravitational matter expansion", our entire universe would soon appear to be a black hole, as he far "outran" our relative volume. Space ...the final frontier. Bigger than we think.


Buzz, you seem to have a particularily good handle on this stuff. Is it a fervent hobby, or are you a pro? How about some of you other guys?

---------------
Thanks, Mike. Actually got back and into a couple of beers last night after an unusually quick 29 hour round trip. Between lack of sleep, beer and neccessary spousal greeting, it disabled me from posting stuff like this. I have enough trouble when fully alert. :JEKYLHYDE

Wes

...

:LOL:

Wes,

I enjoyed your post and if you can do that with just two beers, think what you could accomplish with a 6 pack. :)
On the subject of worm holes, the TV series Star Gate kind of touches on what I was trying to say about two places huge distances apart could be brought together if space were warped. They step into the gate and presto, a few seconds at most later they are on another planet many light years away. This again goes back to the professor who used the piece of paper and two dots and showed that by folding the paper so the dots were together you would be able to step from one to the other with no loss of time to yourself. But to those still in normal time, you may have been gone for many years. I believe one of Einstein's theories deals with this that as you approach the speed of light, time for you slows down, but for the people still on Earth it would stay at a constant speed. There fore you might age 1 year while they aged 100 years. I know this is over simplified, but the theory of relativity does cover several things. And if you don't believe me, just look around. Nearly everyone has relatives. :LOL:

Ron :p

Wow! Great stuff! I knew one of these days I was going to miss something good by not checking in on the weekend.

I have not caught up on the whole thread yet - that will take some time and some serious beer. Has anybody mentioned string theory yet?

Steve

That it most certainly does, Wes.:D:D:D

The human condition does render us resistant to the ability to conceive of or visualize space or relative motion in the 4th dimension. This is mainly because the velocities at which we normally move relative to our immediate, observable physical environment are so low that "movement" in the 4th dimension is painfully slow and "time" appears to us as linear and constant. Cobra owners tend to lose this limitation as the velocities and g-forces involved can reverse the clock and make even the more elderly among us feel like a kid again.:3DSMILE:

No, not a pro Wes, just an ordinary guy fascinated by the world around me and even more so by what I don't know and can't see. And I'm hungry for more so please keep the food for thought coming!

Your thoughts on "dark energy" causing the expansion of the universe to actually speed up as opposed to slowing down?? Could it be something so simple as a natural repulsion between differently charged objects that is coming into play as the effect of gravitational pull is diminished by objects moving further away from one another?.

Ron, the folded paper example is an excellent one for trying to get a grasp on the relative, fluid nature of time and space.
One way for the curious to get a feel for the relationship between distance, velocity and time (as Wes touched on in his last post) is to view a distant celestial object through a good telescope with the understanding that as you stand here and now, you are looking "at the past" because of the time it took for the light from that object to reach your eyes.

Move on now to imagining you had a scope powerful enough to let you see the surface of a planet one light hour away (roughly 11,160,000 miles). You would see that surface 1 hour "back in time".

Now imagine you could travel to that planet at the speed of light and immediately turn around and look back towards the spot you left on earth. You would see the earth one hour back in time or, the exact time you left an hour earlier. In essence, you would be able to see earth exactly as you left it at the time that you left it. Easy enough, right?

Suppose you kept looking back towards earth as you traveled to the planet? What would you see then? You would see time "stand still". Everything would appear frozen until you slow or stop and then things would start moving again. If you move away at double the speed of light while looking back, you would be able to watch everything "roll back in time" - including yourself moving backwards - to one hour before you left by the time you reach the surface of the planet. And you'd see all this in "real time" (as far as you're concerned, anyway).

Of course this is a huge oversimplification. Other effects of light speed travel would render looking out the window VERY low on your list of priorities.:JEKYLHYDE

Oh man! We're only just coming to terms with the 4th dimension and now you want to talk about 11 dimensions!!??:CRY::LOL:

:)

Buzz,

If you could travel at the speed of light and look out a window just what would you see? You couldn't see what was in the past because you would be traveling at the speed the light was. The future, doubtful. How can there be a future with us in it until we have lived it as the present. Yesterday is the past and is gone. Now is the present which was the future a few moments ago and which in another moment or so will be the past. I have heard both side of this argued by time travel fans and some of them actually make sense in a way. If there is a future and we are in it already, then that would tend to indicate that we have lived a life before this and are now on our way to establishing yet another future or parallel dimension.
I must contact Spock for the real explanation behind all of this.:rolleyes:

Ron :3DSMILE:

The past may be gone from a linear time point of view Ron, but you can still see it every time you look towards a distant planet or star. That glow or twinkle you are seeing right now actually happened hundreds or thousands of years ago. Some of the stars you are looking at right now may no longer even exist - they may have gone supernova and disappeared years, even centuries ago, but the light from that event just hasn't reached us yet. So we see the star now as it was when the light hitting the back of our retinas left its surface many, many years ago.

If someone on a planet a two thousand and nine light years away had a scope that could see the surface of the earth, they could watch in real time - right now - the events leading up to the crucifiction of Christ.

And - if you look back towards earth as you accelerate away from it faster than the speed of light, you will most certainly see events "roll backwards" as you overtake the light leaving the earth at normal lightspeed.

Buzz,

Agreed on those points as the light that we see from the stars left there many years ago and as you said they may not even exist any more.

And how do you get around the theory that nothing can exceed the speed if light? This has always made me wonder as all of our short history has been filled with that can't be done and it was. Men can't fly and they do. In airplanes or other means but taken literally, men can't fly like Superman. Also the nothing can ever go faster than 100 MPH.

I have studied several theories about why nothing can exceed the speed of light from the fact the mass would become so huge to the fact that if you reached the speed of light there wouldn't be anything left to give the extra little boost top go past it.

Please explain in a little more detail how a person on another planet with a scope could look back here and see things in real time. Unless you are using the time delay in the light from there to here, which I still believe would depend on when they looked back.

Ron :confused:

This is a pretty good simple explanation of Black Holes and how they affect things. It is a FAQ page about them.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

Ron :)

That pretty much sums it all up in normal humanspeak terms right there, Ron! Good link.

As for how an entity on a distant planet would be able to "see into our past" in their "real time" if they had a powerful enough scope - it's just a point of view reversal to the same scenario in which we are looking at their past every time we see a distant star.

Thanks, Buzz. I found the idea repulsive at first ...but then, as I got older, began to appreciate that far-out ideas can spring into our mind at all. Not all of them work out of course, Elegant or not. :LOL:


I like this, Buzz. I think it might sell a bit easier to a youngster than my ultra-scary "Big Banging" answer to, "Why do people on the ground look so small?"


We think we are learning. It's all like Schrödinger's Cat. Perhaps we will finally open the box and the alive/dead cat does not even exist. Cat fraud. p***y illusion. :LOL:


You would like MORE? I will get back later with more convoluted reasoning. I must conclude here, somewhere.



At this point charged stellar objects are considered to be so far away that the effect is negligible compared to gravity. But perhaps the effect is not negligible. All was much closer eons ago. We currently can't measure gravity or "charge" between galaxies.

Perhaps each galaxy is separately expanding in an accelerated "constant big bang" away from a black hole at the center. For the moment, consider that, if the expansion/gravity was merely an inertial reaction to expanding action and gravity was not an attractive force at all, then any "like" static charge between galaxies might still be considered to have a slight constant repulsion, not the least bit thwarted by inter-galaxial gravitational attraction ...the net force would then be repulsive, albeit weak in the distance. Perhaps, since the law is like charges repel, and two neutral charges are like, the absence of all gravity even allows for neutral to repel neutral. **)

But over eons of time, galaxies should fly apart with no hoaky homogeneously dark matter (or anti-matter) invention necessary. The sense of "gravity" may exist only within each galaxy ...not across deep space. And it is absolutely true ...we do not observe or measure gravitational effects across deep space ...only within each of the galaxies themselves. That lack of ability to measure inter-galaxy is why we didn't know if the universe were open or closed for so long. Ordinary expansion (1912, Vesto Slipher) still allowed for closure. We didn't know it is probably open until the recent (1998, High-z Supernova Search Team) discovery of universal accelerated expansion (not the same as my local accelerated expansion speculation). String Theory?? Shucks, difficult mechanical problems in automobiles usually turn out to be much simpler than we thought. By Murphy's Law, the universe must also work this way ...not?

MORE:
I mentioned in the first post that, "Of course, I have found an unmentionable flaw in it. But nothing is perfect."
The flaw is the principle that one weighs less at the top of a mountain than at the base (this is true). It seems that, if an inertial expansion were taking place, one should weigh more at the top of a mountain, since the acceleration must increase to maintain relative size appearance or else the mountain would slowly visually flatten.

If we go back to Einsteins single elevator, the scientists struggle to tell whether they are in a field of "attractive" gravity or being reeled up in an accelerated manner by some outside force. Suppose the scientists have a stepladder. Now, when one of them climbs to the top, he notes that he weighs the same with his extremely accurate scale. Of course a stepladder is not as tall as a mountain but the diminished effect must theoretically be the same. Now these scientists have performed a test that reveals the real answer. Einstein's elevator and earths gravity are different.

So we have the final answer. Or do we? Suppose the scientist at the top of the ladder discovers that, indeed he weighs less at the top. The inertial elevator and normal earth gravity are identical. Eureka!

How could this be? Well one of the tenets of Special Relativity states that as objects achieve ever greater velocities, they shall "fore-shorten" in a Lorenz Transformation (there is a formula, the Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contraction Ratio, to deal with this).

But now, and this is my key point, think what may happen in simple terms. During an acceleration, a rocket observed passing us must be slightly shorter, depending on it's velocity relative to us. At very high speeds (99.9% light, or nearly C) the rocket gets shorter to a much more noticable degree until it is zero length dimension at exactly full C. But in what manner does it get shorter? If it shrinks from the front, then Captain Kirk, who is driving up front, experiences slightly less acceleration than Scotty, who is tending to the rear engines, as he slows down and gets drawn closer to Scotty. If it shrinks from the rear, then Scotty experiences slightly greater acceleration to "catch up" to Kirk. The relative effect is logically identical either way and every way in between. And it is logically forever constant for "forever" constant acceleration.

So, now, in the elevator, the same thing may logically occur. All because it is not at a uniform velocity, but an accelerated velocity. The scientist at the top of the ladder should experience several things different. He should weigh less. Time should pass more quickly for him. A peep hole in the side of the elevator should let light hit the opposite wall with slightly less curvature (and less drop) downward ...than the original Einstein peep-hole at the base of the elevator. The gravitational lensing effect is less in the "weaker field" at the top of the ladder.

Scientists tested the clock thing/twin paradox by sending up an atomic clock to fly around in a high speed jet. Although they could only achieve moderate speeds the the ever so slight effect was evident. An identical synchronized atomic clock on earth aged more.

I would like to send up two clocks, one in the front of the plane, the other in the rear. The clock on the ground should run slowest. The clock in the rear of the plane, medium. The clock in the front of the plane, fastest. Unless acceleration cancels this out when the plane decelerates back to earth rest. Or I've mixed fast vs slow. I'm getting confused.
Curses! Perhaps foiled again. :CRY:

And that is pretty much the end of my story.

Wes

...

Ron, that dark energy clip was really cool. I just read this book called "The Neptune Files" about how Neptune & Uranus (jokes not) was found. Uranus was found mathmatically. Its position was predicted, and eventually astonomers pointed their telescopes to see if it was there (and it was). Basically, Neptune would not behave. It was this odd behavior that led some to "predict" another planet was out there.

I work in science. I have long ago come to the conclusion that common sense is a rare predictor of truth. As soon as you think you know the answer or the outcome, you are surprised by the reality. Now, what surprises me is when the outcome does match expectations. And even then, I am wary.

In the early days of my career, this tendancy used to really bother me. Things should be more orderly. But that's how the ancients (and all the way though the 19th century felt) and that's what tends to slow progress. Its the Truth we are after, even if we do not like it. And, its what makes what I do so intersting! How boring it would be if there was nothing to learn or figure out.

So for years, scientists have believed (without evidence) that the universe was slowing down, like some cosmological analog to a fireworks display. And rather than find out for sure, they generated theory on top of theory with an assumption-as-fact as the foundation. Then someone decides to take a look (to be fair, technology usually lags theory in terms of being able to check for sure, some of Einsteins predictions are only now getting the thorough check-out they deserve because we now have the ability to do it) and lo and behold, things are not as they "should be".

Wanna get famous? Read books about scientists and their lifelong quests to prove something. Find something that has not been checked out yet. Use technology to check it out. Maybe, actually, more than likely, you will get to pull a block out of someone's foundation. And you will be famous.

Mike

Mike,

So much of what we were taught in school has turned out to be just plain wrong that I no longer refer to what I learned there but try to look at the latest data I can find on the Universe. I did see some pictures of an old cave painting that showed some planet in an orbit and the scientists all laughed at it and said it was just the dreaming of some cave man. Then low and behold as they got the Hubble working, that planet was not only there but in the very orbit it had been shown in. Makes me wonder how people that long ago could know and figure out things that we seen unable to do today.

Ron :)

During my wild speculative excursion about imagineering how gravity might be mechanically pictured to work as a simple expansion, I reserved an alertness for all sorts of possible related data that someone had likely thought this up before. **)

Being the only one to think up something weird is not usually a good thing. Specifically, the word, "crackpot" leaps to mind. :rolleyes:

At the time, my dirt-bike buddy was deep into pyramids and their magical ability to sharpen razor blades etc. He had a book that gave the formula to build a small one and save big money on blades. Some of you may remember this brief populist idea from the '70's era.

I'm not much for magic, but the the ratio theme using pi was not lost on me. Apparently the symbolic shape, notably starting (or ending) at a point and radiating outward, was pretty important to the Egyptians and even the South Americans that followed a similar "tribute to math and eternity" theme. They were, of course, also avid astronomers. Gotta love the Ancients.

In my defense, I am not the only one that appreciated this. ;)

Yeah, I know, I'm still a crackpot. Luckily, it won't affect my professional career. :JEKYLHYDE

Wes

...

:)

Wes,

Yes, I remember the days of the pyramids and the sharpening of razor blades and other magical things they did. I also read some books on them back then and even built a very small one out of concrete and nothing at all happened to the toys that I left inside it.

Ron :rolleyes: