The Strange Physics—Inside Black Holes

**Times Roman** · 10-08-2011, 04:55 AM

This is from an article in Discover Magazine. Interesting reading, some of you may care to follow the link to the article?

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jun...tart:int=2&-C=

**Flagg** · 10-08-2011, 06:26 AM

Ice find TR and an interesting read.

Wouldn't mind reading this guys non laymens journal article when he submits it.n

**Times Roman** · 10-08-2011, 10:23 AM

This is one area of special interest to me. I have read many books/articles on the subject, and relish the opportunity to discuss this 'round the campfire while passing around abottle of red wine.

For more than a couple of years, I've been thinking about the equivelant of an anti gravity "black hole" where instead of attracting everything, it repulses everything, even the fabric of space/time. So what would be the nature of this volume, void of space/time? Is this what Star Trek referred to as "sub-space"?

**Flagg** · 10-08-2011, 01:45 PM

I thought sub-space, was where radio transmissions transmit through space.

I always thought, that if a black hole can absorb all that energy, even stars, where does that energy go? Energy can neither be created, or destroyed, it can only change from one state to the next.

Ever wondered, if what the Big Bang was, was the result of one blackhole that had absorbed the energy of millions of stars over billions of years, and reaching a bursting point?

**gbrice75** · 10-08-2011, 07:50 PM

Haz would like this thread...

**Times Roman** · 10-10-2011, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by gbrice75

Haz would like this thread...

he's another one I have not seen around here lately............?

**MR-FQ320** · 10-10-2011, 09:57 AM

I may have mentioned this before but :

Heres my theory on Black holes and the universe generally, its cyclic, it starts with a Big Bang, then it spreads out and cools down, stars ex/implode to create black holes, black holes swallow everything up including other blachk holes and become larger and larger until there is just one super massive black hole when that cannot contain itself and Big Bang time agin.

Short and missing a few equations here and there but i think im onto something.

I have been watching all the Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman narrating recently - its freakin Mindblowin man - gotta download it.

**gbrice75** · 10-10-2011, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

he's another one I have not seen around here lately............?

He texted me right after we had the baby, so I know he's ok!

**crazy_rocks** · 10-10-2011, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by MR-FQ320

I may have mentioned this before but :

Heres my theory on Black holes and the universe generally, its cyclic, it starts with a Big Bang, then it spreads out and cools down, stars ex/implode to create black holes, black holes swallow everything up including other blachk holes and become larger and larger until there is just one super massive black hole when that cannot contain itself and Big Bang time agin.

Short and missing a few equations here and there but i think im onto something.

I have been watching all the Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman narrating recently - its freakin Mindblowin man - gotta download it.

i always thought maybe its how the universe recycles itself like it comes out somewhere far away but so far we have not seen an exit of stuff spewing out. maybe your right. i hope not though. imagine being God and you gotta teach people to behave all over again.

**Times Roman** · 10-10-2011, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by MR-FQ320

I may have mentioned this before but :

Heres my theory on Black holes and the universe generally, its cyclic, it starts with a Big Bang, then it spreads out and cools down, stars ex/implode to create black holes, black holes swallow everything up including other blachk holes and become larger and larger until there is just one super massive black hole when that cannot contain itself and Big Bang time agin.

Short and missing a few equations here and there but i think im onto something.

I have been watching all the Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman narrating recently - its freakin Mindblowin man - gotta download it.

it's waaay too soon to have a strong theory at this point, so your theory is as good as any, imho. the whole crux of the theory called the big bang is that the speed of light is constant, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light doesn't "slow down"/"speed up" over the billions of years.

Problem:
We have hints that neutrinos move faster than light
We have hints that space/time can move faster than light

If any of these prove true, it is possible that the big bang may not have happened.

So right now, a wise and humble scientist will, at a minimum, admit that we don't know enough to really know.

And right now, the winds of the scientific community are blowing in the direction that instead of a big crunch at the end (cyclic universe, as you are suggesting), that there could be a "big rip" with the universe expanding so fast at the end that it surpasses even the speed of light, where the average density of the universe approaches zero per given volume, ripping even the fabric of quarks and their elements apart, and the universe will continue to expand and cool down "forever" (trillions of years into the future)

I enjoy the mental thought experiment.... now where did i put that jug of wine?

**Times Roman** · 10-10-2011, 09:39 PM

btw... if you watch the clip (pane 1), they are theorizing that the end result of a black hole is the creation of a baby universe, which is, as they suggest, possibly how our universe was born. But this is not a new theory, as it has been kicking around for years.

**Shol'va** · 10-10-2011, 10:39 PM

Did someone say Black Hoes?

**Times Roman** · 10-11-2011, 03:09 AM

No. I said black hoes

**Times Roman** · 10-11-2011, 03:10 AM

or maybe I said black hose?

**Times Roman** · 10-11-2011, 03:12 AM

Or was it black hose?

**MR-FQ320** · 10-11-2011, 08:47 AM

hahaha^^^^^^ you guys are killing me .....

**MR-FQ320** · 10-11-2011, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Times Roman

it's waaay too soon to have a strong theory at this point, so your theory is as good as any, imho. the whole crux of the theory called the big bang is that the speed of light is constant, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light doesn't "slow down"/"speed up" over the billions of years.

Problem:
We have hints that neutrinos move faster than light
We have hints that space/time can move faster than light

If any of these prove true, it is possible that the big bang may not have happened.

So right now, a wise and humble scientist will, at a minimum, admit that we don't know enough to really know.

And right now, the winds of the scientific community are blowing in the direction that instead of a big crunch at the end (cyclic universe, as you are suggesting), that there could be a "big rip" with the universe expanding so fast at the end that it surpasses even the speed of light, where the average density of the universe approaches zero per given volume, ripping even the fabric of quarks and their elements apart, and the universe will continue to expand and cool down "forever" (trillions of years into the future)

I enjoy the mental thought experiment.... now where did i put that jug of wine?

But 'time' slows down the closer you get to a 'denser' object with more gravitational pull. Its all relative, if your in a black hole then time will appear to move more slowly than to somebody who is stood on the edge of a black hole watching you.

you are right though, theories are theories, er Darwinism anybody ? ( where are the skeletons of the creatures between apes evolving to neanderthals ?)

Im pretty confident that the neutrinos are moving faster than light, but that doesnt change that much, einsteins calculations are still correct, its just that these things can move quicker than previously thought possible. the speed of light is still the speed of light. Why does light have to be the fastest moving object on earth anyway, I never ever got that at school.

The problem with mankind is that we are our own deabilitating factor, we put limits on our own progression and discovery.

Chardonnay for me please.

**Times Roman** · 10-11-2011, 09:20 AM

part of my whole argument against the "bangers" is that they banter around this theory like it is a fact, and, in fact, it is NOT a fact. Only a theory.

the reason neutrinos are not supposed to be FTL, is because, like all matter, they have mass. As an object picks up speed, it also picks up mass... (speed = energy, and energy = mass times C x C). As the object approaches light speed, the mass it acquires begins to grow exponentially, until, as it arrives at light speed, it becomes infinitely massive. The reason it is not supposed to be able to exceed light speed is that an object cannot get more massive after it is already infinitely massive. Make sense? so if neutrinos are truly FTL, then there is some flaw to Einsteins General Theory, and in turn, to his famous equation.

**Times Roman** · 10-11-2011, 09:21 AM

I'm not saying that the neutrinos are not moving FTL, but if they are, then big implications to the "laws" of physics as we know them now

**Flagg** · 10-11-2011, 02:55 PM

The neutrinos apparently went approximately 0.0025% faster than light - that'd be about fifteen thousand miles per hour faster, give or take 10000 MPH or so.