To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: No Big Bang
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > Physics News

billyandtherockets
ohmy.gif after months of absence from this forum and months of thinking I believe the big bang was actually a big EXAUST from an adjacent universe in the BUBBLE MULTIVERSE (matter can neither be created nor destroyed).
Perhaps our smaller BUBBLE was adjacent to a BUBBLE universe that was already too expanded and exausted into our practically empty Bubble universe. Now as we expand it may be our turn to exaust into a LESS FULL Bubble universe.
Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed I wonder how the original bunch of matter came to be as it see saws between bubbles.
bill rose collectorart@cut.net
wcelliott
My own theory is something similar, but instead of a bubble, I think the origin of this universe was the creation of a black hole in a higher-dimensional space.

Think about it a second.

Everyone seems to agree that at the very early stages of this universe, there was an "inflationary" phase - Isn't this what a black hole would look like from the inside as it forms?

Can we fly to the edge of the known universe? No, because we'd have to go faster than the speed of light to get close to it. When particles fall through the Event Horizon, how fast are they going? The speed of light. The outer edge of our universe is the event horizon of the black hole we inhabit.

What's gravity? IMO, it's what Hawking Radiation looks like from inside the black hole - space leaving our universe through particles with "mass", which I believe are simply tears or rips between the 3D universe we know and the higher-order universe that sees this universe as a black hole in theirs.
prometheus
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Apr 19 2008, 03:37 AM)
ohmy.gif after months of absence from this forum and months of thinking I believe the big bang was actually a big EXAUST from an adjacent universe in the BUBBLE MULTIVERSE (matter can neither be created nor destroyed).
Perhaps our smaller BUBBLE was adjacent to a BUBBLE universe that was already too expanded and exausted into our practically empty Bubble universe. Now as we expand it may be our turn to exaust into a LESS FULL Bubble universe.
Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed I wonder how the original bunch of matter came to be as it see saws between bubbles.
bill rose collectorart@cut.net

But matter can be created and destroyed: what about a reaction like e- + e+ -> radiation ?
prometheus
QUOTE (wcelliott+Apr 19 2008, 04:33 AM)
My own theory is something similar, but instead of a bubble, I think the origin of this universe was the creation of a black hole in a higher-dimensional space.

Think about it a second.

Everyone seems to agree that at the very early stages of this universe, there was an "inflationary" phase - Isn't this what a black hole would look like from the inside as it forms?

Can we fly to the edge of the known universe? No, because we'd have to go faster than the speed of light to get close to it. When particles fall through the Event Horizon, how fast are they going? The speed of light. The outer edge of our universe is the event horizon of the black hole we inhabit.

What's gravity? IMO, it's what Hawking Radiation looks like from inside the black hole - space leaving our universe through particles with "mass", which I believe are simply tears or rips between the 3D universe we know and the higher-order universe that sees this universe as a black hole in theirs.

Inside a black hole space and time are so warped that light can only travel in the negative radial direction and yet we can see light coming towards us from all directions.

Also, a black hole as big as the observable universe would have a very large mass singularity at the center, which we don't observe.
yor_on
prometheus you've found the center of our universe :)
how quaint.

Where?
prometheus
QUOTE (yor_on+Apr 19 2008, 02:22 PM)
prometheus you've found the center of our universe smile.gif
how quaint.

Where?

Thats kinda the point. No centre. No singularity. smile.gif
philip347
no comment
yor_on
Or if you like, as the center can be seen as anywhere. any black hole will suffice as long as it's big enough..

Sh* this came out sounding like something from a pornflick :)
wcelliott
A key point to the concept of this being *inside* a black hole is that all the matter falling through the event horizon is passing through the speed of light.

Einstein's equations all yield unintuitive results for velocity = C, like time stops and the dimension in the direction of the velocity collapses to zero, and so a particle hitting the event horizon of a black hole actually spreads itself over the entire surface of the event horizon, etc..

When V > C, you find a term in the equation that's the square-root of negative one ("i"). I'm going to say that this "i" term is responsible for a lot of things that don't otherwise make sense in the theory, as nobody really knows what the physical meaning of "i" would represent.

Most theoretical physicists will take the position that "all bets are off" when talking about what goes on *inside* a black hole. I think *this* is what happens inside a black hole. This universe, as we know it. It isn't just particles that fall into black holes, a lot of space does, too.
prometheus
QUOTE (wcelliott+Apr 20 2008, 06:11 PM)
A key point to the concept of this being *inside* a black hole is that all the matter falling through the event horizon is passing through the speed of light.

Einstein's equations all yield unintuitive results for velocity = C, like time stops and the dimension in the direction of the velocity collapses to zero, and so a particle hitting the event horizon of a black hole actually spreads itself over the entire surface of the event horizon, etc..


Say you've got a cube and you accelerate it to the speed of light. Ignore for a moment that this is impossible. What you'll then have is a flat square (in maths we used to call them laminars) It would be exactly the same looking at it coming towards you - a square, but parallel to the direction of travel (thats the same direction as the velocity vector if ubavontuba happens to be reading this. I haven't forgotten that little gem smile.gif ) the measured length of the cube would be zero. When objects are foreshortened they don't spread out as you seem to imply.

QUOTE
When V > C, you find a term in the equation that's the square-root of negative one ("i").  I'm going to say that this "i" term is responsible for a lot of things that don't otherwise make sense in the theory, as nobody really knows what the physical meaning of "i" would represent.

Consider the kinetic energy of a massive particle at a speed v. If v < c then the KE is finite. for v = c the KE diverges, that is, it would take infinite KE to get a massive particle to a speed c. How much KE would it take to get a particle to go faster than c? I guess the answer would be 'more than infinity' (StevenA may know something about that wink.gif ) What relativity is telling us is that it is not possible to get a massive particle to go faster than c, not that weird things happen when that does happen.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When V > C, you find a term in the equation that's the square-root of negative one ("i").  I'm going to say that this "i" term is responsible for a lot of things that don't otherwise make sense in the theory, as nobody really knows what the physical meaning of "i" would represent.

Consider the kinetic energy of a massive particle at a speed v. If v < c then the KE is finite. for v = c the KE diverges, that is, it would take infinite KE to get a massive particle to a speed c. How much KE would it take to get a particle to go faster than c? I guess the answer would be 'more than infinity' (StevenA may know something about that wink.gif ) What relativity is telling us is that it is not possible to get a massive particle to go faster than c, not that weird things happen when that does happen.

Most theoretical physicists will take the position that "all bets are off" when talking about what goes on *inside* a black hole.  I think *this* is what happens inside a black hole.  This universe, as we know it.  It isn't just particles that fall into black holes, a lot of space does, too.

Theorists are quite happy to speculate about what happens inside a black hole. It's just they usually prefix it with something like "this will never be tested by experiment so it's not really physics." I know one thing that happens is space and time swap roles. That means inside a black hole it is impossible to avoid hitting the singularity in the same way as it is impossible to avoid tomorrow. Hawking wen into quite a bit of detail on this kind of thing in "A brief history of time." It's certainly not off limits.
wcelliott
QUOTE
When objects are foreshortened they don't spread out as you seem to imply.


What's the surface area of a black hole's event horizon?
kjw
QUOTE
wcelliott Posted on Today at 8:21 AM What's the surface area of a black hole's event horizon?

i think you can work it out by using the schwarzschild radius, but i am no expert (and i think the surface area would depend on whether the black hole is rotating or not)

maybe the resident experts can clarify
prometheus
QUOTE (wcelliott+Apr 20 2008, 10:21 PM)

What's the surface area of a black hole's event horizon?

It depends on the black holes mass and rate of rotation. For a Schwarzschild black hole its 4 pi r_s ^2 = 16 pi G^2 m^2 / c^4
kjw
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Yesterday at 5:39 PM maybe the resident experts can clarify
enter stage left
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Yesterday at 5:39 PM maybe the resident experts can clarify
enter stage left
prometheus Posted on Yesterday at 11:30 PM
xenisis
Think of this, we have like, I cant quite remember how many blackholes but their supposedly quite a few orbiting in are own galaxy. Now take that number of blackholes and how many theorized galaxies their is or can be seen.

Now we have a much bigger number. Now each one of those blackholes contains just as much blackholes that possibly exist in this universe.

Thats alot of universes! blink.gif
rpenner
Technically, these (Exhaust, Back end of a Black Hole) are not theories. They are at once inconsistent with GR and yet fail to provide replacement physics for GR.
midwestern
Simple expansion and contraction through cooling and reheating an object is the answer with revolutions to continue the cycle. Life giving is something different.
Laidback
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Apr 19 2008, 01:37 PM)
ohmy.gif after months of absence from this forum and months of thinking I believe the big bang was actually a big EXAUST from an adjacent universe in the BUBBLE MULTIVERSE (matter can neither be created nor destroyed).
Perhaps our smaller BUBBLE was adjacent to a BUBBLE universe that was already too expanded and exhausted into our practically empty Bubble universe.  Now as we expand it may be our turn to exhaust into a LESS FULL Bubble universe.
Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed I wonder how the original bunch of matter came to be as it see saws between bubbles.
bill rose collectorart@cut.net

The problem is that Multi-verses are illogical as The Universe as per definition refers to the Universe as encompassing all that is possible.. please make a note to use the two links provided..

Or alternativley please follow this link to read about what the REAL scientific community has to say about multiverses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiverse
Err~Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
QUOTE (wcelliott+Apr 19 2008, 02:33 PM)
What's gravity? 

Opposing velocities.

All density and or mass if treated as a sub-system of a much greater system is with a given quanta of potential energy, the greater the potential energy the greater the sub-systems force and or representation of its Potential upon other sub-systems potential, the Potential or force presented are via velocities, to which we should note a velocity is a portion of imparted potential energy with momentum to it as in PE/KE=V.

Now ~ Our planet is made of many sub-SUB systems and or potentials which are all experiencing compression towards the centre of our planet, that is if we note each and every potential is at minimum two or more opposing velocities in itself so for all of our planets mass and or potentials that's a hell of a lot of velocities that are all meeting at our planets core, of course compression is the key here, so one should imagine that our planet is experiencing compression, and that compression is from the total sum of the NEAR Vacuum plus all other solid masses as part of the Universes Potential Vs our Planets sum of Potential Energy, In fact we can imply the same analogy to the Suns Gravity or any other body within our Universe as the whole Universes Potential energy Vs whatever Potential energy we care to consider..

Err~Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
QUOTE (prometheus+Apr 19 2008, 06:19 PM)
But matter can be created and destroyed: what about a reaction like e- + e+ -> radiation ?

Maybe I am wrong here, but I am under the impression that matter is mass, and as far as I am concerned all mass consists of Potential Kinetic Energy, or best implied to consist with ratio of the two states..

As we should be aware energy can NOT be Destroyed nor Created but it can be exchanged and or converted from one state to the other..

To simplify, this means matter can be divided and imparted to other matter..

So it should be noted as we breakup matter we don't actually destroy it but rather imply the quanta is elsewhere, this is critical and very important to keep in mind as we near the sharing of something to else where the matter that is left is near zero so to speak, because in all reality that last bit can still be divided and divided forever and ever, or until we decide to take what is left and imply it is now part of else or some other matter..

Err~Cheers,

Peter J Schoen...
Laidback
QUOTE (prometheus+Apr 19 2008, 06:24 PM)
Inside a black hole space and time are so warped that light can only travel in the negative radial direction and yet we can see light coming towards us from all directions.

Also, a black hole as big as the observable universe would have a very large mass singularity at the center, which we don't observe.

You are somewhat correct, but I reason a Black-Hole should be treated as a Blue-Shifted region of the Universe, Due to the fact that a Black-Hole is a compression point and or a massive Potential relative to our rather insignificant potentials and or compression points responsible for our various levels of densities..

My reasoning has our whole galaxy in fact is a compression point with its respective Black-Hole at its core, in fact with my reasoning I have considered - The facts as to why we perceive that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate is due to the fact that our local mass IS itself experiencing Blue-shifting and or the exchange of our local masses kinetic energy is being exchanged to Potential energy.. Where the more our local mass is compressed, the closer are our local and or relative distances when compared to the rest of the universe, this shorter local distances has severe consequences to our measure of time compared to the measure of time for the rest of the universe, so as our time slows due to less kinetic energy and shorter distances, the rest of the universe would seem to speed up, err~and there is the reason why acceleration is perceived via Red-Shift, when in reality velocities remain relatively as is for the rest of the Universe..

<sigh> I don't expect most to understand what I have just attempted to explained but if you are well hearsed in relativity and or perhaps well advanced in astronomy you may, I dont know, but I wouldn't hold my breath as my theory entails many sections and or various fields of physics, so I believe it may be decades or even centuries ahead of its time!

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
dimazin
QUOTE (Laidback+May 24 2008, 12:33 AM)
and shorter distances

One meter of the space is shorter than one meter of the space?
Does the space travel ?
Laidback
QUOTE (dimazin+Jun 1 2008, 05:10 PM)
One meter of the space is shorter than one meter of the space?

The key in understanding how a meter of space is compressed, is by understanding Energy Concepts

The first thing we must consider is what is Energy?

I personally treat Energy as a dimension or a single reference.

Lets say this symbol or reference "-" is a unit of energy.

And lets say this symbol or reference is two "=" units of energy.
We could also have the two units of energy shown like this "--"

With the two formats as in "=" opposed to "--" we have the same quanta of energy and yet they differ, so what we need is two references so that should I state I have two units of energy I need to add or state how they are placed..

As in height by width or we can even refer to two units of energy as a Potential to do work for an amount of time..

For instance, if I defined height=Potential and width=Time and I said I had a quanta of energy that was one high by two wide you would immediately know I was implying to a quanta of energy that would imply "--"
You would also know we have two seconds of energy at a single potential.

Now lets say we compressed our Energy so we would have only one second of it, what do you think the result would be? a stronger and more solid force but for a shorter length of time?

Also:- Would I be correct if I implied Potential would have to have been increased?

Well lets consider it another way, say we compressed a whole lot of gas into a compressor, would I be correct if I stated:- what we would be doing is compressing gas into a liquid, and it should be noted the more we store in our compressor the greater our Potential Energy, and yes that's why compressors create that liquid..

So what has this to do with local space and or distances being compressed with the result that time and distances are shorter than they previously were?

Well everything! lets briefly consider our upper atmospheres Atoms and their expected and experienced compression to an atom of the same genre at sea level one should get a good idea what is entailed with compression, You see space as in the near vacuum is mass and in fact is not void and it should be noted the closer we position our selves to the core of our Earth and or galaxy or any other compression point, the shorter our percieved distances are..

And we can confirm much of this by considering the speed of light in a near vacuum and comparing it where there are many more opposing velocities such as a gas liquid and or solid..

If we refer to my previous model for our energy and imply each "-" is C^2 it is my hope you should understand how a rise and fall in Potential or a photon is propagated through space.

"----------" here we have a near vacuum
"=-------" And here we have the same near vacuum but now we have a photon in the model, please note how our initial model was a single potential and with 10 seconds of energy and now it has somewhere double the potential energy at the expense of one second of our systems energy is lost to this increase in potential. put simply our model has had some of the Kinetic energy and or time inferences passed on to imply compression and or an increase in potential energy and yes our model has been Blue-Shifted! As it only has nine seconds of change or Kinetic energy left to it, put simply the greater the magnitude of compression the greater magnitude of Blue-Shifting one should expect..

"-=-------" it is my hope that you are able to consider how we now have opposing velocities in our model and where the opposing velocities meet we have a photon, had our increased potential and or compression point been propagated within a solid then the photon would have to have been implied as a Electron, as it should be noted with a solid the potentials are higher via the many more opposing velocities involved in the makeup of the electron, so the quanta of the electron would be a dam sight slower only because in reality the space it has to be propagated through is compressed, even though it is compressed it still takes the same time whether it is compressed or fully decompressed to a near vacuum which is with very little opposing velocities, err at this point, I hope you understand that a solid is much the same as a near vacuum only its compressed a lot more due to its experience of many more opposing velocities to it!

Anyway..

Here are a few more frames of time taken at every second up to the point where the wave and or rise and fall of potential has been propagated.

"--=------"
"---=-----"
"----=----"
"-----=---"
"------=--"
"-------=-"
"--------="
"-----------" Note here, how the model has fully decompressed and if further change is required then our model must be open to changes.

So for our initial wave to be possible we needed to increase the near vacuums potential somewhere and the only way to do this was by compressing one of the dimensions..

It also should be noted the velocity must have been introduced via the compression of our first C^2 to which it simply passed it's increased Potential on to its neighboring Potentials, and had our model been a 3Dimensional model the wave would have been propagated as per how a radio transmission would have been propagated
QUOTE
Does the space travel ?
All space, density and or Mass is with change due to the fact we are referring to Potential Kinetic Energy that is constantly changing its ratio/s of how dense or its state of Potential presents as..

I Hope I have clarified basic physics to you and perhaps even given you a massive edge over many so called experts who have never and never will understand Force and Motion and or Potential and Kinetic Energy Rules.. If not could you please let me know? sad.gif

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
kjw
QUOTE
rpenner Posted: May 15 2008, 01:07 AM Technically, these (Exhaust, Back end of a Black Hole) are not theories. They are at once inconsistent with GR and yet fail to provide replacement physics for GR.

since they do not model reality, technically they are psychotic
dimazin
QUOTE (Laidback+Jun 2 2008, 02:38 AM)
The key in understanding how a meter of space is compressed, is by understanding Energy Concepts

The first thing we must consider is what is Energy?

I personally treat Energy as a dimension or a single reference.

Lets say this symbol or reference "-" is a unit of energy.

And lets say this symbol or reference is two "=" units of energy.
We could also have the two units of energy shown like this "--"

With the two formats as in "=" opposed to "--" we have the same quanta of energy and yet they differ, so what we need is two references so that should I state I have two units of energy I need to add or state how they are placed..

As in height by width or we can even refer to two units of energy as a Potential to do work for an amount of time..

For instance, if I defined height=Potential and width=Time and I said I had a quanta of energy that was one high by two wide you would immediately know I was implying to a quanta of energy that would imply "--"
You would also know we have two seconds of energy at a single potential.

Now lets say we compressed our Energy so we would have only one second of it, what do you think the result would be? a stronger and more solid force but for a shorter length of time?

Also:- Would I be correct if I implied Potential would have to have been increased?

Well lets consider it another way, say we compressed a whole lot of gas into a compressor, would I be correct if I stated:- what we would be doing is compressing gas into a liquid, and it should be noted the more we store in our compressor the greater our Potential Energy, and yes that's why compressors create that liquid..

So what has this to do with local space and or distances being compressed with the result that time and distances are shorter than they previously were?

Well everything! lets briefly consider our upper atmospheres Atoms and their expected and experienced compression to an atom of the same genre at sea level one should get a good idea what is entailed with compression, You see space as in the near vacuum is mass and in fact is not void and it should be noted the closer we position our selves to the core of our Earth and or galaxy or any other compression point, the shorter our percieved distances are..

And we can confirm much of this by considering the speed of light in a near vacuum and comparing it where there are many more opposing velocities such as a gas liquid and or solid..

If we refer to my previous model for our energy and imply each "-" is C^2 it is my hope you should understand how a rise and fall in Potential or a photon is propagated through space.

"----------" here we have a near vacuum
"=-------" And here we have the same near vacuum but now we have a photon in the model, please note how our initial model was a single potential and with 10 seconds of energy and now it has somewhere double the potential energy at the expense of one second of our systems energy is lost to this increase in potential. put simply our model has had some of the Kinetic energy and or time inferences passed on to imply compression and or an increase in potential energy and yes our model has been Blue-Shifted! As it only has nine seconds of change or Kinetic energy left to it, put simply the greater the magnitude of compression the greater magnitude of Blue-Shifting one should expect..

"-=-------" it is my hope that you are able to consider how we now have opposing velocities in our model and where the opposing velocities meet we have a photon, had our increased potential and or compression point been propagated within a solid then the photon would have to have been implied as a Electron, as it should be noted with a solid the potentials are higher via the many more opposing velocities involved in the makeup of the electron, so the quanta of the electron would be a dam sight slower only because in reality the space it has to be propagated through is compressed, even though it is compressed it still takes the same time whether it is compressed or fully decompressed to a near vacuum which is with very little opposing velocities, err at this point, I hope you understand that a solid is much the same as a near vacuum only its compressed a lot more due to its experience of many more opposing velocities to it!

Anyway..

Here are a few more frames of time taken at every second up to the point where the wave and or rise and fall of potential has been propagated.

"--=------"
"---=-----"
"----=----"
"-----=---"
"------=--"
"-------=-"
"--------="
"-----------" Note here, how the model has fully decompressed and if further change is required then our model must be open to changes.

So for our initial wave to be possible we needed to increase the near vacuums potential somewhere and the only way to do this was by compressing one of the dimensions..

It also should be noted the velocity must have been introduced via the compression of our first C^2 to which it simply passed it's increased Potential on to its neighboring Potentials, and had our model been a 3Dimensional model the wave would have been propagated as per how a radio transmission would have been propagatedAll space, density and or Mass is with change due to the fact we are referring to Potential Kinetic Energy that is constantly changing its ratio/s of how dense or its state of Potential presents as..

I Hope I have clarified basic physics to you and perhaps even given you a massive edge over many so called experts who have never and never will understand Force and Motion and or Potential and Kinetic Energy Rules.. If not could you please let me know? sad.gif

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

It needs sweet time to understand your theory. My thinking is that space is mathematical system of coordinates of universe.So the space can't be compressed . Ether can be compressed.
thinker
I must affirm the previous statement of antimatter/matter collision resulting in energy. Matter can become energy, and likewise energy may become matter, as in the first Plank seconds of the universe after the big bang, the topic which I think this discussion somehow started with.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.