The Origin of the Universe: Reexamining the Big Bang Theory

[Vern]

I haven't seen where the graviton, if it exists, is imune to gravity itselt. No other thing in the universe is imune to gratitational effects, how did the gravaton manage?

If the graviton is not imune to gravity, you could never have a complete black hole, just almost, almost, almost, like continously getting half way there.

Vern

 

[C. Michael Turner]

Here is your answer. All matter is Bound gravitation. e=mc2 is really stating that free gravity, the wave, = Bound gravity, mass times the speed of the wave, light; squared.
All matter is a mass to energy transfer from a point of origin in wave form. This creates three actions. Time, space, and Gravitational wave sychronization. It also explains how time and space are relative and it explains why since the big bang matter is accelerating.F=ma If force is constant and mass is decreasing as it decays creating space then acceleration increases. Hope this helps! go to www.photontheory.com and click on papers- Dr. Turner's Universe for the long version.

 

[C. Michael Turner]

Black hole evaporation and gravitons: Black holes are colasped matter decaying into gravitational waves which are like a monopole magnet. Some of the waves are so dense that they reform matter- see Stephen Hawking's latest press release and the rest is given off as microwave radiation and gravity waves( Monopolar gravitons) Mass is brought together be sychronization of waves throught the path of least resistance- therefore gravitons would never effect themselves except when they form matter under extreme heat and pressure.

 

[brodix]

Chronos,

Gravitational lensing bends light, it does not red, or blue, shift it. It works pretty much the same as an optical lense.

Yes, it bends it. That's why there are Eisteinian rings, etc., but it also magnifies it. That is why some of the most distant objects are able to be seen.

(I wish I kept the track of the article, it was about a year ago and it said that logically you are right, but in fact the effect I mention does happen, they just haven't explained it fully. I realize this needs backing, but I don't have enough time to keep track of what I need too...)

 

[brodix]

Chronos,

After googling this up one side and down the other, I have to give you this one...for the moment.

 

[employee #416]

russ_watters, my point with that analogy was to point out that you are unable to visualize a black hole just as you are not able to visualize a light bulb that is not emitting light. You can not give characteristics of the light bulb that is not lit and the light bulb that is lit. You can not differentiate the two based on physical characterstics.

But you are assuming structure that may not exist.

I'm the only person who assumes things that do not exist?

So let me ask you this: if a black hole and neutron star of identical mass had identical structure (as you appear to be implying), why would one have an event horizon and one not?

It seems that yet again your miscomprehension has lead to false questioning. When I said identical structures, I meant that a black hole and neutron star could be very similar. The would BOTH have an event horizon. For they would BOTH allow light to fall in and not escape.

event horizon n. - The region, usually described as spherical, marking the outer boundary of a black hole, inside which the gravitational force is strong enough to prevent matter or radiation from escaping.

Please clarify what you mean by an event horizon. Going by that definition everything has an event horizon. An event horizon is dictated by mass OR EM not being *able* to escape.

Gravitational lensing bends light, it does not red, or blue, shift it. It works pretty much the same as an optical lense.

This bending of light causes shift. When light is bent at an angle, it accelerates towards a center. As you know through 1st year physics, when something turns, it has to accelerate towards a center. So, to keep light's velocity constant, it has to shift frequencies.

C. Michael Turner, I like your theory on how gravity works. It's consistent to what I think, but I describe it by different means. Oh well.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters, my point with that analogy was to point out that you are unable to visualize a black hole just as you are not able to visualize a light bulb that is not emitting light. You can not give characteristics of the light bulb that is not lit and the light bulb that is lit. You can not differentiate the two based on physical characterstics.

And clearly, you are wrong: there clearly is a difference between the two light bulbs: one is emitting light and one isn't. One has a higher temperature than the other. One is consuming more energy than the other. I won't assume that the one that isn't lit can't light, but similarly, you cannot assume that it can light.

I'm the only person who assumes things that do not exist?

Yep. You are assuming that a black hole has properties similar to a neutron star even though they are not observed and vice versa. You are attaching properties to both black holes and neutron stars that you want them to have, but that they do not, and cannot have.

It seems that yet again your miscomprehension has lead to false questioning. When I said identical structures, I meant that a black hole and neutron star could be very similar. The would BOTH have an event horizon. For they would BOTH allow light to fall in and not escape.

And again, I say, do the math and collect your Nobel prize: current theory says a neutron star is not dense enough to have an event horizon.

Please clarify what you mean by an event horizon. Going by that definition everything has an event horizon. An event horizon is dictated by mass OR EM not being *able* to escape.

An event horizon is the distance at which the escape velocity is greater than C. If every object were a point mass, then every object would have an event horizon. But you can't use that oversimplification here. Otherwise, you could dig down toward the core of Earth and reach a place where the escape velocity is greater than C. But you can't: such a place does not exist.

This bending of light causes shift. When light is bent at an angle, it accelerates towards a center. As you know through 1st year physics, when something turns, it has to accelerate towards a center. So, to keep light's velocity constant, it has to shift frequencies.

No, in that case, it changes direction. Not frequency.

 

[employee #416]

You are unably to visually declare a difference between the two light bulbs. You can not say "one is shaped different". You can not say "one has a greater volume than the other," nor can you say "one weighs more than the other."

Yep. You are assuming that a black hole has properties similar to a neutron star even though they are not observed. You are attaching properties to both black holes and neutron stars that you want them to have, but that they do not, and cannot have.

I'm not the only one. Science, as a whole, assumes things that have yet been proven to exist. My claims of neutron stars and black holes having the same properties is a CASE SCENARIO. For all you know, I could have said those two light bulbs were the exact same ones, but the observer does not know that.

. Otherwise, you could dig down toward the core of Earth and reach a place where the escape velocity is greater than C. But you can't: such a place does not exist.

Density is what holds that claim as false. I'll agree with you on that one. If Earth were much dense, then finding one point mass at the center could have an escape velocity greater than that of light.

No, in that case, it changes direction. Not frequency.

In order to change direction, you have to apply an acceleration. Your velocity increase. Light has to stay constant, so a shift in frequency must take place. I'm sure you are aware of how centripetal force works. It's just the bending of an objects curved path towards a center. A constant accelerated force is applied to keep that curved path bent.

 

[russ_watters]

You can not say "one is shaped different". You can not say "one has a greater volume than the other," nor can you say "one weighs more than the other."

Quite right: but you can say that one is hotter than the other. You can say one is brighter than the other.

You are unably to visually declare a difference between the two light bulbs.

Isn't brightness a property? Isn't temperature a property?

I'm not the only one. Science, as a whole, assumes things that have yet been proven to exist.

Sorry, that's not how the scientific method works. I guess you're claiming this about black holes, but black holes were predicted through mathematical derivation, then found through observation of the predicted properties. Assumption doesn't play a part here.

My claims of neutron stars and black holes having the same properties is a CASE SCENARIO.

? That doesn't alleviate the need for you to either prove it observationally or derive it mathematically.

Density is what holds that claim as false. I'll agree with you on that one. If Earth were much dense, then finding one point mass at the center could have an escape velocity greater than that of light.

So extend that to neutron stars: are they dense enough at any mass to have an event horizon?

In order to change direction, you have to apply an acceleration. Your velocity increase.

That's not how velocity works. Velocity is a scalar speed and a vector direction. An acceleration can be either a change in direction or a change in speed. A satellite in orbit, for example, has constant scalar speed even with constant acceleration. If your assertion were correct, satellites would have constantly increasing (or decreasing) energy due to ther acceleration. They don't.

 

[employee #416]

Quite right: but you can say that one is hotter than the other. You can say one is brighter than the other.

Not really. For all we know, a black hole can be one of the brightest objects in the universe, but we are not able to dictate that, because no light has been observed coming from a black hole. We can not say one is hotter than the other, but we can say the gases that are being accelerated can have a hot temperature which can account for the X-ray being emitted.

Isn't brightness a property? Isn't temperature a property?

Yes, they are, but we are unable to judge the two by those.

That's not how velocity works. Velocity is a scalar speed and a vector direction. An acceleration can be either a change in direction or a change in speed. A satellite in orbit, for example, has constant scalar speed even with constant acceleration. If your assertion were correct, satellites would have constantly increasing (or decreasing) energy due to ther acceleration. They don't.

When a satelite is in orbit, it is constantly being pulled towards a center of mass. This gives it direction change a and velocity change.

 

[Chronos]

Originally Posted by russ_watters...Quite right: but you can say that one is hotter than the other. You can say one is brighter than the other.

Not really. For all we know, a black hole can be one of the brightest objects in the universe

Not really? The black hole radiates nothing. Matter swirling into a black hole is a separate issue.

Originally Posted by russ_watters
Isn't brightness a property? Isn't temperature a property?.

Yes, they are, but we are unable to judge the two by those.

You appear to conveniently ignore observational evidence that refutes your flawed assumptions. Have you actually read past the part where we disagree with you? We give observational evidence and you give excuses.

Posted by russ_watters
That's not how velocity works. Velocity is a scalar speed and a vector direction. An acceleration can be either a change in direction or a change in speed. A satellite in orbit, for example, has constant scalar speed even with constant acceleration. If your assertion were correct, satellites would have constantly increasing (or decreasing) energy due to ther acceleration. They don't.

When a satelite is in orbit, it is constantly being pulled towards a center of mass. This gives it direction change a and velocity change.

This is a patently transparent attempt to ignore your original, erroneous assertion by pretending we misunderstood what you were trying to say.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The black hole radiates nothing.

Aren't you forgetting Hawking radiation?

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. For all we know, a black hole can be one of the brightest objects in the universe, but we are not able to dictate that, because no light has been observed coming from a black hole. We can not say one is hotter than the other,

I was talking about the light bulb, but in any case, that is an incorrect understanding of how black holes (and light itself) work. Its a logical contradiction to say that something that emits no light can be "bright."

...but we can say the gases that are being accelerated can have a hot temperature which can account for the X-ray being emitted.

That's how you calculate mass.

Yes, they are, but we are unable to judge the two by those.

What? Now you are saying we can measure properties that are different, but these properties aren't important?

When a satelite is in orbit, it is constantly being pulled towards a center of mass. This gives it direction change a and velocity change.

Yes it does. So complete it: does its velocity increase, decrease or stay the same?

employee #416, before I was seeing misunderstanding. Now I'm seeing what looks like intentional evasion. I think you see the problem you have with countering certain points and that's why you are ignoring some and evading others. And many of the ones you are answering - the things you are saying are just plain absourd. Think about them, please. Especially this question I asked before:

...are they [neutron stars] dense enough at any mass to have an event horizon?

Don't throw away a chance to learn in favor of intellectual dishonesty because of pride.

Aren't you forgetting Hawking radiation?

No, I would say Chronos and I are simplifying. employee #416 is nowhere near ready for that and its different from the radiation we are talking about.

 

[employee #416]

Not really? The black hole radiates nothing. Matter swirling into a black hole is a separate issue.

I think you missed the reasoning behind my response.

You appear to conveniently ignore observational evidence that refutes your flawed assumptions. Have you actually read past the part where we disagree with you? We give observational evidence and you give excuses.

Temperature and brightness are not observational evidences of the black hole itself. They are just measures of the outer region (event horizon). Observational evidence of the actually singularity (string if you are into the M-theory) has not been observed. So, don't give me this crap about observational evidence.

This is a patently transparent attempt to ignore your original, erroneous assertion by pretending we misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Eh? Not all orbits are complete circulars. Most are elliptical. When the object is orbiting and is going towards the farthest point it has to deccelerate and accelerate in a new direction. This involves velocity change.

I was talking about the light bulb, but in any case, that is an incorrect understanding of how black holes (and light itself) work. Its a logical contradiction to say that something that emits no light can be "bright."

Not really a contradiction as you say. We do not know what's going on past the event horizon as far as light. We have never observed inside of a black hole. Light enters the black hole, but does not escape. The light that is inside could very well give the black hole color, but we are unsure of that.

What? Now you are saying we can measure properties that are different, but these properties aren't important?

No, I'm saying that temperature and brightness are unknown for a black hole, ergo you are unable to use those two properties to differentiate from a black hole and another object.

...are they [neutron stars] dense enough at any mass to have an event horizon?

Ok, I'm not sure if I've said this, but here it is again: Neutron stars and black holes are the SAME thing. One is just more dense than the other. To answer you question: Yes, they are dense enough at any mass to have an event horizon. Neutron stars and black holes have the same mass upon collapsing. Black hole is just another way of saying "a neutron star that is dense enough to not allow light to escape."

 

[employee #416]

Aren't you forgetting Hawking radiation?

Hawkings radiation is not what I'm explaining. Black holes do not emit anything. The Hawking's radiation is just the particle/anti-particle pairing at the event horizon, where one of the two will fall in, while the other doesn't. That is not the black hole emitting anything.

 

[russ_watters]

Observational evidence of the actually singularity (string if you are into the M-theory) has not been observed. So, don't give me this crap about observational evidence.

Indeed, scientists aren't convinced there even is a singularity. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an event horizon and by definition, a black hole. Anyway, if you can prove that the singularity doesn't exist, please do - and then go pick up your Nobel prize: Hawking will be jealous.

Eh? Not all orbits are complete circulars. Most are elliptical. When the object is orbiting and is going towards the farthest point it has to deccelerate and accelerate in a new direction. This involves velocity change.

That's also a transparent evasion: in a circular orbit, there is a constant acceleration - as you said before. Now you're changing the argument because you have no answer to my question from the last post: is the velocity of an object in a circular orbit increasing or decreasing?

Not really a contradiction as you say. We do not know what's going on past the event horizon as far as light. We have never observed inside of a black hole. Light enters the black hole, but does not escape. The light that is inside could very well give the black hole color, but we are unsure of that.

This implies that what goes on inside a black hole could be relatively "normal," and that the event horizon is some sort of opaque barrier: its a clear indication you don't understand how a black hole works: namely, what gravitational redshift does in/just outside of a black hole.

No, I'm saying that temperature and brightness are unknown for a black hole, ergo you are unable to use those two properties to differentiate from a black hole and another object.

Another misunderstanding of what black holes are: brightness has a value: ZERO. Temperature quite simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I'm not sure if I've said this, but here it is again: Neutron stars and black holes are the SAME thing. One is just more dense than the other.

They are the same except where they are different? Thats a contradiction: If they were the same, they'd be the same [density]. That's like saying a red giant and white dwarf are the same thing, just different density. Red and blue are the same color, just different. Rough is the same as smooth, just rougher. Apparently you don't understand what a neutron star is either - though your assertion is so absurd I have a hard time accepting you don't see it. In any case, you can't just assert it. Like I've said now a good half dozen times you must prove it.

To answer you question: Yes, they are dense enough at any mass to have an event horizon. Neutron stars and black holes have the same mass upon collapsing. Black hole is just another way of saying "a neutron star that is dense enough to not allow light to escape."

That's another contradiction: if a neutron star collapses into a black hole its not a neutron star anymore. Neutron stars have specific densities based on the force that holds the nucleus of an atom together. What I am asking is can a neutron star - a star with that specific structure - ever acquire enough mass to get an event horizon while still retaining its structure? If you believe it can, prove it.

Also, I shouldn't need to say this again, but a black hole is, by definition, "An area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light." (dictionary.com) Even if it had some unknown internal structure of any kind, it would still, by definition, be a black hole. That said, one internal structure it could not have is the structure of a neutron star: neutron stars are not dense enough to have event horizons.

 

[employee #416]

Indeed, scientists aren't convinced there even is a singularity. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an event horizon and by definition, a black hole. Anyway, if you can prove that the singularity doesn't exist, please do - and then go pick up your Nobel prize: Hawking will be jealous.

I was not saying that singularities do not exists. You are good at twisting stuff around. I was simply using that to tell you that observational evidences don't mean anything.

That's also a transparent evasion: in a circular orbit, there is a constant acceleration - as you said before. Now you're changing the argument because you have no answer to my question from the last post: is the velocity of an object in a circular orbit increasing or decreasing?

To tell you the truth, I'm quite unsure of how to answer that. I'm thinking the velocity itself is constant, which would make acceleration 0. Most orbits are eccentric though, giving them the property of varying acceleration.

This implies that what goes on inside a black hole could be relatively "normal," and that the event horizon is some sort of opaque barrier: its a clear indication you don't understand how a black hole works: namely, what gravitational redshift does in/just outside of a black hole.

Gravitational redshift outside of a black hole? Gravitational shift inside a black hole? How can those be observed? I know what gravitational redshift is. With the gravity as intense as it is around a black hole, redshift can not be observed.

Another misunderstanding of what black holes are: brightness has a value: ZERO. Temperature quite simply doesn't exist.

Give me a source that states inside a black hole, there is no brightness. I'll be happy. So, now, you are saying temperature isn't a property of a black hole? Earlier you were saying it was, well, you were asking me if it was.

They are the same except where they are different? Thats a contradiction: If they were the same, they'd be the same [density]. That's like saying a red giant and white dwarf are the same thing, just different density. Red and blue are the same color, just different. Rough is the same as smooth, just rougher.

Well, what do you know. I actually agree with you on everything that was stated in that quote. Everything that seems to be different is actually the same. We just need different names to account for some differences between the two. You can make a red giant a white dwarf; you can make red look like blue; you can make rough smooth. You can make a black hole a neutron star and vice versa.

What I am asking is can a neutron star - a star with that specific structure - ever acquire enough mass to get an event horizon while still retaining its structure?

May I ask you a question to verify something, before answering?

I know that you think my knowledge on black holes is fairly limited. I assure I have read sites that are very good at describing black holes. I'm talking #1 search on google. Not only that, but I've read books on black holes, so please, do not think I'm limited in knowledge. I'm just thinking outside of the box.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm amazed (and a little disappointed) this thread survived the purge. But I'm finished with it anyway.

employee #416, you stated in another thread you disagree with the definition of a black hole. Your arbitrary discomfort does not constitute a scientific argument and not accepting a definition means you won't ever accept the concept that the definition is describing. Therefore, discussion is utterly pointless.

Add to this your continued evasion of the orbit/velocity issue and I feel you are not debating honestly or making an honest effort to learn.

This board exists to help teach people (including the moderators) science. Take a step back and consider why you are here.