Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Also one more point on this. If we look at the stars we see light. If there is light from a star past/blocking that same star ok. But how can we see stars blocking stars blocking stars to the power of infinite.? Y do we have satelites that discover more stars that we couldnt see.? Google it.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Kg4 i like the fact that u put link didnt check them out yet. Albert Einstein AE for short was one of the founders for the big bang theory. I could be wrong on this. However u cant argue he was smarter than almost anyone on earth now. I could say the same bout Tesla. Anyway AE also had other theories. My original thoery changed because i found his was good but just needed improvement further development.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    AE theorized that a blackhole (created by a large stars supernova) has a tunnel its a wormhole. We know gravity controls/adjusts time. So i say wormholes can keep all crushed ip planets inside it at a pause due to gravity. I will say this again nothing can be destroyed. AE split an atom in half ot created a massive explosion right. But does the 2 halves still exists?

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Quasars are interesting anomalies.) i though origanally that 2 blackholes come together and make a BANG lol. AE has another enlightening idea 💡. Whiteholes. Google it. So when 2 blackholes join (quasar) we get a release of all the stuff they gobbled up depending on the polarity. Yes another AE theory blackholes have a polarity. This can change behavior of a quasar. My theory right now is basic multiplying math 2 negative make a positive a whitehole very rare and violent 2min duration dont know y. This is what we call big bang. All other combinations make m613 may have mispelled that trying to say the quasar that we have now the one that is producing stars the brightest thing in our 'known' universe lol.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    There u go thats all of it. Now its your turn disprove it. Try to disprove all or most of it not just one small part of it. Everyone is welcome smartest brightest brainless anyone is welcome u will not be destroyed just disproven.) science is catching up sheeple. Im actually not a mean person i just think we should be futher developed in gen pop. I believe the us and other govt organizations are well developed but they leave the gen pop in the dark and for most thats acceptable. Well im diff.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    The problem with the Doppler Red Shift theory is that it requires phase to be preserved (a carrier wave), with which motion is to be compared (at a different frequency. However, all phase information is lost when a photon impacts the focal plane. Einstein's theory of relativity really says nothing about ponderable mass; it is up to the DeBroglie hypothesis. Einsteins "invariant" is a wavelength defining a standard ruler which is valid only as long as a single photon can be detected (which, of course, it can't), except as a Splat.

    A Splat coming from a far galaxy (where the source/sink configuration is hypothesized to be the same as it is here) has a red shift because the photon has lost energy on its journey here, NOT because of the motion of the source. This loss of energy (iVT')2 is due to photon on photon interaction, which is a density, variations in which are the CMB.

    From a quantum mechanical viewpoint, then, redshift only describes distance as a function of the intervening noise (mostly a headwind coming from behind the observer, E Mode, but possible B mode for close geodesics in the bundle ). If there were no noise, there would be no red shift.

    OTH, B Mode is responsible for Einstein rings, and the actual signal is a combination of both which is why Einstein rings are often redshifted.

    So if one knows the inter-galactic density, one can calculate distance from that. But Reltaivity and QM are only concerned with the properties of the photon(s) at the detecto, where the incoming B and E fields are subject to lens geometry, radiation resistence, ccd parameters, etc. - all the rest is fantasy - and, of course, ignores ponderable mass.

    That said, the symmetries of QFT and STR can probably be extrapolated for systems close enough. But the further out one extrapolates, the more one has to fantasize. That is, the "invariant" quantity, agreed to by all observers, is reasonable, if all observerse are at sea level on this planet, or at sea level in a planet just like ours (with a moon, sun, galaxy, etc. like ours) at the edge of observability;, any the energy loss contributes to the CMB - which itself may not be positive definite, but an average around 0, depending on if one philosophizes a cosmological constant or not.

    One can show this in STR by using a negative v^2 (iv)^2 in the relativistic "momentum term" (Pc)^2, which means the final result (the received photon) has less energy than the local standard with which it is being compared. (Bearing in mind that the geometry is one way from the source to us. This model gives red shift, and conserves relativistic momentum energy (noting that the "momentum" contribution is no longer positive definite. If the negative momentum equals that of the source then they add to zero (ct' = 0), meaning the local photon "hole" has been filled. (the momentum decrease can't be greater than the (positive definite) "rest mass").

    GTR actually attempts to microscopically model this process, but it is essentially quantum mechanical in nature (note that neither GTR or STR explicitly includes periodicity (except for quantum gravity, which is what I've been describing, applied to local photon comparison), so is essentially classical; no quantum "spin polarization" depending on h, although Kaluza did show that EM E and B fields could be included in the field equations.

    Without quantum gravity, one is restricted to Wien's Law and photons as "bosons" (Bose-Einstein statistics); with quantum gravity (spin polarization interactions) one uses Planck's law and Fermi-Dirac statistics.

    Bottom Line: v=ct applies to "Doppler" as a first order effect in a coordinate system; in STR (and
    Quantum Field theory),



    So STR (and GTR) is ultimately solipsistic, and the only two observers are you (well, actually, me) and god...

    Note: because c is a local standard, it is often taken equal to unity (c=1) in both STR and GTR, and in equations like v=Hd for the Hubble constant, to understand it it is best to include c explicitly: v/c=Hx = H*(ct) where x is actually mass density per unit length, so x=1 for a unit length - the standard for comparison.

    The Hubble constant then becomes a quantity related to covariant relativistic density, which is an mass/energy, not a coordinate "space-time "curve" relationship. I am writing up a pdf on this topic, so won't respond here, since it is a PITA to argue about the tex equations, especially with those that have no idea about the physical concepts underlying STR, and can only quote equations in misleading contexts.

    That said, for a start, understand the difference between the "time dilation" equation and the full Lorentz transform. (the pdf will also discuss these relations w.r.t. the relativistic energy equation and its relation to the Lorentz force and the displacement current in Maxwell's equation. Ultimately, there are lot of pieces to the puzzle, and one has to be aware of context (scope of validity).

    IMO, YMMV, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.....

    (there is much more to be said - e.g., the local "zero point" energy has to be defined in terms of gravity, but I really have to get some sleep. I won't respond here, since I am working on my pdf, but will announce it, hopefully sooner rather than later, and if you're interested, I will discuss its ideas)...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-19-2015 at 01:23 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    jWhat Penzias and Wilson observed is not CMB, but local gravitational noise due to the interaction between local photons at the point of observation (sea level, on the surface of the earth). Effectively the "Casimir" zone - the local electromagnetic environment in which we live at the surface of the earth (e.g., not gravitation noise due to the local mass of the earth, except as surface noise)

    Basically, PW noise is noise on any reference wavelength we choose (e.g., to compare with a similar measure). Of course, we are actually comparing real and imaginary black bodies at local earth temperature, but the analysis still holds. It is isotropic because any attempt to measure it is isotropic in STR, but could possibly vary slightly with orientation or time. But not by much...

    So the "Big Bang" question really devolves into the question of how that local reference wavelength was created. One answer is a state change of an electron in the atom that emitted the photon. (And/or a similar one a long ways away, plus whatever created all the photons in between.. like other stars) If you believe local science observed by human beings...

    However, the ultimate answer as to the creation of the Universe may actually that gleam in your father's eye.... unless you're god. Like I am...

    (I'm going to live forever.. so far, so good...

    Ultimately, STR is all you get if you apply conservation of (relativistic) energy/momentum; the Minkowski metric describes energy loss in a single photon emitted from an "observer" at a point on the circumference of a circle as compared with one observed (and compared) by Einstein at the center.

    GTR tries to define a non-isotropic model of this single photon in terms of variation at the surface, which is essentially unobservable according to QFT.

    Cosmologists try to extrapolate this idea to thinking of the Universe as a photon and imagining that Einstein (i.e., us) can observe simultaneously at all parts of the universe and come to some sort of a conclusion. It is guru mental magic designed to trick the gullible into possibly believing in god (well, ok, other gods than me .

    (Photons exist... TRUST me... and send money....)

    =================================================

    Science suggests that after the Big Bang, god smoked a cigarette, rolled over, went to sleep, and hasn't been heard from since.

    However, the Bibble teaches that he woke up, knocked up a poor carpenter’s fiancé, convinced the locals that it was a virgin birth, and then threw his illegitimate son under the bus when he turned out to be a liberal. The locals testified that the son appeared to them after his death, a story that perseveres to this day, often as images on the crusts of toasted cheese sandwiches.

    God has strong Republican CEO core values...

    And since when do Republican values have anything to do with Christianity?
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-19-2015 at 01:35 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  8. #18
    Junior Member BenTen321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    california
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Hello Jason,
    Well this is really very complicated question i don't even ans this, because you never believe on science or nor believe on God. If you believe on God then pray and question Him. I am sure He'll ans you for your every question.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenTen321 View Post
    Hello Jason,
    Well this is really very complicated question i don't even ans this, because you never believe on science or nor believe on God. If you believe on God then pray and question Him. I am sure He'll ans you for your every question.
    If the other side and their god don't blindside us with nuclear weapons...
    That said, it makes more sense to pray that our god just doesn't send us any more mosquitoes....
    I mean, LITTLE things would really help......

    ... and if god can/won't do that, how can you expect him to help you with high school pre-calculus?
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-21-2015 at 11:32 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: Big bang and 4d blackhole is not true tell me why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason me View Post
    Lol nice points. Science is not a constant. It grows, but the universe is infinate. Disproving #1 blackholes suck up everthing even light. 1 done.
    Let me get this straight: You´re claiming that black holes suck up all light that is far away from them but not the light that is close? How ridiculous! The inverse square law of gravity shows that you are wrong. The problem with your response is that light close to black holes is still visible like in CygX-1. So black hole do *not* suck up *everything*. So Olber´s paradox still remains and the only logical explanation so far is that our universe is bounded.
    Neverfly likes this.
    --
    // 73s; LLAP
    // KG4PAE

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •