|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: black, hawking, hole, quotstephen, response, revamps, theoryquot |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#2
July 21st 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
Dan Gannon wrote: In response to the recent news article: Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html (Text of the article included at the end of this post.) This new conclusion is in agreement with what I predicted, in my "Multiple Big Bangs" hypothesis about 10 years ago. Dale Trynor wrote: Before I get into any discussions with you on this, here is a slightly edited post I have done to get people thinking about how the gravity caused time dilation one must get around black holes can be shown to expand space. You probably know about the Shapiro delay and how it involves how light is delayed as it passes by a gravitational body and if you don't look it up first. its well documented so we can ignore details and just skip by and use our analogy of the pole-vault and barn gedanken that becomes rather similar to the Shapiro delay when we have a black hole within the barn. Trying to keep this ridiculously simple, lets put in a time dilation of an average of 300,000,000 times and make the barn 1 meter long where it equals 1 light second long and our rod is some reasonable percentage of light speed where even after Lorentz contraction it will still measured as some reasonable amount longer than the barn. We allow both the rod as well as a series of light pulses to enter the barn at about the same time and because we know the rod cannot travel faster than the light its only logical to expect the rod will also take at least 1 second to exit the outlet door as this must also be the case for the light. Note that we will still be able to show that the longer rod will still fit nicely within the barn from the prospective of our outside observers and given that much time delay they will all have agreed that both doors were at some time, more or less simultaneously closed. You cant do this without the time dilation effect within the barn as you will get different observers disagreeing on when both doors were closed but I wont repeat this old stuff as I know you must know it already and its importance to simultaneity arguments. Ok so do you now agree that we actually have a circumstance where we can indeed argue that a longer rod has indeed fitted nicely within the barn for almost a whole second. Alternatively now it gets more tricky, even with these simplified extremes of now trying to show that from our rods prospective it will also measure more distance within the barn, as now we also have Lorentz contraction effects to also account for and they become more significant because it is in free fall. This is because of the way one gains speed when traveling through a gravitational lens and because objects traveling faster measure shorter as well as measuring a shorter path from their prospective it makes this whole thing more complicated. So try doing this where the rod is prevented from gaining speed relative to its prospective of the black hole and it will become more obvious that it will indeed measure more distance inside the barn than it would have estimated before it entered. Doing this you will need to remember that we have two ends of the rod where we can also place observers and we need to show where both have sufficient time to agree that they are able to observe both doors closed and or observe more space within the barn than they would have originally predicted from viewing the outside of the barn before entering. Note that this alternative theory leads to the idea that an infinite time dilation equals an infinite space expansion, assuming anything infinite is ever actually approachable. This leads to the idea that black holes will have a minimal orbit that on after passing it all later orbits become longer. It gives the most of the same predictions as given for inflation theory if you could be inside of a black hole when it forms. I predicted that if a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, equal to the mass of our expanding local universe, another Big Bang will occur. I predicted that these occur regularly, throughout spacetime, with matter and energy from one big bang merging with that from other big bangs, forming black holes that approach that critical mass over time. The above theory has some incomplete questions dealing with mass. For example how could only a few stars worth of mass create a universe like ours. Where would the extra mass come from or dose this mean that not all black holes have universes like ours etc. I also predicted that what goes into a black hole doesn't get sent to a "parallel universe" through a "white hole." Oddly enough this alternative theory hypothesizes that an event horizon if it can still be called one, has a reverse side that fits the description of a white hole for our internal observers. I posted these ideas on the Internet at the time (to the sci.physics newsgroup,) and never received a response. Even Hawking doesn't have it completely right. This theory has proposed ideas for experiments as well as a lot more to it than included here. Dale. I'm glad that Stephen Hawking has come to agree with me on at least some of this. :-) I postulate what causes these Big Bangs is, essentially, that the matter in the black hole becomes so warped by the extreme gravity, that the gravity emitted by the matter essentially becomes reversed for an instant, and that is when another Big Bang begins. It may be much more complex than that, but I think that's pretty close to what causes it. P.S., It would be nice to receive a response, someday. Dan Gannon Portland, Oregon, USA email: ---begin text of article--- CNN.com SCIENCE & SPACE Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 1:07 PM EDT (1707 GMT) "There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought." -- Stephen Hawking DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form." Hawking's radical new thinking was presented in a paper to the 17th [snip] 
|
|
#3
July 22nd 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
"Dan Gannon" wrote in message om... In response to the recent news article: Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html (Text of the article included at the end of this post.) This new conclusion is in agreement with what I predicted, in my "Multiple Big Bangs" hypothesis about 10 years ago. Hello crackpot.
|
|
#4
July 22nd 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
Dan Gannon wrote:
In response to the recent news article: Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html (Text of the article included at the end of this post.) This new conclusion is in agreement with what I predicted, in my "Multiple Big Bangs" hypothesis about 10 years ago. I predicted that if a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, equal to the mass of our expanding local universe, another Big Bang will occur. I predicted that these occur regularly, throughout spacetime, with matter and energy from one big bang merging with that from other big bangs, forming black holes that approach that critical mass over time. Hawking said nothing like that in that article. And such a predicition by you shows that you don't understand the Big Bang theory, and neither the physics of black holes. I also predicted that what goes into a black hole doesn't get sent to a "parallel universe" through a "white hole." Well, *that* was indeed said by Hawking. On what did you base this prediction? I posted these ideas on the Internet at the time (to the sci.physics newsgroup,) and never received a response. You should be glad that you were not ripped to shreds. I'm glad that Stephen Hawking has come to agree with me on at least some of this. :-) Comparing yourself favourably to Stephen Hawking? Uh oh... I postulate what causes these Big Bangs is, essentially, that the matter in the black hole becomes so warped by the extreme gravity, that the gravity emitted by the matter essentially becomes reversed for an instant, and that is when another Big Bang begins. That's not physics, that's babbling. Care to provide some equations describing this? I bet you won't. Because you can't. It may be much more complex than that, but I think that's pretty close to what causes it. P.S., It would be nice to receive a response, someday. It would be nice if you would learn the difference between "wild, baseless speculations" and "physical theories". [snip] Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#5
July 22nd 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
Hi Dale,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. Your ideas about space dilation are interesting, and I don't wish to dispute them at this time. My personal view of this type of effect is that, essentially, the distortions are more properly viewed as observer-dependent effects, rather than an objective portrayal of what is being observed. I think it is similar to how the perceived pitch of a train's sound changes as it approaches and passes an observer. That doesn't make such distortions unreal - they are certainly real and measureable, from the observer's perspective. I first came to this conclusion when considering the famous example of identical twins, one of whom leaves Earth and travels in a spacecraft at high speed (as close to the speed of light as possible) for some amount of time, then returns to Earth to meet up with his/her twin, to find that differing amounts of time have passed for each twin. I concluded that, when the spacefaring twin returns to Earth, the perceived time distortion disappears. Their watches, if accurate, would remain synchronized. Of course, I could be wrong. If you wish, I can try to explain that in more detail. But mathematical descriptions aren't my forte, I'm more inclined to thought experiments and speculation. I should note that I am not a professional physicist, but that certainly doesn't preclude me from reading and thinking about such things. :-) I believe that amateurs, such as myself, can certainly contribute useful ideas to many fields, including physics. It appears that I haven't described my hypothesis in enough detail. I'm not thinking of a universe being created within a black hole. My hypothesis essentially "normalizes" the Big Bang phenomenon, making it a repeating phenomenon that occurs throughout space and time, with each Big Bang existing within a shared, and possibly infinite, spacetime. The mass from just a few stars certainly wouldn't be enough to create a Big Bang, in my thinking. Rather, a super-super-massive black hole would be necessary. Its mass would be equal to the mass of our expanding universe (or local universe, as I like to call it,) or in other words, equal to the mass that was ejected from what we call the Big Bang (our local Big Bang, in other words.) I'm speculating (hypothesizing) that such a super-super-massive black hole wouldn't require, for its formation, our local Big Bang to implode in a Big Crunch. Instead, some of the material from our local Big Bang may join with material from other Big Bangs, relatively nearby (but outside the boundaries of what we can currently observe,) and eventually reach the critical mass necessary to create another Big Bang. I suspect it would take a very long time. How long would primarily depend on how close the other "universes" (areas of expanding Big Bang ejecta) are to our own. I suspect that these Big Bang epicenters would tend to be roughly evenly spaced throughout spacetime, but some irregularity would be expected. Implied in my hypothesis is that these Big Bangs do not create spacetime. I am saying they are not singular or unique phenomena, but are regular and repeating phenomena. As for "what created" spacetime itself, that is another issue, that I have posted about before (about 10 years ago, in this newsgroup, when I described my hypothesis regarding 25 or more dimensions.) P.S., I recognize that these hypothesis are on the "wild" side. That is, essentially, by design. If these hypothesis are correct, their "wildness" would only make them more profound and useful for advancing our understanding of physics. And if they are not correct, I hope they will at least stimulate thought and discussion. In other words, I advocate daring to think of what no one has thought before. I don't respond to certain people who call me a crackpot, as I view that as being very narrow-minded and inappropriate. Cheers, Dan Gannon Portland, Oregon, USA email: Dale Trynor wrote in message ... Dale Trynor wrote: Before I get into any discussions with you on this, here is a slightly edited post I have done to get people thinking about how the gravity caused time dilation one must get around black holes can be shown to expand space. You probably know about the Shapiro delay and how it involves how light is delayed as it passes by a gravitational body and if you don't look it up first. its well documented so we can ignore details and just skip by and use our analogy of the pole-vault and barn gedanken that becomes rather similar to the Shapiro delay when we have a black hole within the barn. Trying to keep this ridiculously simple, lets put in a time dilation of an average of 300,000,000 times and make the barn 1 meter long where it equals 1 light second long and our rod is some reasonable percentage of light speed where even after Lorentz contraction it will still measured as some reasonable amount longer than the barn. We allow both the rod as well as a series of light pulses to enter the barn at about the same time and because we know the rod cannot travel faster than the light its only logical to expect the rod will also take at least 1 second to exit the outlet door as this must also be the case for the light. Note that we will still be able to show that the longer rod will still fit nicely within the barn from the prospective of our outside observers and given that much time delay they will all have agreed that both doors were at some time, more or less simultaneously closed. You cant do this without the time dilation effect within the barn as you will get different observers disagreeing on when both doors were closed but I wont repeat this old stuff as I know you must know it already and its importance to simultaneity arguments. Ok so do you now agree that we actually have a circumstance where we can indeed argue that a longer rod has indeed fitted nicely within the barn for almost a whole second. Alternatively now it gets more tricky, even with these simplified extremes of now trying to show that from our rods prospective it will also measure more distance within the barn, as now we also have Lorentz contraction effects to also account for and they become more significant because it is in free fall. This is because of the way one gains speed when traveling through a gravitational lens and because objects traveling faster measure shorter as well as measuring a shorter path from their prospective it makes this whole thing more complicated. So try doing this where the rod is prevented from gaining speed relative to its prospective of the black hole and it will become more obvious that it will indeed measure more distance inside the barn than it would have estimated before it entered. Doing this you will need to remember that we have two ends of the rod where we can also place observers and we need to show where both have sufficient time to agree that they are able to observe both doors closed and or observe more space within the barn than they would have originally predicted from viewing the outside of the barn before entering. Note that this alternative theory leads to the idea that an infinite time dilation equals an infinite space expansion, assuming anything infinite is ever actually approachable. This leads to the idea that black holes will have a minimal orbit that on after passing it all later orbits become longer. It gives the most of the same predictions as given for inflation theory if you could be inside of a black hole when it forms. I predicted that if a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, equal to the mass of our expanding local universe, another Big Bang will occur. I predicted that these occur regularly, throughout spacetime, with matter and energy from one big bang merging with that from other big bangs, forming black holes that approach that critical mass over time. The above theory has some incomplete questions dealing with mass. For example how could only a few stars worth of mass create a universe like ours. Where would the extra mass come from or dose this mean that not all black holes have universes like ours etc. I also predicted that what goes into a black hole doesn't get sent to a "parallel universe" through a "white hole." Oddly enough this alternative theory hypothesizes that an event horizon if it can still be called one, has a reverse side that fits the description of a white hole for our internal observers. I posted these ideas on the Internet at the time (to the sci.physics newsgroup,) and never received a response. Even Hawking doesn't have it completely right. This theory has proposed ideas for experiments as well as a lot more to it than included here. Dale.
|
|
#6
July 22nd 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
Hello Bjoern,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... Dan Gannon wrote: In response to the recent news article: Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html (Text of the article included at the end of this post.) This new conclusion is in agreement with what I predicted, in my "Multiple Big Bangs" hypothesis about 10 years ago. I predicted that if a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, equal to the mass of our expanding local universe, another Big Bang will occur. I predicted that these occur regularly, throughout spacetime, with matter and energy from one big bang merging with that from other big bangs, forming black holes that approach that critical mass over time. Hawking said nothing like that in that article. He agreed with parts of it. I should say, Hawking's new conclusion appears to be consistent with, and supports parts of, my "Multiple Big Bangs" hypothesis. And such a predicition by you shows that you don't understand the Big Bang theory, and neither the physics of black holes. That remains to be seen. You are, of course, free to hold that opinion. I also predicted that what goes into a black hole doesn't get sent to a "parallel universe" through a "white hole." Well, *that* was indeed said by Hawking. On what did you base this prediction? I based this prediction on thought experiments, utilizing material that I had read and otherwise "picked up." As I mentioned in my reply to Dale, I am not a professional physicist. I posted these ideas on the Internet at the time (to the sci.physics newsgroup,) and never received a response. You should be glad that you were not ripped to shreds. I welcome constructive criticism, alternate views, and relevant ideas and information. I would have been glad to be "ripped to shreds," as long as it wasn't merely in the form of non-constructive personal attacks. I'm glad that Stephen Hawking has come to agree with me on at least some of this. :-) Comparing yourself favourably to Stephen Hawking? Uh oh... Most of us aspire to something, or some things, I suppose. I glad to read that Hawking changed his theory in such a way, making it (on the face of it, anyway, before having read his complete report,) consistent with my Multiple Big Bangs hypothesis, and explicitly agreeing with some of what I had said and thought. Is it a crime to be glad? I am certainly not saying that I am as knowledgeable or educated in physics as Stephen Hawking. For me, that is not at issue. I don't let it stop my thinking about whatever I wish to think about. And it doesn't prevent me from being right, at times. I postulate what causes these Big Bangs is, essentially, that the matter in the black hole becomes so warped by the extreme gravity, that the gravity emitted by the matter essentially becomes reversed for an instant, and that is when another Big Bang begins. That's not physics, that's babbling. I beg to differ. Sure, it's not a mathematical description. But this type of idea - for that's really what it is - can be quite useful in theoretical physics. At least, my idea makes predictions. And it does not preclude mathematical descriptions being developed. It's just not my forte. (At least, it isn't yet.) Care to provide some equations describing this? I bet you won't. Because you can't. See the paragraph above. Such equations could certainly be developed. I simply don't have them yet. Perhaps someone else will develop such equations, maybe after I die, who knows. Events sometimes unfold in strange ways. Maybe I will learn to develop them myself -- though I confess, I don't have much interest in that aspect of theoretical physics work. It may be much more complex than that, but I think that's pretty close to what causes it. P.S., It would be nice to receive a response, someday. It would be nice if you would learn the difference between "wild, baseless speculations" and "physical theories". I wouldn't call that constructive criticism. My hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Not a model, not a theory. What's the problem? [snip] Bye, Bjoern Enough with the personal attacks, they are not useful here. Thanks. Dan Gannon Portland, Oregon, USA email:
|
|
#7
July 28th 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
bump
|
|
#8
August 19th 04
posted to sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"
Any more responses or comments?
Dan Gannon
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Hawking says he's solved black-hole riddle | MrPepper11 | Physics - General Discussion | 35 | July 26th 04 05:17 AM |
| Hawking Recants on Black Hole Theory! | nightbat | Physics - General Discussion | 3 | July 17th 04 04:05 AM |
| Article: Hawking cracks black hole paradox | Robert Karl Stonjek | Physics - General Discussion | 1 | July 16th 04 08:42 PM |
| (Don Van) "Mass"(enhoven) vs. (Dougie) "Weight" vs. (Craig M"uni)ts" | The Original Archie Leach | Physics - General Discussion | 16 | April 16th 04 02:05 AM |
| M31: Closer Look Reveals Andromeda's Black Hole Not As "Cool" AsBelieved | Sam Wormley | Physics - General Discussion | 7 | December 27th 03 05:28 AM |
Linear Mode
