On 18 apr, 17:00, "adman" wrote:
wrote in message

...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of *no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

You might be right calling a black hole a seperate universe,
scientists have proposed as much.

As for the problem of the first black hole,
that is insolvable. One can only see one's own universe and detect the
black holes inside that. One cannot detect the parent universe and the
sister-black holes insiode that! (nor any grandchild black hole).

For all we know our universe could be of the billionth generation,
Or it could be the fist one ever

Agnosticism steps in he-)
We just cannot know!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Nethelands

On 19 apr, 05:21, wrote:
On Apr 17, 9:33 pm, "weatherwax" wrote:





wrote

"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result: *The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. *All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. *That means that it
has maximum temperature. *(temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. *For example: *If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. *If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. *It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

* * * * Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
* * because of its universally attractive nature. *We are used to
* * thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
* * having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
* * entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
* * equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. *But with gravity, thing
* * tend to be the other way about. *A uniformly spread system of
* * gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
* * whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
* * chump together.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body. * With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

Wow you guys are close.Actually according to this alternate theory you
cant have singularities because every time you try you end up with a
black hole and if you remember the theory it predicts that the time
dilating effects expand space.
Every time you create a black hole you expand space so I suppose you
could say that all of that newly created space gets in the way of
forming that hypothetical singularity.You cant have singularities
without the gravity and you cant have gravity without its time slowing
effects and you cant have those time slowing effects without
contracting matter and expanding the space.
Probably worth noting how this expanding space effect may give the
same predictions as those now credited for how gravitational binding
energy works to conserve the total original amount of gravity.



What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

An event horizon seen from the inside of a black hole ends up being a
white hole.Remember that expanded space can very easily end you up
with more space than the original event horizon could originally
contain.This alternate theory gets to predict some rather odd things
about how our white hole or rather now as white holes as they would
appear as broken up into different locations would appear and
behave.Easy to understand how their repulsive gravity's would be a bit
like throwing objects at the sky and then claiming the sky has
antigravity properties but the stuff about how they should behave in
some ways like wormholes would be more surprising.
They will need to be observable in our universe for this theory to be
valid but keep in mind that even white holes can appear dark if
nothing falls into them from the previous universe.But if lots do fall
into them and randomly then they could easily appear like quasars.I
should post asking about the idea that quasars could be these types of
white holes and its easy to disprove if any object has ever been seen
accelerating towards one.
alttheories.com
Dale

I do not think white holes will appear within our universe for I
suspect our universe to be a white hole. I have no idea where the idea
of wormholes comes from, but I do not see why the inside of a black
hole would be in the same univeres as it's outside. That doesn't make
sense to me.
I suspect all "white holes" to be seperate universes.
However your assumption that new matter falling into the black hole
should be visable inside the white hole seems logical to me.
However because evertyhing gets turned inside out, and because the
expansions of space that wouild be the result of those events, I
expect the new matter to appear as far away from the previous matter
as possible. (and with a maximum red-shift to go with it). Logically
the newest matter falling into our universe would appear to be the
oldest when first seen. That would indicate that we can only see one
ever growing big bang and no seperate entries.

If quasars are white holes within a withe hole, they should repressnt
OLDER white holes, not newer ones (for those would be further away).
And they would be the other side of black holes that were formed
before they were hurled together.

I am afraid my mind can't follow my own reasoning here.

Thanks for your reaction anyway

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands






--Wax

Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

On Apr 19, 5:22 am, "
wrote:
On 18 apr, 17:00, "adman" wrote:



wrote in message

...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

You might be right calling a black hole a seperate universe,
scientists have proposed as much.

Here is something I just don't get,its all so easy to test so why has
no one notced anything.For example if you draw a planet to scale on a
piece of paper everything will match up ok but if the alternative
theory is right then when you go to actually measure the dimensions
and distances for a planet from both inside and then outside of the
gravity well they will not match up.
What I mean is for matter to contract in such a way that you end up
with measuring more space because your rulers have become shorter you
will end up not only measuring more circumference for a planet but the
distances from orbit will also be more.The planet will just not fit
the scale drawings on paper.
This whole thing should have shown up somewhere when the GPS or some
other use of satellites and earth or maybe they just never looked.
Obviously if you don't get these extra measures then its a bit
unlikely that black holes could be shown to be other universes unless
you could find some other odd theory to explain it leaving the whole
idea much more questionable.

My favorite analogy briefly examined here is where I bring up the idea
of Zeno's paradox but I go on to ask what would happen if you also
decreased the arrows length by 1/2 each time it was 1/2 way to the
target and then point out that from the arrows point of view all of
its references on length are equally effected.
Then I point out how this could work in examining the idea of what
ones prospective might be on approaching a black hole.This also works
to illustrate what to look for when measuring for this effect around
planets etc.Remember you can find much more on my postings than on my
site at this time.
www.alttheories.com
Dale


As for the problem of the first black hole,
that is insolvable. One can only see one's own universe and detect the
black holes inside that. One cannot detect the parent universe and the
sister-black holes insiode that! (nor any grandchild black hole).

For all we know our universe could be of the billionth generation,
Or it could be the fist one ever

Agnosticism steps in he-)
We just cannot know!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Nethelands

On Apr 19, 11:33 am, wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:22 am, "
wrote:



On 18 apr, 17:00, "adman" wrote:

wrote in message

...

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe

The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.

But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.

But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

You might be right calling a black hole a seperate universe,
scientists have proposed as much.

Here is something I just don't get,its all so easy to test so why has
no one notced anything.For example if you draw a planet to scale on a
piece of paper everything will match up ok but if the alternative
theory is right then when you go to actually measure the dimensions
and distances for a planet from both inside and then outside of the
gravity well they will not match up.
What I mean is for matter to contract in such a way that you end up
with measuring more space because your rulers have become shorter you
will end up not only measuring more circumference for a planet but the
distances from orbit will also be more.The planet will just not fit
the scale drawings on paper.
This whole thing should have shown up somewhere when the GPS or some
other use of satellites and earth or maybe they just never looked.
Obviously if you don't get these extra measures then its a bit
unlikely that black holes could be shown to be other universes unless
you could find some other odd theory to explain it leaving the whole
idea much more questionable.

My favorite analogy briefly examined here is where I bring up the idea
of Zeno's paradox but I go on to ask what would happen if you also
decreased the arrows length by 1/2 each time it was 1/2 way to the
target and then point out that from the arrows point of view all of
its references on length are equally effected.
Then I point out how this could work in examining the idea of what
ones prospective might be on approaching a black hole.This also works
to illustrate what to look for when measuring for this effect around
planets etc.Remember you can find much more on my postings than on my
site at this time.www.alttheories.com
Dale


I forgot to add
Yes light will blue shift as it approaches a planets surface and yes
it does get shorter but if you were to reverse this blue shifted light
back into the original wavelength. it will still be shorter than the
originally equally long wavelength that it was before it arrived.
Did some later postings looking at a light clock where the ticks
themselves were light pulses that traveled a certain length led to
later conclusions that if looked at in this way suggested that matter
did not contract at all, it was as if it was only the space itself
that expanded.Otherwise the clock could not have kept its proper time
in relation to the amount of time dilation that must also be the
case.In other words the clock would not become time dilated in an
environment where it should be dilated and our close up observers
would see their clocks time as faster.
I Realized later on just how tightly the idea of contracting matter is
to the actual expanding of space and that contracting matter actually
required expanding space,its as if the two really cant be
separated.Also looking at the idea of using Casimir plates as a way of
trying to get a preferred frame of reference, and of course if it
worked would have made the whole theory suspect,also let to this same
idea that space expands rather than matter contracting.
Later thoughts on the subject suggested that this quantum vacuum is
actually space itself and that by increasing its concentration leads
to more space in other words its 2 sides of the same coin otherwise
the Casimer plates could not work out mathematically to give invariant
results.
Dale




As for the problem of the first black hole,
that is insolvable. One can only see one's own universe and detect the
black holes inside that. One cannot detect the parent universe and the
sister-black holes insiode that! (nor any grandchild black hole).

For all we know our universe could be of the billionth generation,
Or it could be the fist one ever

Agnosticism steps in he-)
We just cannot know!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Nethelands

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
|
| Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose was saying.
|
| --Wax

It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics

|
|

"adman" wrote
"weatherwax" wrote
| "adman" wrote
|
| The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
|
| Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| was saying.
|
| --Wax

It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics

Not at all.

Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is looking for
a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)

--Wax

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:24:40 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
|
| Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose was saying.
|
| --Wax

It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics

|
|

You have clearly shown that you do not understand what Penrose (or any
other scientist) says.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote
| | "adman" wrote
| |
| | The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
| |
| | Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| | was saying.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
|
| Not at all.
|
| Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is looking
for
| a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)

The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?



|
| --Wax
|
|
|

"adman" wrote in message
. ..

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote
| | "adman" wrote
| |
| | The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
| |
| | Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| | was saying.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
|
| Not at all.
|
| Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is looking
for
| a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)

The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?



|
| --Wax
|
|


Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
Somestuff....


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"Paul Mays" wrote in message
...

|
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| "weatherwax" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "adman" wrote
| | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | "adman" wrote
| | |
| | | The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD
| | |
| | | Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose
| | | was saying.
| | |
| | | --Wax
| |
| | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
| |
| | Not at all.
| |
| | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
looking
| for
| | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
|
| The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
|
|
|
| |
| | --Wax
| |
| |
|
|
| Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| Somestuff....

|

Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is that
we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven yet
beyond a doubt.