White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.

[Theory5]

Wikipedia has some interesting stuff to say about the Expanding earth theory:

 

Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea, rather plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct. The small number of proponents of an expanding earth claim that the continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion at the rip-zones, where oceans currently lie. This contradicts the scientific consensus plate tectonics theory by stating that significant destructive plate boundaries do not exist.

and

Expanding Earth ideas are also discredited since they rely on the proposal that the process of subduction and other destructive plate boundaries are non-existent, when in reality subduction is observed at oceanic trenches and also known to have occurred in the past from geological evidence.

 

 

It Does ! Thats why the earth is expanding

 

Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The seawater togheter with several organisms comes out of hot springs and black smokers all around the seafloor.

 

Black smoker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Indeed, much of the present atmosphere came from within the Earth's interior."

 

quoted from > Planets Alive - Earth - Structure and Atmosphere

 

I do not dispute that heated water is being pumped into the sea. But nothing else comes out of the ground except for hot water and lava. And the heated water is not from some unknown source. The water is taken from the sea, heated by the magma and as it gets hotter it rises, escaping from fissures.

 

And if a white hole is the opposite of a black hole, would it not repel matter? Thus making it impossible for a planet to form around them.

 

As the black hole continually acquires negative mass it shrinks and gets hotter and hotter, and eventually erupts into an astonishing explosion.

Umm what? Why would it get hotter? Heat is caused by particles moving faster and faster in a certain space. A black hole abosorbs particles and the further into the black hole it gets the slower stuff moves. Also, there is no such thing as an explosion in space. An Explosion needs air. There is no air in space. A sun implodes and becomes a black hole.

 

Stars grow too

No, they dont. Stars are essentially made up of fuel. The more fuel they use the smaller they get. When they go supernova, they implode. There is a shockwave or something that is released, but they dont explode.

 

It looks like the black holes form before the host galaxy, and then grow a galaxy around them.

Nope. A black hole forms from a star, and depending on how much matter there is for it to absorb it can either grow or shrink. I belive that once it reaches a certain size, it starts to consume whole solar systems. However this is rare and happens less than 98% of the time. Actually, I dont know how big space is, so this could happen 99% of the time for all I know.

[Victor2009]

what happens when a moon or planet or start is blown up into a cloud of dust scattered millions of miles across?

 

Where is the white hole?.

 

At the center of the event.

 

I see where you are going with this. And that is, you are trying come up with a relationship for the black hole.. It doesnt make much sense that black holes eat forever..

 

Didn't say they eat for ever. But I do believe they eat and reproduces stars and planets for a very long time.

 

Stephen Hawking formulated that a certain kind of quantum related event happends at the surface of a black hole.

 

Matter, contained of a kind of positive mass and negative mass, that is naturally one entity in space, gets separated when it enters a black hole.

 

The negative mass gets sucked in the black hole, and the positive mass gets scattered out as radiation (hawking radiation).

 

As the black hole continually acquires negative mass it shrinks and gets hotter and hotter, and eventually erupts into an astonishing explosion.

 

I am only translating what I watched on tv..

 

I might have mixed up the + - mass situations... but this was the jist that I got out of it.

 

Stephen Hawking also said this a couple of weeks ago:

 

"This perspective also supports the idea that if you fall into a black hole, you may come out in another universe. If there is a large hole and if it is rotating, you may pass through it and into another universe. So, you cannot come back to our universe. Though Hawking said that he is keen on space flight, he is not willing to transport himself to another universe."

 

(Black Holes: Eternal Prisons No More, Stephen Hawking's Lecture March 10th, 2009)

 

Black Holes: Eternal Prisons No More, Stephen Hawking's Lecture

[Victor2009]

Nope..

 

You do not believe the stars and planets are expanding or exploding

 

Do you believe the universe is expanding ?

 

Do you believe in Red giants ? (Red giants are stars with radii tens to hundreds of times larger than that of the Sun)

 

Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)

 

Do you believe these images ? > stars exploding

[modest]

Victor, it certainly is one of my many pleasures on Hypography to hear and explore novel ideas. Yours is most certainly that. So, let's explore...

 

One aspect of your idea which jumps out quite quickly is that the earth and the sun are growing because a white hole exists at their core. This, unfortunately, violates one of the many constraints which General Relativity and the Schwarzschild metric in particular places on a white hole—that it cannot exist in the presence of matter. Lemit already commented on this, but you failed to respond so I will reiterate: Were any matter to enter the black hole at the galaxy's core and attempt to exit the wormhole through the white hole it would become unstable and collapse. This is asserted bluntly at the site Lemit gave:

Why can't white holes exist in nature?

...Once even the tiniest speck of dust enters the part of space-time which includes the black hole, the part which includes the white hole disappears.

 

Curious About Astronomy -- What is a white hole?

 

We might, however, choose to imagine that the white hole is somehow forced to remain stable. This site suggest placing a spherical shell of exotic matter at the throat of the wormhole. So, let's say that happened. The next question is what would happen if a stable white hole exited at the core of earth and the sun? Essentially (from our perspective) it would be equivalent to having a black hole at the core.

 

White holes are attractive and indistinguishable from black holes from outside the event horizon. Where black holes swallow matter allowing it to cross the event horizon, white holes attract matter while the event horizon recedes from the infalling matter. Earth and the sun would be swallowed up toward an ever-shrinking horizon.

The sign of the acceleration is invariant under time reversal, so both black and white holes attract matter. The only potential difference between them is in the behavior at the horizon.

 

Black hole event horizons can only "suck up" matter, while white hole horizons ostensibly recede from any incoming matter at the local speed of light, so that the infalling matter never crosses. The infalling matter is then scattered and reemitted at the death of the white hole, receding to infinity after having come close to the final singular point where the white hole is destroyed... Ignoring the classically unpredictable emissions of the white hole, the white hole and black hole are indistinguishable for external observers.

 

White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Since the only theory which predicts the possibility of a white hole also precludes it from behaving in a manner you indicate, I'm afraid there's no possible merit in the idea. :)

 

~modest

[Victor2009]

Hi, modest

 

Your whole "exploration" says that a white hole is the same as a black hole.

 

According to that Wikipedia article "both black and white holes attract matter"

 

The Internet Encyclopedia of Science says "Just as a black hole irretrievably swallows everything that falls into it, a white hole only spits energy and matter out."

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/W/white_hole.html

 

I believe the later to be true :)

 

My idea is a synthesis of many other ideas have you explored them to ?

[maddog]

All kind of elements and heat comes from the white hole that is inside the Earth. The same goes for the Sun.

For there to be no noticeable effects (and there are not noticeable effects), this "White Hole" would have to be a microminiature hole. What is a "microminiature white hole" ??? :eek_big:

 

maddog

[maddog]

It Does ! Thats why the earth is expanding

Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earth is not expanding. Continental Drift is when the tectonic plates are moving away

from each other on the same size surface of the Earth.

The seawater [togheter] with several organisms comes out of hot springs and black smokers all around the seafloor.

Black smoker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Indeed, much of the present atmosphere came from within the Earth's interior."

quoted from > Planets Alive - Earth - Structure and Atmosphere

All true. Smokers are heated by magma under the Earth's crust, not a white hole!? :eek_big:

Stars grow to

It looks like the black holes form before the host galaxy, and then grow a galaxy around them.

Recent info, true and somewhat of a Non Sequitur.

I believe there is.

Believe away. Forgive me, if I don't agree with you. :phones:

 

maddog

[maddog]

You do not believe the stars and planets are expanding or exploding

Do you believe the universe is expanding ?

Do you believe in Red giants ? (Red giants are stars with radii tens to hundreds of times larger than that of the Sun)

Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)

Do you believe these images ? > stars exploding

Stars exploding or Red Giant phase already have explanations. They are dictated by the Main Sequence and Nucleosynthesis.

When planets form they can be bigger or smaller than Earth (depending on material available).

You need a "smoking gun" here. You do not have one. :eek_big:

 

maddog

[Theory5]

Do you believe the universe is expanding ?

Whoa, Whoa, hang on a moment. Do NOT do this please. :eek_big: First off, it is not a matter of belief for me. I like to look at facts and base my conclusions on what I see. Secondly, I know what kind of tactic you are using, its low and it can get REALLY annoying. If you do not know what you are doing then its fine. BUT you are attempting to align your idea's with facts to create questions that do nothing other than further your own idea while TRYING to make me look stupid or disprove myself. :phones: This question and all the others in this post of yours are doing this. It is like if I was trying to explain a new idea that light moves in loops and I ask the question "Do you belive in light?" "Do you belive that particles move?". Its like that.

 

Now to answer this question. First, I dont know if the universe is expanding because I have never heard of anyone finding an end to it. If you find the edge of the universe, you might be able to figure out if the universe is expanding. But you might have to find more than one side because what if it is just moving?

:-)

Do you believe in Red giants ? (Red giants are stars with radii tens to hundreds of times larger than that of the Sun)

I dont doubt it. We have pictures of those dont we? But they never grow, they just shrink until they go nova and implode.

Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)

You mean like the GAS GIANT we have in our very own solar system? Definatly. But whats that have to do with a white hole? It doesnt grow.

 

Do you believe these images ? > stars exploding

 

I am sorry, apperently I used the terms nova and supernova wrong. I though that a nova or a supernova was an implosion which leads to a black hole. That is not the case. Nova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So I googled "how is a black hole created" and i found this:

A common type of black hole is the type produced by some dying stars. A star with a mass greater than 20 times the mass of our Sun may produce a black hole at the end of its life. In the normal life of a star there is a constant tug of war between gravity pulling in and pressure pushing out. Nuclear reactions in the core of the star produce enough energy to push outward. For most of a star's life, gravity and pressure balance each other exactly, and so the star is stable. However, when a star runs out of nuclear fuel, gravity gets the upper hand and the material in the core is compressed even further. The more massive the core of the star, the greater the force of gravity that compresses the material, collapsing it under its own weight. For small stars, when the nuclear fuel is exhausted and there are no more nuclear reactions to fight gravity, the repulsive forces among electrons within the star eventually create enough pressure to halt further gravitational collapse. The star then cools and dies peacefully. This type of star is called the "white dwarf." When a very massive star exhausts its nuclear fuel it explodes as a supernova. The outer parts of the star are expelled violently into space, while the core completely collapses under its own weight.

 

To create a massive core a progenitor (ancestral) star would need to be at least 20 times more massive than our Sun. If the core is very massive (approximately 2.5 times more massive than the Sun), no known repulsive force inside a star can push back hard enough to prevent gravity from completely collapsing the core into a black hole. Then the core compacts into a mathematical point with virtually zero volume, where it is said to have infinite density. This is referred to as a singularity. When this happens, escape would require a velocity greater than the speed of light. No object can reach the speed of light. The distance from the black hole at which the escape velocity is just equal to the speed of light is called the event horizon. Anything, including light, that passes across the event horizon toward the black hole is forever trapped.

 

This goes against your theory of a white hole because the sun can only collapse after it runs out of fuel and if a white hole is fueling it.....

 

Hi, modest

Your whole "exploration" says that a white hole is the same as a black hole.

 

He said that they were indistinguishable from outside the event horizon. Meaning you they look the same and act the same if you are outside their influence, except of course when the observer witnesses the expulsion of matter from a white hole. That is different from them being totally indistinguishable. This is like looking at two identical boxes that have two totally different items inside. well its sort of like it anyways. :)

 

It also appears that you guys have a few conflicting sources. Unfortunatly the school's web blocker blocks http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...hite_hole.html because of "society and culture".

[modest]

Hi, modest

 

Your whole "exploration" says that a white hole is the same as a black hole.

 

A white hole is most certainly not the same as a black hole. It is, in the strictest sense, a time-reversal of a black hole. What my post, the Wikipedia article, and General Relativity conclude is that white holes are indistinguishable from black holes from outside the event horizon. With a black hole you can never observe an object cross the event horizon.

 

According to that Wikipedia article "both black and white holes attract matter"

 

This is true. The white hole being the time reversal of a black hole means acceleration is not meters per second squared, but rather meters per negative seconds squared. In either case, however, acceleration is positive (negative seconds time negative seconds equals positive seconds squared).

 

This means if we somehow found ourselves on the white hole end of a stable Schwarzschild wormhole and we were outside the horizon we would be gravitationally attracted toward the hole. As we fell toward the horizon it would seem to recede from us at the speed of light—thus we could never reach it. At the death of the hole and the end of the wormhole the infalling matter is (in the words of wikipedia) "scattered and reemitted".

 

The Internet Encyclopedia of Science says "Just as a black hole irretrievably swallows everything that falls into it, a white hole only spits energy and matter out."

 

white hole

 

That is correct. For a white hole matter can only cross the horizon leaving the hole and not the other way (as it would be with a black hole). This outgoing matter would, however, never get far from the hole as it would be gravitationally attracted back toward the event horizon which would be falling under it at the local speed of light. Thus an observer far outside the white hole would not see this outflowing matter until the death of the hole.

 

I believe the later to be true :eek_big:

 

Both are true. Black and white holes both attract matter. The distinguishing characteristic between them happens at the event horizon where you'll find matter crosses the horizon toward the singularity for the black hole and away from the singularity for the white hole.

 

I must reiterate that this is all theoretically impossible as a Schwarzschild wormhole becomes unstable as soon as matter is introduced to the black hole. Also, a Schwarzschild wormhole links two universes, *not* a galaxy core with a planet or star. Moreover, a wormhole links no more than 2 points—I know of no theory which would link the center of the galaxy to multiple points (i.e. all the stars and planets in the galaxy).

 

Victor, unless you have something substantially different from what you've so far contributed in this thread, I'm afraid this issue is very much dead.

 

~modest

[Victor2009]

For there to be no noticeable effects (and there are not noticeable effects), this "White Hole" would have to be a microminiature hole. What is a "microminiature white hole" ??? :eek_big:

 

maddog

 

Why would it have to be a microminiature white hole, maddog ? it's not.

 

I believe them to be much smaller than white dwarfs. White dwarfs are thought to be the final evolutionary state of all stars whose mass is not too high (over 97% of the stars in our Galaxy)

 

They are however trying to create a micro black holes (MBHs) with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN

 

Maybe that would shed some light on the matter. :phones:

[Victor2009]

It Does ! Thats why the earth is expanding

 

Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earth is not expanding. Continental Drift is when the tectonic plates are moving away

from each other on the same size surface of the Earth.

 

 

The seawater togheter with several organisms comes out of hot springs and black smokers all around the seafloor.

 

Black smoker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Indeed, much of the present atmosphere came from within the Earth's interior."

 

quoted from > Planets Alive - Earth - Structure and Atmosphere

All true. Smokers are heated by magma under the Earth's crust, not a white hole!? :eek_big:

 

Stars grow to

 

It looks like the black holes form before the host galaxy, and then grow a galaxy around them.

Recent info, true and somewhat of a Non Sequitur.

 

Sins you find most of that to be true, maddog

 

It's a pity you don't give yourself a little bit more time on the Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"]Expanding Earth Theory It's not that far-fetched

 

Victor

[Victor2009]

Stars exploding or Red Giant phase already have explanations. They are dictated by the Main Sequence and Nucleosynthesis.

When planets form they can be bigger or smaller than Earth (depending on material available).

You need a "smoking gun" here. You do not have one. :eek_big:

 

maddog

 

Well, I am trying to point out that the material disappearing in black holes is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.

 

For how can Nucleosynthesis (fusion) make a star bigger and bigger ?

[CraigD]

Hi Victor, and welcome to hypography :phones: – though please, do make an effort to read and follow the the rules, especially those about supporting strange claims. :)

But that would mean that matter is constantly being released inside the earth. So why doesnt matter flow out of ever crack in the earths surface?

It Does ! Thats why the earth is expanding

 

Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When supporting a claim, it’s a good idea to do so with a link that ... well, supports, rather than discredits it, as the wikipedia article does in its second sentence:

Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea [an expanding Earth hypothesis], rather plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct.

Simply because something is a recognize hypothesis doesn’t mean it’s accepted or true – that the Earth is a flat disk floating on an endless sea covered by a crystalline dome in which are embedded jewel-like planets and stars is a recognized hypothesis (which even has a small collection of supporters), but almost certainly wrong.

For how can Nucleosynthesis (fusion) make a star bigger and bigger ?

:eek_big: This is a very good question, and its usual answers a couple of the most important basic concepts of astrophysics.

 

All stars are much larger than an equal mass of cold, high-atomic mass elements, because outward pressure from the heat of their matter opposes the inward force of gravity, expanding them much as air pressure in a party balloon opposes the elastic force of its material. In stars, while some of this heat is “primordial” – a remnant of the kinetic energy of the protostellar cloud from which they form – most of it is due to the fusion of low atomic mass elements, usually hydrogen – in their cores.

 

Stars of the main sequence, such as our Sol, enter into a period about halfway through their time on the main sequence in which the steady increase in mass of helium resulting from the fusion of hydrogen increases the density, and hence the pressure, and rate of fusion, of their cores. This increased rate of fusion increases the core and average temperature of the star, which increases the outward pressure, resulting in an increase in its diameter. In Sol’s case, this should result in a gradual increase of diameter of about 10% over the next 4 to 5 billion years, at which time, it’s hydrogen nearly exhausted, it will begin fusing helium, leaving the main sequence for a comparatively brief tenure as a red giant (about 200 times its main sequence diameter) and finally, a very long-lived white dwarf (1/100th its main sequence diameter) which no longer have significant fusion, only residual heat. Over this entire, about 10 billion year evolution, a star like Sol typically decrease in mass by about 50%.

 

Not all stars are as monotonous as our main sequence Sol. “Instability strip” stars, such as Cepheid variables like Delta Cephi and Polaris, expand and contract by 10 to 30% each 3-30 days.

 

You might find it interesting, Victor, to try and fit you theory of stars being white hole outlets with the behavior of Cepheid and other pulsating variable stars. Under you theory, such stars would appear to have to both expel and suck in matter from their central while hole.

 

You might also find it interesting that, 30 to 50 years ago, many astronomers and astrophysicists seriously speculated that quasars might be white holes. This was because, at the time, no compellingly better explanation for from where these compact (star size) tremendously luminous (about as luminous as a typical galaxy) objects got their tremendous power existed. Nowadays, better explanations do exists, and quasars are believed by most to be the active galactic nuclei of galaxies – that is, supermassive black holes visible by the radiation of their accretion disks.

 

I expect, Victor, that, once you’ve explored astrophysics enough, you’ll abandon your ideas about white holes as just not explaining the data of reality well enough.

[Victor2009]

Hi Craig, Thanks for the welcoming :)

 

Wikipedia articles are unbiased with many references within them. Neal Adams is one.

 

Have you studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets.

It does seem a strong case can be made for an expansion phase in planets and moons.

 

Earth > Video

Mars > Video

Europa > Video

 

The experiment with Jupiters moon Europa is breathtaking :)

 

My interest however is in stars and planets cores.

 

I see you understand the Suns core and overall diameter is slowly increasing. ;)

 

I still don't see how this can happen without additional matter being pumped in.

 

I am familiar with the fusion process in stars, that makes them shine.

But I don't see how this could "pressure" the stars to grow that much ?

 

Thanks for the old quasars/white holes info very interesting indeed ;)

 

Only time will show who will abandon his ideas :D

 

Let's keep an open mind

 

Victor

[maddog]

Why would it have to be a microminiature white hole, maddog ? it's not.

I based this upon the expected radiation pressure from a theoretical white hole of say

(0.01) hundreths of an Earth mass would blow the earth apart. So if you could have a

white hole of say 10e13 kg, the radius would be on the order of a proton and would now

be relegated irrelevant enough as to "heat" the magma. Of course Occam's razor would

simplify this as not necessary the pressure at the core and radioactive decay of elements

like Uranium 235 into Uranium 238 would be enough to do the same thing.

 

I believe them to be much smaller than white dwarfs. White dwarfs are thought to be the final evolutionary state of all stars whose mass is not too high (over 97% of the stars in our Galaxy)

How much smaller. This puts an upper limit of < 0.9 Solar mass.

They are however trying to create a micro black holes (MBHs) with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Maybe that would shed some light on the matter. ;)

Irrelevant. I thought you were talking about those "unicorn-like" white holes. ;)

 

maddog

[maddog]

Sins you find most of that to be true, maddog

It's a pity you don't give yourself a little bit more time on the Expanding Earth Theory

Sin; where's the "sin". I don't need any more time. I am open to new theories. In particular,

those that have some semblance of factual basis or factual evidence, or at least some rigorous theory. This Expanding Earth Theory has none of those qualities. As someone

else in this thread has more in line a theory like the Flat Earth Theory

(Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

;)

 

It's not that far-fetched

The opposite is true. This is waaay faar fetched.... ;)

 

maddog