Solar System of Universes

[InfiniteNow]

Hello Infinity

 

I'm just gonna take a guess that you are talking to me here, and not a mathematical concept of increase beyond bounds. :Waldo:

 

 

It is difficult for many scientist to define whats in a Black Box.

So how do folks in the aviation industry do it? Don't they just remove it from the plane and plug it into some device set to interpret or summarize the data it contains?

 

 

Like I said before, the only way we can study Black Holes is to study Ultra Dense matter such as quark stars, a step before a Black Hole.

Actually... we can also study:

Gravitational Lensing

Galactic Jets

Accretion Disks

High mass x-ray binaries

Supernovae

Gamma ray bursts

Hypernovae

Mass, electrical charge, and momentum

 

...and any number of other things. But, yeah, I guess that studying ultra dense matter might help too.

 

 

and you can have as many breaks as you want.

Thanks, but since you're not my boss, I'd probably get fired if I did that. :Waldo:

[Harry Costas]

Hello INfinity

 

I did not mean a Black Box in a plane,,,,,,smile.

 

Its studying items in a Black Box that we are unable to open. Only by observing at its behaviour by shaking it.

 

And you are right about the additional links in observing Black Holes

 

Stay Cool.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello INfinity

 

I did not mean a Black Box in a plane,,,,,,smile.

 

Its studying items in a Black Box that we are unable to open. Only by observing at its behaviour by shaking it.

 

And you are right about the additional links in observing Black Holes

It's InfiniteNow, and what does your statement about a black box mean? There are other ways to study it, and it's contents, other than shaking it, but I am more curious how this applies at all the topic of this thread, and further, why the box has to be black?

 

You've already been asked by the moderators of this forum to provide support for your statements. Since you have not done so, I've decided to attempt to show you why your statements seem so false and inaccurate.

 

And thanks, I knew I was right or I wouldn't have posted it to begin with. :Waldo:

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinite now

 

A Black Hole is like a Black Box

We will never be able to see into it.

 

We cannot shake it.

 

So we have to observe it from its surroundings and the properties that it

shows. Also from its possible birth. By stydying ultra dense matter such as we find in Neutron stars and quark stars.

 

 

I'm more than willing to discuss what ever issues and usually I will support those issues, but not when its general.

A bit of lateral thinking is sometimes required.

[InfiniteNow]

A Black Hole is like a Black Box

We will never be able to see into it.

Never is a very very very long time.

 

In the US, people used to say that women would never vote too... Just because we ability to do so now is limited has no impact whatsoever on our potential abilities in the future.

 

 

I'm more than willing to discuss what ever issues and usually I will support those issues, but not when its general.

A bit of lateral thinking is sometimes required.

 

I appreciate the clarification. However, you should try using your own logic a bit here. You state that it's important to think laterally, yet you maintain that the only way to study black HOLES is to look at Ultra Dense Matter.

 

 

I maintain that, while this may be one way to garner additional information about black HOLES, it's clearly not the only way (which you acknowledged after I clearly demonstrated this in Post #35).

[Harry Costas]

Infinitenow

 

I think you are missreading what I'm saying.

Regardless, focus on Astronomy and not on silly matters.

 

I said

 

So we have to observe it from its surroundings and the properties that it

shows. Also from its possible birth. By stydying ultra dense matter such as we find in Neutron stars and quark stars

 

What do youthink I mean?

Next time do not put your own meaning into the words I say.

 

If you want me to respond to some issues I will on astronomy only.

[InfiniteNow]

So we have to observe it from its surroundings and the properties that it

shows. Also from its possible birth. By stydying ultra dense matter such as we find in Neutron stars and quark stars

Harry, have you heard of the "no hair" theorem? It more or less states that once the black hole forms, you cannot gather any information about what it was before... and that there are only 3 things that we can find about them... mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum.

 

Now, some theories suggest that we could determine more about what object came before the hole's birth by studying gravitational waves, or ripples in spacetime curvature, however, we have not yet been effective at doing this on anything more than paper.

 

Perhaps it would be advantagous for you to start a thread on Ultra Dense matter, or neutron stars, or quark stars... as you've brought these up in each of your posts without offering back up or further ideas or anything else...

 

 

What do youthink I mean?

Next time do not put your own meaning into the words I say.

 

By default, your request is impossible. The entire universe passes through my perceptual filters before it reaches my consciousness. When I interpret your words, I cannot help but put my own meaning into them. Everyone here is the same on that matter. Even you will interpret my words only after they've passed through your filters... while I try to ensure I am perceiving accurately, it's also up to you to communicate your thoughts effectively to the world around you.

 

 

If you want me to respond to some issues I will on astronomy only.

:angel: Okay... whatever floats your boat.

 

 

...which of course is buoyancy... :rain:

[Harry Costas]

Hello Tomod

 

What part did you want me to back up?

 

red shift comment

quote:link:http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

"These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening.

 

The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross.

 

So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"

 

Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory"

 

Big Ban busted by 33 scientists;

re link:http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 

quote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

 

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

 

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation." and so on read the link

 

star fomations

see links

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?Star+Formation

http://www2.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html

http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/gallery/images_ysos.html

 

Nulea synthesis in stars

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html#c1

 

our sun the Iron star

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html

http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/SunLayers.html

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

[ryan2006]

Harry I am sorry I can not e-mail you it is flooded write now and I have to set up an entirely different account. I have enjoyed your support as a friend since we were introduced my mailing address is on the other site if you feel so inclined to write me like I said I enjoy discussing the universe with you. You can find my mailing address in the members section. Hope to hear from you Ryan.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

 

Nice to see you

 

Keep well

[InfiniteNow]

You seem to see the atom as a small solar system. Check out the following:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

The Bohr model is not a complete model of the atom, and fails to explain many of the finer structures seen in atoms. As a theory, it has been replaced by quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.

 

A more accurate depiction is a description of atomic orbitals and electron configuration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration

 

Classically, the atomic orbitals can be thought of as similar to the orbits of the planets around the Sun. However, it is important to note that the atomic orbitals cannot actually be described classically. In fact, explaining the behaviour of the electrons that orbit an atom was one of the driving forces behind quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the atomic orbitals are the quantum states that electrons surrounding an atom may exist in.

 

 

Your analogies are interesting, and it's nice to see that you are trying to think of new ideas, but why waste a bunch of time thinking of things which have long since been proven otherwise? Look at some of the information and at least give yourself a level footing from which to start.

 

 

Cheers. :confused:

[ryan2006]

I don't believe my ideas interchange at all my model of the universe and its hypothesis rests. Like the earth rotatates around the sun our universe rotates around a sunburst that which supplies more than one universe in orbit with energy. Further like our solar system is in the milky way I believe it is very possible for a solar system of universes to be in a galaxy of universes I have not created but one word here and that is sunburst. Also in my model like an electron that jumps out of orbit our universe could have jumped out of orbit and went through a vacume and ended up on the other side where we are now thus the big bang all matter and energy ect exploding from some other place and time. It is a reasonable hypothesis but in our life time we will never be able to prove it just enjoy the idea and maybe you'll come up with your own idea. As far as being infinite I believe our universe is a finite circle in an infinite world of space and time.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ryan J. Henningsgaard

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

 

The rotation factor is common without a question.

 

As to the finite, no way.

 

As for the Big Bang, no way.

 

<spamlink removed>

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

 

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 

 

Within the next few years there will be more deep field images and with that many cosmologists are going to change their thinking huts.

 

Until than, belief is an emotion that can trap a person in thinking with tunnel vision.

 

Try to think of the Universe as one, and the parts within as just parts, regardless of their size.

 

 

Regards

 

Harry

[ryan2006]

Harry did you ever take geometry or trigometry? A circle or sphere with many lines or just one line drawn around the perimeter of the circle. The finite is the circle because it is a closed system but the line drawn could go on forever we'll call that infinite my description of a solar system of universes in a galaxy of universes should be able to spark enough intelligence in you to be able to say o.k. it is possible that there is a bunch of these spheres so many that they go on forever bubbles in the ocean for example until the system grows larger in scale and keeps growing I am just saying that it is ordered. Before I knew about axis research to our universe or Paul Davies multiuniverse theory I came up with the idea simply with the knowledge from a few books I had read. Draw a 90degree angle and then use corner as point zero draw a curved line and the line ends in a circle draw a straight line and it goes on forever but there are two sides a and b so that it must come back together I wish I could sit down and show you it is hard for me to explain this. To many lengths the human mind is unable and his understanding so incomprehensible to understand the infinite all you can do is let a line called infinity go on forever without end without beginning. All I am saying is that there are circles spheres that make a finite world exsist in an infinite one. Small pond or incomprehensible pond? That you have to ask Harry.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,love your comment.

 

The only problem with your logic is this. Rename your universes into units, because there is only one Universe that cannot be bent, twisted, expanded add os subtract from it. Its just a word to mean "ALL".

 

Now within that "ALL" you can have multi-units (universes with finite dimensions)

 

Do you get my drift

 

Keep well and cool,,,,,,,,,smile and relax,,,,,,,,,and your mind will be open,,,,

Harry

[ryan2006]

I get your drift Harry and I respect your view it isn't much different than what I said in the beginning of this topic page though. Infinite, Eternal, and "All" mean the same thing without a beginning and without an end. Since we can not measure the size of infinity, or eternity it is beyond our comprehension and thus we can not say unit one our universe unit two another universe Ok so you have a super computer put a 1 and then try to put as many zero as it can behind that 1 and run the computer for 80 years. For Example 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and so on you have the computer process at the speed of light and you call the number light years now your talking about space and time which is a long way from what I can ever understand I have a hard enough time balancing my check book. The point is we can not fathom infinitity or eternity you can only imagine the size by thinking outside the box. and still you come infinitely short of understanding. There are no words that can describe the size of the universe or the universe for that matter.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Someone just asked me to reduce the amout of links and add a bit of what I think. So he we go

 

------------------------------------------

The Universe goes for ever.

 

Anybody question this

 

------------------------------------------

 

The internal parts of the universe form units

we can start from

1) the atom

2) to the solar system

3) Part of the galaxy

4) Part of the local cluster of galaxies where m87 is central influence

5) Part of the cluster of a bigger cluster

6) and this forms part of a bigger cluster.

7) which forms part of a super dooper cluster.

8) there are about 9 known super dooper clusters that form a super-huge cluster which cannot be defined yet because of the limit man can see.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Does the Universe expand.

 

No way

How can the endless universe expand. Its like infinity expanding which cannot be done.

Some people will add illusions and fantasies and multi dimensions to make their models work.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Do the internal parts of the universe expand.

Yes they do.

When objects explode they expand.

We see this in stars when they explode.

We see it in jet streams from active Black holes that eject material deep into space.

We see the rare waves moving out from a galaxy from a probable black hole explosion or collision.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Do the internal parts of the universe contract

Yes they do

Ultra dense matter in the form of neutron stars, white dwarfs, quark stars, Large ultra dense matter that prevents light from escaping (some call these black holes, but are not the holes that we see in movies ) collect other matter through gravity and electromagnetic forces. Some contract and some collapse to extreme ultra dense matter.

-------------------------------------------

 

What makes up the universe?

99% is in the form of PLASMA

Stars and Black Holes.

-------------------------------------------

 

Does the local visible universe expand. Not as a whole. Only parts. This does not imply that the universe is expanding.

 

 

I have given many links previously for an against.

---------------------------------------------

 

Must stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,have to go and pick up the kids