Dimension Access (single singularity) Theory

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[Tormod]

I was watching television and the Discovery Channel said that a black hole exists in the middle of galaxies. The Discovery Channel said that a black hole is what holds a galaxy together. Black holes suck in matter.

 

First of all - did it say that there are black holes at the center of *all* galaxies? AFAIK that is not the case. There are many different kinds of galaxies, and many are not spiral-arm types.

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[InfiniteNow]

Just because you cannot remember the exact program and all of it's contents which first led you to some of these ideas does not mean you cannot find the information you seek elsewhere.

 

Check out some books or sites on gravity and black holes. Heck, by using the Search feature within Hypography alone you'll encounter scores of ideas and discussions on these topics.

 

As Tormod mentioned, not all galaxies have a BH in the center. Some do, but some don't. Considering this, you need to be cautious when trying to form logical conclusions about everything else. If your premise is faulted, then so is the conclusion you draw from them (usually that is, since even a broken clock is correct twice a day :) )

 

http://hypography.com/forums/search.php

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

[FastFuriousBK]

z

[TheBigDog]

If you disregard my guess on whether or not black holes end or not and if you disregard my mistake on the fact that there isn't a black hole in the middle of galaxies what do you guys think about the rest of the theory. :

 

About the theory that the one singularity that all black holes in our universe are connected to and that there is only one singularity in our universe that exists in a different dimension known as a dimension i nicknamed dimension Access??

 

:hihi:

I guess I would disagree because I don't believe that singularities exist as they are commonly described. A black hole is not a singularity in terms of being a zero dimensional point in space. It is a collection of very dense matter with gravity so high that it approaches the limits of energy exertion. But even that high force is unable to crush matter to a single point. A black hole takes up space, and they can be very large. My belief is that matter within the core of a black hole loses all atomic structure as we know it, and that black holes part of the natural lifecycle of the greater universe. That the pressure of the matter in a hole trying to expand will overcome the gravity keeping the hole together forcing the hole to expand releasing energy and matter into something that would resemble the big bang. Because gravity is weaker at the center of an object than at the surface, the bigger a black hole gets the more the pressure balance would shift in favor of expansion from the middle. So the singularity is the incubation chamber of the next grand reality within the same universe.

 

Bill

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[TheBigDog]

I would consider black holes to be independant of each other. They are just clumps of matter. If two of them get too close they can merge into one. I call them the birthplace because I see in my mind's simplistic understanding of them that atomic structures break down within a black hole. And when the hole expands out of existance the matter would reform into atomic structures as the expansion happened.

 

But it is pure speculation. If I had the capacity I could attack the problem with mathmatics, but I lack both the skill and inclination to do so. Black holes are terrific playgrouds for the curious mind. The are like God in a way, they may be easier to prove, but they are no less speculative when we claim to understand them. At least for now.

 

Bill

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[HydrogenBond]

The earliest galaxies of the universe formed extremely fast. They were already producing stars in less than a billion years from BB. This is inspite of the rapid expansion and the assumption of a continuum expansion with very little in the way of discontinuities. If this data was not visiable it would be considered impossible using existing theory.

 

What my theory is, is the primoridial atom/blackhole from which the universe stemmed initially broke up before mass conversion. The result were multitudes of mini primordial atoms all in the same area. This provided major discontinuiites and kept expanding clumps of matter closer in space. The energy pressure waves from the multitudes of mini BB, kept the matter more contained. The result was the rapid formation of early galaxies (expansion/conpression) as well as a uniform expansion of the galaxies with respect to each other.

 

The current theory of a singular continuum expansion is conceptually inconsistent with the rapid formation of early galaxies. A discontinuous expansion, although unorthodox, is more consistent with observation. What is more important logic or traditon?

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[FastFuriousBK]

a

[arkain101]

I don't know alot about black holes but I had some questions about them when I noticed what looked like a few inconsistant parts.

 

Current Theoretical facts on black holes.

 

-superdense collapsed matter

-light can not escape

-nothing can travel faster than light so nothing can escape

 

However lets look at a few things about them.

 

 

Though light is unable to escape, how is it that galactic jets and magnetic fields are able to blast out from them at intense speeds, speeds so great that obvious relativitic events should be well observed.?

 

 

In very close proximity of the black hole radiation is capable to escape unscathed. Should not time be extremely slow at this distance to a black hole?

 

In one theory there is the possibility of singularity.

 

Singularity

At the center of the black hole, well inside the event horizon, general relativity predicts a singularity, a place where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and gravitational forces become infinitely strong.

 

It is expected that future refinements or generalisations of general relativity (in particular quantum gravity) will change what is thought about the nature of black hole interiors. Most theorists interpret the mathematical singularity of the equations as indicating that the current theory is not complete, and that new phenomena must come into play as one approaches the singularity.[12]

 

The cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts that there are no naked singularities in general relativity. This hypothesis is that every singularity is hidden behind an event horizon and cannot be probed. Whether this hypothesis is true remains an active area of theoretical research.

 

The prediction of a place where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and gravitational forces become infinitely strong is to suggest many things.

 

Such as;

In the place of this singularity time would no longer exist. The material or reference frame that is located in this place would be where time passes at an infinite rate around them in observation, thus saying that the universe is infact infinite. For would not a paradox form if there was a place where all time has passed instantly while also to say the universe is not an infinite entity?

 

Secondly, It is in relativity that it requires an infinite force in order to accelerate matter to the speed of light "C" and beyond. So if such a force resides within a black hole there is opportunity to accelerate matter beyond the speed of light and develope infinite mass, space contraction, and time dialation.

 

With this consideration, how is a black hole able to be sent into accelertion. Black holes have been observed merging together and also streaming about galaxies and space as rogue black holes. Should it be possible to accelerate a black hole that has the opportunity to contain infinite mass? and what exactly kind of results do we get when we calculate two sources of infinite mass and infinite force merging together? Is that even mathamatically possible to work out?

 

 

Since it appears that some things are capable to escape from black holes both in close proximity and event horizen areas I began to wonder the possibilty of something.

 

To our observation a black hole is a place in space that appears to have nothing in it. A void as it were where material can be in orbit or observed being sucked into. Although, there are many things in the sky that we can not see all the time, frequencies of electromagnetic radiaiton that are not visible to our common eye. Is it possible that a black hole is infact emitting alot of radiation (light?) but at frequencies of which are so intense that they are not observable with current detection systems?

 

For example. Lets say a black hole emmits energy on the very tail end of the frequency spectrum, a wavelength of nearly absolute zero or possibly even zero. Would this energy be capable to reach us on earth for observation since it would be interacting with any material in its path and dissapating away.

I wondered if it were possible black holes were actually 'visible' as it were, if you happened to get close enough to them.

 

I got distracted while working on this and forgot some other points I wanted to bring up, so maybe that will come later.

 

Anyhow, I am curious to hear what others have to say about this??

[FastFuriousBK]

z

[arkain101]

Interesting thoughts without a doubt. But very far stretched. I have had a hard time following your thought processing and where these ideas connect and base from, but then again I have not read that thouroughly through here.

 

I often think that better tests need to be done applied towards current theory. I am no einstien, but I relentlessly find little inconsistancies of SR and GR in all sorts of areas. So what I mean is I am with you, with new and fresh thoughts, but its going to take some more experiments to get us a more clean starting point, and that shouldnt be long with all the current scientific projects being developed. Projects like the 30meter wide mirror telescopes with no image diffraction, and the latest particle collider/accellerator.

[FastFuriousBK]

z

[Quantarius]

Actually, ya know I should have copywrited this one. It's funny, but I've been playing with this idea since 2001. I worte it on a message board with along with the best mathemtical explination I had at the time. I am currently learning computer programming and hope to design a simulation of the theory. If you guys want I can gather my notes together and show what work I have done on the subject. If this idea is even remotely correct, it could possibly solve many questions about the nature of gravity.