Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: the big bang and a black hole are related

  1. #1 the big bang and a black hole are related 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Drotwich England
    Posts
    1
    Not so many years ago there were two apparently competing theories about the existence of the universe, there was the steady state theory which basically stated that the universe was always there, and then there was the big bang theory which stated that the universe started about 30 billion years ago with the big bang . Both theories appear to be opposed and the steady state theory was “proved “to be incorrect. However I believe they are both correct.
    The problem with the big bang theory as that being the so called “creation of the universe” is that it creates more crazy impossible questions than it answers, where as all evidence says the big bang happened, the questions remain, why did it happen, why did it occur in that place, why at that time, and how do you make all the stuff in the universe from nothing.
    We have a group of scientist studying a gravity well which has exploded, they call it “the big bang “and on the other hand we have scientist studying a gravity well which is filling up and they call them “Black holes” , why is it so hard to see the link, if a black hole fills up and explodes into a big bang then all the mysteries are over . One is a gravity well filling up and the other is a gravity well emptying , whats the problem???
    No one argues the big bang happened, however making the big bang the beginning of the universe is simply absurd, how can we use the term infinite time and infinite space, then turn round and say stupid things like “ and by the way it all started 30 billion years ago and it will go on forever”, how stupid can our little monkey brains actual be.
    If we know anything about nature we know its the greatest recycling machine in existence, matter cannot be created or destroyed it can only change forms. So why are we with our monkey brains trying to create matter in our heads, trying to link everything to the big bang, what if the big bang was a simple event, as simple as a star forming as simple as a super nova, then all the theories about making matter from other dimension , dark matter, making space etc etc and all the hair brained science round the big bang would disappear, freeing up great minds to study something else that is actually complex and un common.
    I believe that time must be taken out of our puny heads to understand the universe, I believe that the key to the universe is gravity, we know about black holes, however we seem to have the opinion that they eat matter and keep eating and keep eating, we know the more they eat the gravity from the black hole gets larger, so simple logic says that the stuff they eat is still in there, be it in a rather dense compressed form ( to saty the least ) , so using simple logic and taking time out of the frame, the black holes in the centre of galaxies will sooner or later eat its own galaxy, the galaxies will collide with each other causing black holes to eat each other etc, the idea that you can keep feeding a black hole a galaxy, a 100 galaxies, a million galaxies etc and it will never get full is the flaw in current thinking , sooner or later I believe a black hole will get so full that it will explode, surly this is the big bang , this super massive huge very small black hole is the ultimate gravity well to which the big bang comes from, it explains where , when , why, It was a simple event that happens when a black hole reaches a certain density. It simply explodes and spews it mass into that part of space which had a massive black hole which on that time and place ate another black hole and simply tipped it over the edge and bang. So all the big bang is ,is our small sector in the universe having been consumed by one black hole , which was trillions of years in the making , from matter from other different big bangs , and exploding and recycling all its old stuff 30 billon years ago, using the extreme pressure in the black hole to return all matter back to its basic form , hydrogen and renewing this particulate small minute section of space, providing fresh matter for the surrounding areas in space eager to consume it to their black holes in order to tip them over the edge and cause another big bang in a trillion years . Just a simple recycle event , no creation of anything , just as it says on the box, a simple big bang. ready for another cycle, this recycling event ( the big bang ) is happening some where in the actual full size universe on a day by day basis ( if not sec by sec ) some where else. Our nice new 30 billion year old matter is simply making its journey through a much older space, surrounded by areas in various states of this simple cycle, above us could be a section where all the stars are dead and the area is simply small black holes eating their galaxies and each other, below us is an area where 5 or 6 massive black holes have eaten up most of that section and are hungry, trying to fill themselves to explode, behind us one super massive black hole which has eaten all the other s up , and is in a vast empty section of space , just desperate for that last galaxy it needs to tip it over the edge and explode, we will feed it one of our galaxies in 1000 trillion years time and set it off, and so on and so forth, simple and obvious , no dark matter required , explains why matter is still accelerating into space because the gravity from the mass around it is simply attracting it , our know universe is not the only gravity source, there is constant gravity , there is lots of gravity all over the place on the outer edges of our known universe and not focused in our little sector , all things make sense when we stop putting importance on us, the earth is not the centre of the universe, the sun does not rotate around the earth , the milky way is not the universe, the 100 billion galaxies are not the universe, we are all just a pin prick in the total never ending universe , when will we learn out place and stop putting limitations on the word infinite .
    This does not explain the start of the real full size universe, ( which we need another name for, ) but it leaves room for the steady state theory as the total full infinite universe was always there, it leaves room for the big bang as a simple recycling process in a certain sector of the universe when a black hole has filled its boots and has simply exploded, and it even leaves room for God, its also gives lots of clever men other things to think about than trying to extrapolate all sort of weird theories trying to make matter out of nothing and stop focusing on the big bang as “the thing” when in fact its not a big deal and is simply explained and is a common event .
    So the big question should be , How much stuff can you stick in a black hole before it fills its boots and explodes , when this figure is found out then the big bang will get relegated form being the big mysterious creation thing to a simple inevitable common event, its got to be a simple thing, nature usually is . Could it all be that simple?
    Why is it that our monkey brains can seem to understand the term infinite time and space when applied to the future but we cannot understand infinite time and space when applied to the past .
    To have a big bang is to have a unexplained event, coming out of no where , making space and time, which then continues through space making space for ever and ever, just saying this makes the whole idea seam stupid, however my theory is neat fits all the information, and its no big deal simple and answers all the hard questions like Dark Matter, news flash there is none, its the rest of the universe outside our little big bang section acting on us, its simple

    We need to leave where it all began to a smarter animal than we are at present . and simply try to under stand what is around us at this time and not make ourselves and our events more important that they are

    Charles Sterling


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    That's a big chunk of words.

    People will be more likely to read your posts if you put in some paragraph breaks. I'm sorry, but I can't sacrifice my eyes for it the way it is.

    Welcome to the forum, by the way.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    A s Feifer said, paragraphs (press enter twice). Such a long post it can be better to divide it up into 2 or 3 posts.

    Presently the BB has the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. The BB has serious problems with it as in how did the original singularity appear, WTH is a singularity, why did it inflate, how did it slow down to expansion, why did it not all collapse once matter appeared? And that is just the first second. There are no realistic answers, so the BB remains an idea rather than a theory.

    We are told e=mc2 but it is only half right. The e is energy liberated from matter and not matter changing form. There is no threshold that matter turns to energy, so it doesn't.

    We have no evidence that fundamental particles (electrons, quarks, etc) can break down in a black hole (after all, something as complex as neutrons survive an escape velocity of 2/3c, over 120,000 mps). It is possible that at some point a black hole somehow becomes unstable with too much mass inside, with a huge sphere with every inner and outer part of it trying to spin at the same speed (almost c) and since the BH is where the mass is, it could start to unravel. An explosion is unlikely unless somehow a wormhole could form with an exit outside the black hole's EH and it literally goes down like a punctured balloon before the worm hole vanishes.

    The biggest black hole so far is 18 billion solar masses, so not enough.

    If part of recessional redshift is down to a sea of gravity, then stars are not moving as fast as thought in a galaxy so no need for DM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11
    I'll have to precurse this with the fact that it was a radically figmented idea which found its unlikely and absurb way into my head by happenstance more than by educated guessing.

    The universe is expanding, but not because of direct velocity. Instead it is by the expanding of time-space. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole, gravity stretches time-space to a nearly indefinate point as it approaches the singularity. What if our expanding universe, is only expanding due to the spaghettification of our space after we passed over the event horizon of a super massive black hole, and because time-space is relative, the universe will inevitablly fall into another black hole, toward where the original singularity was originated, and repeat this spaghettification process.

    This would also bypass the whole "universe expanding faster than the speed of light" dillema. It would also link the inverse similarities of the black hole and the big bang. It can also offer and explination of the whole paradox seeing as information is never destroyed, only compressed and stretched(which i find more plausible than the idea of alternate realities suggest by hawking after the recinding of his information paradox theory).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Firstofthe4
    This would also bypass the whole "universe expanding faster than the speed of light" dillema.
    It does not expand faster than the speed of light. It expands with about 70 km/s per Mpc. This is not even close to light speed.

    Another problem: The total mass in stars in the visible universe is about . If you derive the Schwarzschild radius for this mass, i.e. the radius of the hypothetical event horizon, you get something like , i.e. 1000 Mpc. From our point of view, the expansion rate at that distance would be 70000 km/s, not even close to the speed of light. The redshift is far below z=1. And I cannot recall any observation that reports on anything strange at that distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Firstofthe4
    This would also bypass the whole "universe expanding faster than the speed of light" dillema.
    It does not expand faster than the speed of light. It expands with about 70 km/s per Mpc. This is not even close to light speed.

    Another problem: The total mass in stars in the visible universe is about . If you derive the Schwarzschild radius for this mass, i.e. the radius of the hypothetical event horizon, you get something like , i.e. 1000 Mpc. From our point of view, the expansion rate at that distance would be 70000 km/s, not even close to the speed of light. The redshift is far below z=1. And I cannot recall any observation that reports on anything strange at that distance.
    The expansion rate at the edge of the visible universe is near C though, no? But anyway, if I understand properly, your calculations show that all the matter in the visible universe (not sure what you mean by visible universe in this instance, i.e. matter at 14.7 BLY or 29.4 BLY) would need to be confined within a 1000 Mpc radius to be able to form a black hole, which it isn't. But wasn't that the case early on?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11
    I understand where Dishmaster is coming from now that I look at it, what he's saying is that with the matter we have accounted for(visible universe) the event horizon would be 1000 Mpc, and if you follow the genera expansion rate, which is 72km/s/mpc, it wouldnt reach anywhere near the speed of light before where i would have depicted the event horizon of the theoretical black hole that we're putting the universe in.

    However, this does call into question, what about the matter in the universe not within our visual capabilities of accounting for. Beyond the visible universe, it doesnt just end. Portions of the universe are expanding, in relativity to us, faster than the speed of light. Could it be possible that this matter could account for the deficiency of mass needed to expand the event horizon far enough to exceed the speed of light?

    Imagine that the event horizon, is almost like a point of origin from which our universe expands, and in the depths of un-used space, beyond the spans the universe has expanded yet, or perhaps only beyond out detection, would be the singularity the universe is stretched toward. Like a sphere almost, with the singularity being the bottom, and the event horizon being the top(not a literal example to pertain the the shape of the universe. This, unless there are some theories unbenounced to me out there, is only possible in a side scrolling video game, where you hit the end of the level to find yourself back at the beginning again.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    With the "visible universe", I mean the universe that we can see, i.e. until the redshift prevents looking beyond a certain distance. I also want to point out, that a realistic mass estimate might be higher, in particular when including the hypothetical "Dark Matter". But you can do the math yourself, up to what distances the possible event horizon would be shifted.

    I am not sure, what really existed at the early times of the universe. Yes, at some time, it was such small, but I reckon, most of the energy was still hidden in photons at that time, not matter. So, this mass estimate might not be valid for the early universe.

    And the expansion at the speed of light at the horizon of the universe is not real. If you were at the horizon, you would see us expanding with the speed of light as well. So, the distance, where the regression velocity attains the speed of light just marks the horizon of the visible universe. It is just the sum of the expansion rates at a certain distance. To say that the universe expands with light speed is just an arbitrary statement, because behind the horizon it would expand with even higher velocities.

    Regarding the matter, we cannot see: Whether we are living in a black hole depends on the volume density of matter, i.e. the ratio of radius and included mass. So, if you assume that the mass density in the universe is rather uniform (and the cosmic microwave background suggests that is so), you will never be able to squeeze enough mass into its Schwarzschild radius. The farther you go to add up mass, the larger the space becomes as well. So, it does not work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11
    Ahh, I understand what you're saying, gotcha. Thanks Dishmaster. I probably would have entertained the idea for a long time until someone else threw a quark in it or I came to the same conclusion. I'm still intrigued by the expansion of space-time, which inevitably is a result of the big bang, or similar theory and am convinced that the relation between the two still plays out on much smaller scales today. I'll have to further research other events which cause flux in space-time, to include gravitational events, such as black holes, or maybe other such manipulations not related to gravity directly. I'll likely post a new thread with other curiosities that are bound to come up as I research it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •