Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Crazy Theory/Assumption/Thought

  1. #1 Crazy Theory/Assumption/Thought 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    A theory here would be defined as an idea or a huge assumption...

    Ok... All black holes are consuming matter and energy. This matter and energy does not escape the black hole.

    Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

    This is the theory:

    The black hole is consuming everything for the purpose of using the energy out of it to create a gravitational pull. When this energy is used, it goes over to another energy form, and the black hole disappear.

    My assumption is that the energy used goes over to a "neutral" form in the black hole. A form which is undetectable because it is "nothing." I hope this isn't too confusing.

    The eternal universe contain eternal amount of this "neutral energy." When unstable or somthing, I dunno, it causes a big bang and goes over many different forms of energy.

    I hope this isn't too stupid of a thought


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I think it was astute of you to post it in pseudoscience.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I think it was astute of you to post it in pseudoscience.
    Thank you

    No comments on my thoughts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It would only require energy to create an *alternating* gravitational field. Normal gravity doesn't cost any net amount of energy.

    This is one thing I wonder. If the gravitational field alternates, like gets stronger one moment, and weaker the next, then it's possible it could lose energy to the surrounding stars over time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Its a very logical theory. I think with a bit of tweaking and some relation to observations along with some calcultions could be a justifable fact. However I think the remaining product is dark matter. The gravitational after effects remain-there are twists and kinks in the spacetime fabric, so any ripples will get sent back and forth, leaving a permanent gravitational force-dark matter.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It would only require energy to create an *alternating* gravitational field. Normal gravity doesn't cost any net amount of energy.

    This is one thing I wonder. If the gravitational field alternates, like gets stronger one moment, and weaker the next, then it's possible it could lose energy to the surrounding stars over time.
    I'm not completely sure what you mean. Are you saying that gravitation is energy (according to me)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll respond as I understood it. Perhaps energy causes gravity? Maybe not the "neutral" energy, but all other? I'm confused... Help me think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Ok, I've been thinking. How about this:

    Imagine infinite space to be empty, what happens if you put an object there? Nothing. It won't fall because it won't get attracted to anything, it'll stay there because there's no "up" and "down" in space. So, let's imagine the big bang scenario. Everything explodes and rapidly expands in all directions, but the energy in which created the expansion slowly starts pulling everything back togheter. It attracts back togheter.

    What happens then? Hmm... New Big Bang? Everything goes back over to the "neutral energy"? I do think that perhaps my theory doesn't need a brane. I think it might work both with and without.

    How does it sound so far?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    No comments on my thoughts?
    I found it very difficult to think of anything positive to say and so I preferred to say nothing. I do applaud the fact that you are thinking about these sorts of things and being inventive in how you explore their relationships. However, it seems to me that because you are unfamiliar with the details of the physics of black holes, as they are currently understood, you are making some statements and reaching conclusions that just don't match up to reality.
    Don't misunderstand me - you probably know as much about black holes as I do. The difference is that because I recognise my abyssmal ignorance on the subject I avoid making any delcarations about them.
    I really do not want any of the foregoing to be taken by you as negative, but you did ask for comments.
    Regards
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I found it very difficult to think of anything positive to say and so I preferred to say nothing. I do applaud the fact that you are thinking about these sorts of things and being inventive in how you explore their relationships. However, it seems to me that because you are unfamiliar with the details of the physics of black holes, as they are currently understood, you are making some statements and reaching conclusions that just don't match up to reality.
    Don't misunderstand me - you probably know as much about black holes as I do. The difference is that because I recognise my abyssmal ignorance on the subject I avoid making any delcarations about them.
    I really do not want any of the foregoing to be taken by you as negative, but you did ask for comments.
    Regards
    Ophiolite
    I thank you for being so honest. You're right that I don't have much knowledge within physics and I don't know to much about black holes, but I do like to think a lot about the universe and its origin. My conclusions are only based upon what I see as the most logical of what I currently understand and know so far. Any help trying to develop my "theory" though will be greatly appreciated. It gives me the possible chance to learn something new, considering all the knowledge that you guys on this forum possess that I don't. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Obviously
    Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

    Forum Senior
    Forum Senior

    Joined: 14 Aug 2007
    Posts: 307
    Location: Norway


    kojax wrote:
    It would only require energy to create an *alternating* gravitational field. Normal gravity doesn't cost any net amount of energy.

    This is one thing I wonder. If the gravitational field alternates, like gets stronger one moment, and weaker the next, then it's possible it could lose energy to the surrounding stars over time.

    ---------------------------
    I'm not completely sure what you mean. Are you saying that gravitation is energy (according to me)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll respond as I understood it. Perhaps energy causes gravity? Confused Maybe not the "neutral" energy, but all other? I'm confused... Help me think?
    Well, gravity doesn't consume energy unless it causes something to actually move, and even then, it's gained back if the object ever moves the opposite direction.

    So if the Moon is orbiting the Earth, we could say the Earth's gravity is causing it to move one direction at one point in its orbit, but it will then cause it to move the opposite direction at another point in its orbit, so it all cancels out.

    The only way a black hole could lose energy would be if it caused something to move one way, but not the other. If its gravitational field alternates between higher and lower values, that effect becomes possible. It might pull on an object at one point in its orbit, but not pull it again at the opposite point in the orbit.


    It's sort of like how a magnet doesn't gain or lose energy by being magnetic, but if you spin it in a turbine, so the field is getting closer and further away from the wires that carry your electricity.......... that varying effect can build up an electric charge.

    I wonder if there's a similar way for a black hole to do a similar thing by varying its pull on objects that are orbiting it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I wonder if there's a similar way for a black hole to do a similar thing by varying its pull on objects that are orbiting it.
    I have no idea

    Perhaps there's a negative and positive gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I wonder if there's a similar way for a black hole to do a similar thing by varying its pull on objects that are orbiting it.
    I have no idea

    Perhaps there's a negative and positive gravity?
    Like there is positive matter and negative matter wink wink, nudge nudge.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    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
  •