Anon_Ghost

thanks i'm trying. I'm going to study this information paradox and get back to this I think i am getting a clearer picture though

Okay I understand the balloon now, the way the surface spreads evenly away from something. But a balloon still expands into the air and how the universe can undermine this very basic principle I do not understand. You can not expand something if there is no room for it to expand. Your method of thinking sounds really close to the ancients that said we could only expand along the surface of the earth, and not go up, but this was proven false when we sent a man to the moon. Please understand my analogy here. Like you said the "Observable Universe". I think maybe I have a different understanding here. When I say "the universe" what I mean IS the observable universe which MUST be finite. but a finite thing cannot expand infinitely if there is nothing to expand into correct? so to me any part of the universe would be "empty-space" even though particles may still exist there. Also, using YOUR balloon analogy, if we were expanding like the balloon wouldn't we only be able to see stars along the balloon's surface? But in observation it seems there are stars in every direction so wouldn't our universe be more like the air INSIDE the balloon? I know this defeat's the whole "no center of the universe" thing ya'll seem very determined to defend, but I don't see how it is possible to NOT have a center. The "center" can be figured out various ways, in literal form the center would be as you say the center of the balloon. the "center" could ALSO be the point at which formation of galactic systems first started(the first galaxy is your center). Unless we are saying that the whole universe was created at the same time, all galaxies formed together and everything in the universe is equally old. Only a universe that is the same no matter where you go can NOT have a center in the way I am trying to present the center. Remember the "CENTER" is only a reference point for this...whatever it is, where life would have had a chance to form billions of years before us and POSSIBLY been intelligent enough to "discover science". Note: in the way i have explained it, it also leaves open the possibility of many centers, in which I guess it would be more like the center of a galactic formation.

Ok so I'm having a hard time understanding this "folding" process. If you crumple up a piece of paper into a tiny little ball then unfold it, all the paper has been unfolded for the same amount of time yes, but is there no center to the paper? I am trying to put this in simple terms so that you can see what MY thinking process is. If we imagined the paper as the universe, it could still stretch and expand but it would still have a "center". This is one magical piece of paper btw lol! I thought the "balloon" universe was disproven? or has it just taken a back seat to modern theory and is still a possibility? When I said "older species therefore more advanced" I didn't explain properly. what I meant was that if life had started on an earth-like planet it is possible that some intelligent life had discovered science! If they had discovered science and taken a similar(not to say the same) path we have, they most definitely would have become a space-faring species, as I hope we too become someday! We are not where we are today because we started off smart, rather because of a handful of people in the last 5000 years who discovered that they could use science to figure things out. Nowadays it seems like we must have always been this way because most are at least semi educated. So although I'm sure there have been PLENTY of species across the universe that never made it, so is the process of evolution. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? that would be the infinite empty-space right? If space exists to be filled with our universe then there must be some sort of "edge" right? no i'm not talking sail over the edge and fall off the earth, but an edge to how far our universe has expanded, a point where you can only see stars behind you. I feel this makes alot of sense, unless the universe IS a balloon type universe, then I guess you'd always end up back where you started.

So I have a late night thought if anyone is looking for a theory to blow holes through. I believe that time travel is possible in a relative way, and no i'm not talking black holes...at least not really So we are using the Big Bang's(currently unknown) origin spot as our center of the universe, which in the spirit of making things easy we'll say is a trillion light years across. Now let's say, hypothetically, that earth is 250 billion light years away from the center of the universe(half way to the "outer rim"). I predict that if we flew twords the center of the universe faster than the speed of light, we would almost definitely find extra terrestrial life, in the form of a more technologically advanced, space-faring species. This would be relatively going into the future as their society according to my predictions would be billions of years older and much more advanced than ours. Alternately if you were to fly twords the "outer rim", you would find less formed galaxies which you could study and literally WATCH the evolution of life. This would be relatively going into the past as you could see earth-like planets in their beginning stages. This is a spin on relativity and although not a joke, it's not entirely serious either. Upon Imagining this I kind of envisioned the universe as a galaxy who's border is constantly being stretched in all directions, as though the vacuum of space is eager to be filled! lol! enjoy!

There is a video made with steven hawking where the guy explains orbits using the thing you drop a penny in at the mall and the penny circles a million times before falling in, have you seen this? They predicted that our planet will be burned to a crisp by our sun when it becomes a red giant, but it will still orbit for a short while before it falls into the sun. He said this was because we are being pulled into the sun at somewhere around 1mm/year(not sure exactly im to tired to look it up right now). Is there legitimacy to this claim? although I have found it hard to believe some of his theories, generally speaking i had hoped anything Steven Hawking put his name on would be at least sub truth. I am not trying to "wish" them into existence it just makes sense to me...sorry it doesn't to you. These tiny black holes...was this experiment done in a particle collider? Do you have a link for their experiment? Any links about this "information being stored at the event horizon" talk?

I understand that our black holes gravitational pull would take another __ Billion/Trillion years to suck in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy since it's effects on us this far away is minimal. But just as you said, if our sun turned into a black hole we would still orbit it correct? and our orbit will eventually lead us INTO the sun will it not? although this too has been explained in terms of millions/billions of years. So even if what I'm talking will never be seen by human eyes, EVENTUALLY everything would end up in one black hole or another right? Even the stars to far away are never at "rest" so they will always drift twords one thing or another and end up in one as well. So if no matter can leave the black hole...ever, then we are still left with a shrinking universe. I understand the radiation is just outside the event horizon thank you for clearing that up. Has this actually been tested and visualized? or is that too speculation? So what better candidates are there for causing the expansion then? And maybe I'm confused about the definition of space-time, are they saying that time is some sort of fabric that makes up the universe? If so why can't we see it? What proof is there that time is a THING and not a measurement of ticks? If it is just a measurement of ticks then what does a slowing clock prove other than time appearing to slow? If it is a thing...please explain.

I understand what you just said, but you are wrong. I am not trying to make my theory fit at all, rather I am trying to figure it out like the rest of you and happened to have a thought, my bad. I'm not coming in tootin my horn like "HEY HEY I FOUND IT!! THE ANSWER ALL YOU DUMBFUKS COULDN'T FIND!!!". All I'm trying to do is see if, and what parts, of my idea are POSSIBLE. So maybe you just misunderstand where I am coming from. Anyways I really don't want to throw yet another thread off rail by discussing the fact that this is an IDEA and not a set in stone theory. Please can we keep this to questions/answers and discussion of black and white holes rather than spending 2 paragraphs explaining how retarded my idea is, if you don't like it stop reading...pretty simple right?

Okay I will work on the mathematics I promise First a question, and an odd one at that, can 1+1=3? Me+Wife=Me,Wife,Baby? Secondly, if the universe was expanding without adding new matter to the equation, wouldn't the universe eventually become so spread out that no life would be possible? yet black holes are sucking matter in, so does this create some balance on a galactic scale where only galaxies are being spread out thus letting life thrive? I still don't understand how energy can leave a black hole when light can't can anyone explain?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates You said they don't both HAVE to exist to support the other. So what is to stop these gigantic black holes from consuming the entire universe? Granted this would take trillions of years but with nothing releasing the matter and no mass limit it would seem that you are suggesting a universe that started large and is becoming smaller. As you said it is not generally accepted that a black hole holds an infinite amount of matter in an infinitely small volume of space. So where does it go? Steven Hawking and his supporters seem to believe that black holes warp time causing a singularity that can in turn create a wormhole, spewing matter out on the other side(this would match the definition of a White Hole BTW), either at the beginning of time or at the beginning of "another" time. The problem I see with this theory is that it still leaves our universe being constantly drained of matter with no white hole in sight spewing it all back in! This is what led me to believing that black holes must have a limit of matter it can pack in before a explosive-like reaction would occur(white hole) tossing matter back out to be sucked in once again. I do not agree that they are a consequence of GR. I think GR led to the term of "Black Hole" but had an entirely different meaning with a single white hole at the beginning of time and a single black hole at the end of time, which does not match observations today(100 years later). I don't think that black holes have anything to do with time, but the recycling of matter. I think black holes serve a purpose to either the creation or maintaining of our universe. Well yes...it must make sense..period. There is no theory on black holes that DOES make sense at this point. We only found out about their possibility 100 years ago and spotted one for the first time 20 years ago. Although that may seem a long time, simpler questions have taken longer to thoroughly explore in the world of science. I asked about thermal readings because I was putting into question how reliable the information is that the universe is cooling uniformly. If it truly is, then that puts an obstacle in the way of my theory. I asked if this information came from viewing stars because unless we sent probes across the universe how can you tell that it is cooling at a consistent rate across the entire universe? Phi for all: your a dick. no I didn't go to college, I chose to defend this country when I left high school instead. I still live in poverty but it doesn't stop me from trying my best to understand the world I live in and since people like me provide safety to people like you, maybe you could stop throwing my lack of education in my face and say something fucking helpful!!! timo: If light can't escape the gravity of a BH, how does this energy leave? It would have to be faster than light wouldn't it? or am i missing something here? I do see what you are saying as far as the scale differences between black holes. Isn't it possible that they also operate on different scales? Perhaps it has something to do with the scale of the reaction that caused the black hole to be created that would define a limit? Or is that WAY off base? Sorry for the language. People generally become defensive when you try to use your supposed knowledge to discredit their theory without any explanation, then use my favorite baseball team to show how much of a dumb ass I am...gee thanks I'll be sure to recommend this site...

1915 Einstein predicted Black Holes and White Holes in GR theory. 1994 Hubble Space Telescope spots Supermassive Black Holes I think it is important that we first make a description for Black Holes and White Holes. A BH is a volume of space with a gravitational pull so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. A WH is a volume of space expanding with such force that nothing, not even light, can enter. Einstein himself made claims against the possibilities of black holes in 1934 saying that a BH does not fit with reality. The Swarzschild Solution puts a WH at the beginning of time and a BH at the end of time, but this does not fit with observations. White Holes and Black Holes coexist, this seemed apparent to Einstein as well, it is just a matter of figuring out how they fit together. Isn't it fair to say that Black Holes and White holes MUST both exist for the other to exist? If in fact only BH's exist, where would the matter go that gets sucked into them? Can these Black Holes grow infinitely larger, or do they have a matter absorption limit, or a mass limit such as that which determines the result of an exploding star? What would theoretically happen if it reached said limit? Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me that explaining something so sophisticated with something as general as relativity seems...odd. Trying to explain how you will feel a change in time as gravitational forces shred your body at the atomic level, seems to me as useful as sticking your penis in a bee hive to see if you can drink honey thru your pecker, in the end you're still screwed! There must be a LOGICAL answer for these anomalies that explains their function and use without changing reality. Another question. How do we know that the universe is cooling uniformly all the way across? Is this from observing star temperatures? So far no probes have left our solar system or galaxy as far as I know, which is the only way I understand they could collect such data.

God could very well be the particles we are all made of, it seems obvious they have some level of intelligence or free will as well. Your comparison to a computer is very interesting and is much as I am trying to prove myself. Modern thought seems to hold God to Jewish and Christian descriptions, isn't it possible they had no fucking clue what they were talking about? Why is the ground warmer than the air? Because there is a lake of fire beneath our feet, and if you don't praise Jesus you'll be sent there. What is the sky? That is God's land, he calls it Heaven. Now 2000 years later is it possible that we can stop arguing about the old philosophy of God and actually figure out who he is and what part he has to play, if any, in life? If there is in fact no God then how do we explain the big bang? what kicked it all off? If these is no God when did "Time" start? The first intelligent being? the Big Bang? If it's the Big Bang then what happened before the Big Bang? How long was the universe nothing before the Big Bang? What did space consist of before the Big Bang? If space and time are the same as GR states, then there would not have been any "space-time" before the big bang. So what is our universe expanding into? Is this a "drop off the edge of space-time" theory, much like sailors thought at one point in time? Or do we live in an infinate "space" in which God could be the instinctual intelligence that drives all life? Perhaps at the particle level? That would sure explain why we need a principle of uncertainty! If this was true would it explain why some people seem to be able to tap into a "universal intelligence"? Creating a universe close to the depictions of the matrix or avatar in the sense of tapping into a massive "information bank". This is quite the complex question but one thing is for sure, as of today no one can say that God is real, and no one can say that he is not either.

Okay so anyways here is what I am saying that follows your guidelines: Hell, in the form it took when the term was coined has been disproven. It is not hell beneath our feet as the roman catholic church claimed, it is the molten core of the earth. This is what heats the ground not the burning souls of the damned. Heaven in the form it took when the term was coined is also disproven, as we found that it was actually called "space" and we can go there. So what or who is god? That was the intended discussion. Various sciences proved the ancient religions incorrect and so too must it prove current religions incorrect if we are to evolve to a society based in logic and reason.

You obviously either don't understand what I'm saying or you don't like it and are getting personal. What I am discussing IS religion approached from a scientific view...sheesh... In order for Religion(in the sense of believing in a creator) and Science to both be correct, there can only be 3 possibilities. You may forget that Black Holes are a RECENT discovery and were only speculated to exist by Einstein, who also believed in the possibility of White Holes and said they are Mathematically Possible as the opposite of a black hole. So I wished to touch on the religious implications my white hole theory presents. these implications being that God as a deity in the traditional sense is absurd and "God" is reduced to an intelligent decision by particles to create the universe. If you have further questions regarding the legitimacy of my right to speak my beliefs on this forum, I suggest you tell me what rules I am breaking and stop discriminating against my freedom of speech because you do not agree. I will report this to the site owner and the cloud owner that provides this sites existence if you proceed to throw my discussions off topic! So rude... What you are doing is very much against the process of discovery and science itself and such behavior should hardly be tolerated by the site users never the less those on administrative level. How can I discover the evidence for you if I don't have the ability to throw around idea's with other scientific minded individuals? If only things with hard evidence are allowed here why are there postings about aliens?

Okay let me remind you that philosophy came before science, we wondered and came up with ideas that scientists conducted experiments to prove/disprove those theories years later. Anyways I think this is getting off topic. You guys are attacking my theory instead of presenting evidence that makes my theory wrong. The Big Bang Theory says that all matter was in a tiny little speck of the universe. Then it erupted and "flung" matter across space-time. This EXACT image is what I am proposing WHITE HOLES ARE. So yes, in my theory the big bang WAS a white hole. If White Holes did exist they would possibly create small amounts of "extra" matter forming stars distant from their home galaxy. This matter being subtracted from the equation creates a black hole unable to return to it's "Mass Limit", this is made up for by particles falling into the black hole over billions of years, the time it takes for it's gravity to consume it's galaxy again. These extra stars could then, possibly, collide causing a new black hole forming a new Galaxy? There are still bugs to be fixed but I'd appreciate help with my "speculative theory" rather than speculating that I'm wrong...

Yes I had planned a slight pitch of the roof to collect and reuse water. I must admit I had not considered snow though! Thank you for further improving my idea I will note you as helping in the buildings conception. As for what it is I am Inclined to keep this off a public forum.