Spyman

For what it's worth, at least I enjoyed your arguments. (Even though I suspected them to be futile.)

I agree with I ME and Arch2008. The core of a spinning Black Hole doesn't flatten due to high spin like Earth would if its spin would increase. According to General Relativity the original body is crushed by the immense gravity and would compress to an singularity even if it was not spinning at all. Instead the spin prevents the core from shrinking to zero radius because it needs to conserve angular momentum, but it would still be incomprehensible tiny and spinning incredible fast. IMHO our knowledge and models are not complete, the theory of General Relativity is not enough so resolve how of the inside of Black Holes truly are like, maybe a new theory of quantum gravity can resolve this, but likely it will also reveal new questions and mysteries to solve. What do you think is rotating with a maximum and why do you think it's absolute at 1 000 revolutions per second? The core in a Black Hole is not firmly attached to a solid Event Horizon with rigid spokes but when a Black Hole spins its angular momentum pulls surrounding space around with it, causing severe frame dragging. When astronomers talk about spin rates of Black Holes they speak of how fast space is rotating at the Event Horizon and not how fast its core is spinning. AFAIK the Kerr solution have a limit of maximum angular momentum for rotating Black Holes which sets a maximum spin speed for a certain mass, but different mass affects both the Event Horizon radius and the angular momentum. The Black Hole GRS1915+105 with roughly 14 solar mass have a theoretical rotation limit of 1 150 spins a second but I don't think that is an absolute maximum spin rate regarding all Black Holes independent of their mass. I am not an expert on Relativity and might be wrong but suspect a "lighter" Black Hole would have a much smaller radius for its Event Horizon and should therefore be able to spin faster, while a "heavier" even though able to carry more angular momentum would boast such large Event Horizon radius it would not be able to achieve that high rate. A confirmation of the relation between mass and maximum spin rate would be appreciated. ---------- Airbrush is correct, for observers at a safe distance from a Black Hole, the Event Horizon surrounding its singularity, appears as a spherical surface encapsuling an equal large volume of space as a spherical solid body would. However for an observer traversing to the inside its internal volume is not that simple. More on that in this thread: Volume inside a black hole?

While I don't know much of paranormal activities, I think the chance that you actually where kidnapped by a very advanced race of aliens and then returned safe to your home, but so sloppy that you noticed is unlikely to the very verge of impossible. I am not educated in medicine either but from my personal experience I would think that you either are under some severe pressure causing extreme nightmares or that you are sick and need medical care. The convulsing of your eyes and the loud sound is the only thing different from a normal nightmare and IMO may have been caused by some cind of attack. If you have not already been to a doctor, I would strongly suggest a visit.

I will probably regret asking, but which part of this experience makes you think there was aliens involved?

Sorry that I can't help you further, but there should be references concerning technical details of optical system and data processing methods, in the papers I provided a link to.

The underlined parts are links. Description of a ring-singularity When a spherical non-rotating body of a critical radius collapses under its own gravitation under general relativity, theory suggests it will collapse to a single point. This is not the case with a rotating black hole (a Kerr black hole). With a fluid rotating body, its distribution of mass is not spherical (it shows an equatorial bulge), and it has angular momentum. Since a point cannot support rotation or angular momentum in classical physics (general relativity being a classical theory), the minimal shape of the singularity that can support these properties is instead a ring with zero thickness but non-zero radius, and this is referred to as a ring singularity or Kerr singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

Empirical tests In 2010, Penrose and V. G. Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the BOOMERanG experiment showed concentric anomalies which were consistent with the CCC hypothesis, with a low probability of the null hypothesis that the observations in question were caused by chance. However, the statistical significance of the claimed detection has since been questioned. Three groups have independently attempted to reproduce these results, but found that the detection of the concentric anomalies was not statistically significant, in the sense that such circles would appear in a proper Gaussian simulation of the anisotropy in the CMB data. Penrose and Gurzadyan responded that, while the presence of individual circles in the CMB data was not statistically significant, they claim to have found concentric families of circles, the presence of which cannot be found in the random Gaussian simulation of the data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology Here is an old thread regarding the claim with links to several papers: Echos of a bygone Aeon

A Black Hole consists of a spherical Event Horizon surrounding a hypothetical singularity which is thought to be ring shaped in the plane of rotation.

A more massive body have stronger gravity than a less massive. TRUE Gravity is weaker at greater and stronger at closer distance. TRUE White Dwarfs are much much much much more massive than Earth. TRUE The huge surface gravity of White Dwarfs would crush humans. TRUE Humans can and occasionally do walk on the surface of Earth. TRUE Logical Conclusion: The possibility of Earth having a White Dwarf inside is FALSE.

I skimmed the Article briefly, it don't have any explanation of why a huge number of discovered Red and Brown Dwarfs would negate the Big Bang theory and clearly admitt that it would be very hard to observe a Black Dwarf even if they should exist. The Article did NOT bring up any evidence whatsoever that we have observed a stellar object older than the estimated age of the Universe. This is what Wikipedia says of Black Dwarfs: "A black dwarf is a hypothetical stellar remnant, created when a white dwarf becomes sufficiently cool to no longer emit significant heat or light. Since the time required for a white dwarf to reach this state is calculated to be longer than the current age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, no black dwarfs are expected to exist in the universe yet, and the temperature of the coolest white dwarfs is one observational limit on the age of the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf I will repeat the last part of the quote once more to make it absolutely clear: The temperature of the coolest White Dwarfs is one observational limit on the age of the universe. Conclusion: A huge number of discovered Red and Brown Dwarfs does NOT negate the Big Bang theory, since none of them are older than ~14 billion years.

Much to read and learn here -> Dinosaur.

First I must say that no one should put even the slightest of trust in any random comments on youtube. But it is true that Brown Dwarfs have a much longer lifetime than ordinary stars, however they are already formed as Brown Dwarfs from birth. The fact that they are predestined to have a much longer progress through their stellar evolution than how long the Universe has existed so far, does not negate the Big Bang theory. (Unless we discover several that evidently are much older than 14 billion years, but so far none older have been observed.)

I am sorry if you feel insulted jamiestem, it was not my intention to make you feel bad. But nevertheless, it is crucial that you are abel to change your mind, if you want to learn. (Pointing out this importance is my only claim of contribution here in this thread.) Others are already doing a very good job in patiently explaining to you how you are wrong and I am not interested in trying to force feed you with knowledge or evidence against your will, so I wish you luck in your endeavour and won't disturb your speculation further.

I don't understand why it would be necessary to quote more than what's needed to make my point or how not quoting the first sentence is unfair to jamiestem. The post is right above mine and there is a link to the full post in my quote, but most of all what was said does not lessen but reinforce my argument. This is what jamiestem said in post #50: "Ok. So spitting out a planet and having it fall into an orbit seems unlikely, if not impossible. I still believe it could happen based on how little we know of things like that occuring." You are free to your own opinion, but my interpretation of above text is that jamiestem did not fully abandon his theory and argued that we know to "little", AFAIK orbital mechanics is not some new unexplored science. Whether he likes, understands or questions the current theory of formation and evolution of Solar Systems is besides and totally irrelevant to my argument. After 3 pages of arguments and he still "belives" - IMHO it is appropriate to ask IF it's possible and WHAT it would take to make him change his mind. It might very well behoove him to carefully think this question through too. I don't mind if people put faith in their personal view of the Universe and understand that not everyone can take time to learn and understand all of science and every current theory and models. Certainly, I agree that there is nothing wrong with challenging current status or trying to learn more. ---------- Attacking me instead of thinking through and answering my question does not improve on your credibility nor your knowledge and understanding of science. A person with "no experience whatsoever in the realm of science" would profit more from asking questions and learning why his envisioned models are wrong, instead of stubbornly clinging to his faith and continue to argue about his idea after convincing evidence has been put forth against it, if he truly is interested in learning and discussing said phenomena. I don't think we will ever fully understand the Universe and that our current knowledge have much more to add, with plenty of amazing and surprising discoveries to be made. But current knowledge of orbital mechanics put forth against your idea is well known and researched, it is NOT likely to change that much and any future change will be built upon whats already known and observed. You are NOT Galileo, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility or that your personal ideas are being suppressed because of their revolutionary insights don't help your cause. Without a thorough understanding of current consensus you are NOT able to judge its correctness or challenge its status. The Big Bang theory doesn't involve the creation of our Solar System with the Sun and orbiting planets, according to the prevailing cosmological theory the Big Bang took place some 13.7 billion years ago and our Solar System formed much later, some 4.6 billion years ago. Big Bang is NOT about an explosion inside space, it deals with the grand scale evolution of the Universe as a whole, while the Nebular hypothesis deals with how stars and planets can form from local large clouds of matter. There is only one Big Bang, (that we know of), but billions of galaxies with billions of Solar Systems in different ages and stages of evolution. I don't think it will lead to anything useful by trying to mix these very different and separate theories... Very poetic Jabberwocky... I suggest you start reading here -> Solar System and use all links diligently to learn more.

Define "portable bridge". All bridges can be disassembled, transported and resassembled somewhere else. Bridges themselves capable of controlled motion involving motors and steering are more vehicles than bridges. Military pontoon brigde constructed for temporary usage and portability: Transportable "bridge" on water called ferry:

Can the straws be sticked into each other? If so then stick the longer part of the first straw firmly into the the shorter part of the next straw and so on, to connect a series of straws in a long row before bending each "bendy" part and creating the "/\/\/\/\/\/\/\" pattern.

So in essence there is no argument or evidence of which contradict your belief that can ever change your mind?

From your own link: "Even though Mercury sits blisteringly close to the sun, some areas in craters near its poles lie in permanent shadow — and are probably cold enough to house ice deposits." From Wikipedia: "Mercury is similar in appearance to the Moon: it is heavily cratered with regions of smooth plains, has no natural satellites and no substantial atmosphere." "Surface temperatures range from about 90 to 700 K (−183 °C to 427 °C), with the subsolar point being the hottest and the bottoms of craters near the poles being the coldest." "The mean surface temperature of Mercury is 442.5 K, but it ranges from 100 K to 700 K due to the absence of an atmosphere and a steep temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. The subsolar point reaches about 700 K during perihelion then drops to 550 K at aphelion. On the dark side of the planet, temperatures average 110 K. The intensity of sunlight on Mercury’s surface ranges between 4.59 and 10.61 times the solar constant (1,370 W·m−2). Although the temperature at the surface of Mercury is generally extremely high, observations strongly suggest that ice exists on Mercury. The floors of deep craters at the poles are never exposed to direct sunlight, and temperatures there remain below 102 K; far lower than the global average. Water ice strongly reflects radar, and observations by the 70 m Goldstone telescope and the VLA in the early 1990s revealed that there are patches of very high radar reflection near the poles. While ice is not the only possible cause of these reflective regions, astronomers believe it is the most likely. The icy regions are believed to contain about 1014–1015 kg of ice, and may be covered by a layer of regolith that inhibits sublimation. By comparison, the Antarctic ice sheet on Earth has a mass of about 4×1018 kg, and Mars' south polar cap contains about 1016 kg of water. The origin of the ice on Mercury is not yet known, but the two most likely sources are from outgassing of water from the planet’s interior or deposition by impacts of comets." Wikipedia Link to Mercury Why do you think there is higher pressure "that close to the sun" ? Mercury is orbiting the Sun in nearly empty space just like Earth or the other planets in our system.

There is a testing area if all you want to do, is to try out different features -> The Sandbox.

This is what Stephen Hawking says himself on his work and disability: "It would be difficult for someone that is disabled to be an observational astronomer. But it would be easy for them to be an astrophysicist, because that is all in the mind. No physical ability is required." http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/about-stephen/questionsandanswers

Well Owl, since you continue to refuse to answer my questions and ignore my arguments, I won't reply to you any more.

You can't have multiple theories of relativity contradicting each other, either you accept mainstream relativity or you reject it. Make your pick. If you accept the consecvences of the mainstream version of Albert Einstein's General Relativity theory and all of its important astrophysical implications then it already provides explanations of a consistently expanding universe which fit with observations. IMHO another totally different explanation for how space is expanding needs to seriously defeat mainstream relativity. Good Luck with that... 1) The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 93 billion lightyears according to mainstream science so you might want to revise your thickness to at least 100 billion lightyears. 2) How did we manage to get out to current radius from the center without breaking lightspeed? You need to consider that the radius of this balloon need to be much larger than the thickness of the skin itself, which would then present the problem with how the stuff that eventually became Earth and us managed to traverse that huge distance within only ~14 billion years. AFAIK observational evidence confirms that nothing is able to travel faster that light. 3) How does your "skin" model explain that objects are receding from us equally in all directions? More precisely, how is the inside of the balloon able to move away from us equally fast as the outside of the balloon and equally fast as the objects comoving inside of the skin are separating from us, without breaking the formation of the balloon? AFAIK observational evidence confirms equal expansion in all directions around us. ---------- You are clearly NOT accepting and NOT understanding the mainstream theory of Relativity. The modern mainstream scientific consensus of cosmology has considered very large scales of the Universe and ruled out your medieval model since it is not able to explain observational phenomenas. You are expressing doubts of my knowledge and capabilities but that is completely irrelevant since I am not responsible for mainstream cosmological scientific consensus. What I have presented is current mainstream cosmological scientific consensus that will change when we aqcuire new knowledge and understanding. Professional, educated and knowledged scientists all over the world has already considered every possible reasonable models and concluded that only one of them is able to explain all of our observations. At first I thought you where an old man trying to understand Einstein relativity from an Newtonian perspective and later on that you might be to proud to admitt you where wrong and don't understand, but now when it is evident that you don't want to learn and straightforward challenges scientific consensus, your true objective is revealed. There is a term for persons who stubbornly cling to a personal distorted belif at odds with mainstream science and evidence, making rational debate an futile task because they dismiss all arguments which contradicts their faith, refusing to admitt they don't understand or to learn new knowledge. I would really like to know what you think you can possibly gain from this discussion?

Maybe folks despise it because that model has already been ruled out by observations. Scientific consensus is not a popularity contest which Relativity and Big Bang theory won due to fancy appeal. It is nothing wrong with having faith and belif in a personal opinion but before you turn down and judge accepted scientific models, I think it would be a very good idea to acquire knowledge and understanding about them. This is the current evidence and knowledge we have that you refuse to accept: Observational evidence Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are: the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous). the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point"). Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include: Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point. In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales. The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle. The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion. Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence Lets repeat that last part once more so that the information really can sink in: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric." It is not only the best theory we have, it is totally without competition, there is currently no other model that can explain our observations. Do you like Owl also reject Relativity and have your own personal diverging variant of that theory too?

We can not compare any borders of a younger and an older infinite Universe, but we can still measure a change of distances inside it. One way to visualise space expansion is to think of one infinite long ruler reaching across the Universe, then despite us not being able to see the ends of this ruler, we would still able from our local point of view, observe how the length marks on this ruler are receding from each other. Another way of viewing the expansion is to imagine that we have a ruler one meter long which we use to measure space inside the infinite Universe with, but between two measurements we and the ruler has decreased in size, effectively making the Universe to be larger in comparison. The expansion of space is not thought of as a Universe growing like an object inside a large surrounding emptiness, in modern cosmology it is the metric scale of length that is changing inside the Universe. The '''metric expansion of space''' is the increase of distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion - that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself. Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space General relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which determines the distances that separate nearby points. The points, which can be galaxies, stars, or other objects, themselves are specified using a coordinate chart or "grid" that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles out the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric (FLRW metric). This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the Universe changes with time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this coordinate system, the grid expands along with the Universe, and objects that are moving only due to the expansion of the Universe remain at fixed points on the grid. While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) remains constant, the physical distance between two such comoving points expands proportionally with the scale factor of the Universe. The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales - local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang