FunkyAce07

. . . W . ^ Upward lift . | . . O . . . ' Ok now bear with me, the "." represents the outer ring that the weight runs along. The "|" represents the piston that allows the weight to move further and closer to the center rotation point "O" which is offset lower on the ring. When the weight hits the top the piston is extended, increasing the speed and momentum of the weight, but not changing the RPM's. At the lower side of the ring the piston is compressed to decrease the speed and lower the momentum of the weight. Add on a few others in a line to counter the torque of each others to keep it from just spinning... Also, assume that the ring is perfectly round and that the rotating shaft sits offset from the center.

What if we are not accelerating away from something, but instead we are accelerating towards something? If the big bang started as an infinitely dense mass then shouldn't it all eventually collapse back in on itself as a star does to a black hole? I had a theory that I thought of that I found to already be out there called the Orange Theory, I found it on YouTube, while not a very good place for factual information, it demonstrated my concept well. I figured under that theory that we would be located and the observable universe would be on the expanding half, but this would support the idea that space would not be equally assuming we could observe enough of it to see the difference. Now, what if we aren't actually returning to the starting point in a very lengthy process then could we be expanding towards something? I use analogies to best construct my ideas. So, bear with me. We are all in a giant bathtub (I realize their is no medium in space as in a bathtub). The edge of the bathtub is very massive and has a large gravitational pull. Objects closer to it accelerate faster and faster and appear to be leaving us if we would look towards the center it would appear that they were also expanding away from us, because we would be accelerating towards the unknown faster than it was due to distance away. I do not have a clear answer for where all of the mass came from in the first place, but it's just another idea out there and it seems like the universe should be slowing down in expansion, not speeding up. If there is no space, time, mass, or etc. outside of the universe then we should be expanding inwards almost as if the "outside" of the universe were repelling us. It came to mind when I thought about if the opposite of a super dense black hole could exist. A place where everything was pulled away from gravity. If the big bang was expanding as a balloon would it eventually cause "fissures" in space time where there was no radiation, no gravitational pull, and no heat and if such a place were to exist would appear that we were "repelled" from it due to the gravity of everything else? I'm a 25 year old army diesel mechanic, not a quantum physicist or even high school science teacher, that has very large ideas pop into my head randomly in the shower. I accept being wrong, I'm just a thinker. This probably belongs in "Speculations." I'm unsure of how to move the post.

If you were to take a disc say .50 of a mile in diameter and spin it to 75% the speed of light and then expand that disc out to 1 mile in diameter then the portion .25 miles from the center of the disc would be traveling at 75% the speed of light still and would force the portion .50 miles from the center of the disc to travel at 125% the speed of light. Doing all of this in as near of a perfect vacumm as possible and making the disc perfectly balanced all around and using super strong magnets to help fight the effects of centrifical force on the outer portions of the disc to even out the forces acting on it as to if it were traveling a straight line. Then in my theory anything closer to the center of the disc than .375 miles would appear to moving extremely fast and anything further from the center of the disc than .375 miles would be seen as moving just the slower than speed of light; in all reality it would be traveling faster you just wouldn't be able to see or read it with equipment, but by logical thinking you would know that it was moving faster..... would this be possible?

Alright, here are the answers I had : 1. (A) Rope weight and friction had nothing to do with it. One said which was easier doing 100 pounds once or 10 pounds 10 times and it would be the same if that were the case. However, it is one pulley which adds no mechanical advantage it only changes direction of the pull. The reason I choose A is that you will pull with the same force either way to pass the same amount of rope through your hands. Once you reach the top of the fixed rope you will have climbed 10 feet of rope versus 20 feet of rope. 2. (B) 30 top 0 bottom. If you used the vehicle as the reference for all speeds then it would be vehicle:0 Top:15 Bottom:-15 which explains why the track would not be ripped apart by being 30 on one side and 0 on the other. 3. North Pole. 0 degrees is North, 90 degrees is East, 180 South, and 270 West. Eventually you would simply go around and around until you reached the top where you would only be able to go 90-270 degrees. 4. At first my answer was no, because it lacks and atmosphere to have sound travel through. Then after reading comments I realized it would still make a sound due to vibrations in the ground from the impact you just wouldn't know without a seismograph. I think that could be counted as sound.

Good answer id agree w. That.

1. If you are trying to climb to rafters thats are 20 feet up which is easier? A. Climb up 20 feet of rope tied off to the rafters on one end. B. Tie a rope around your waist, run the rope up 20 feet through a single pulley on the rafters and back down 20 feet and pull yourself up. 2. Using the stationary ground as a reference point. You have a track vehicle moving down the road at 15mph. The vehicle is mechanically fine and not sliding or spinning the tracks. How fast are the top and bottom of the track moving? A. Top: 15 bottom: 15. B. Top: 30 bottom: 0. C. Top: 15 Bottom: 0. 3. If you were on earth and traveled 89 degrees with a magnetic compass until you could no longer travel at 89 degrees where would you end up? 4. If a tree fell on the moon and no one was around to hear it would it still make a sound?

O... Well, makes sense.... I figured that it would turn out to be that way.... Very unfortunate.... I just hadn't heard the final conclusion yet. I still don't see why things couldn't outrun light.... Either by something mechanical as I suggested or if you the items passing into the event horizon.... or if it could just appear to accelate constantly until it nears the speed of light. Once hitting the speed of light or near that of it would begin to appear to stop accelerating as it neared the horizon then kind of appearing to plane out near the speed of light... although it has actually surpassed the speed of light and could be on the other side of the black hole... So it could appear to be on one side of the black hole completely opposite of where it actually is... like a jet to a blind person.... tell a blind person to point at a loud jet high in the sky they will point far behind it because that's where it appears through echo-location to them.

We would actually not see the phenomena. If light did make a complete and perfect orbit then if you looked far enough into space you would eventually see the backside of the Earth.... or something along that sort. Instead I'm saying when you look away from the Earth you are actually looking through curved light. The light you see in my theory would be a spiraling outwards. So you would never actually see anything crazy. Say the universe was laid out 2d like a map. Now on that map you you have galaxies that are in slow curved line. When you look at them the universe's strongest gravitational force pull over billions of light years bends the light to make them appear to be in a straight line. Kind of like a Map Declination, but due to gravitational pull over the span of lightyears instead of magnetic declination on our Earth. Of course the further you would look away from the center of the universe the more straight the light would be traveling, but NEVER traveling a perfectly straight line. Like walking halfway across the road, walking the next half, and half of that, and you would NEVER actually get to the other side. The orbit however is caused by things being spewed out of say a black hole or a like object. Afterwards, they begin to collect and orbit and create galaxies and etc. Eventually they run out of momentum and gravity of the "strongest gravitational pull in the universe" would inevitably take control and very slowly begin to pull them back around the universe to the other side where it would be on the "eating side" of the blackhole or like object. Where it would begin to pick up a stronger orbit as it begins to be pulled back in to be recycled. Imagine it like a bathtub... replace the medium, water, with gravitational pull. You run water out and it runs to the back of the tub and even though when it is VERY distant from the drain it slowly begins to drift back to the drain picking up a stronger orbit. It is inevitable that the small drain in the front will eventually pull an object back around without any other outside forces acting upon the object. I hate to compare the universe with a bathtub, but it is the easiest way to explain.... I do not mean the universe is made of water or that there is a drain in the universe draining a medium that sucks galaxies in... Of course it's not 2d either I'd say it was 3d, but yet again it's easiest to explain in 2d.

Alright, now they have this thing about neutrinos being possibly faster than light. With this they say ruins cause and effect.... Now if you go faster than the speed limit away from a person next to you and looked back at them they will have appeared to be going in reverse as you are catching the light that was reflected off of them in the past. Now say you travel 2 times the speed of light away to 10 light years away the person you would see would be that of 5 years ago. Now you travel back to them at 2 times the speed of light they would seem to be moving around in fast forward at 2 times the actual speed because in 5 years of traveling towards them at twice the speed of light you will have encountered 10 years of light that had reflected off of them in only 5 years.... after your 20 light year round trip completed in only 10 years you would come back and see the person only 10 years after you had left on your journey.... you would even out and not somehow time travel.... What paradox does this present? I do not know.... The actual speed limit of the universe.... We used to believe that the speed of light was instantaneous, but we discovered we were wrong.... Why can "Instantaneous" not be the speed limit? Before "The Big Bang" there was in theory no mass.... Therefore no reference, no medium what so ever. So say light traveled 3 inches vs. 3 light years, it could all be the same. Was there even a distance to travel or was there only a distance to travel after "The Big Bang?" If time and distance traveled at speed "instantaneous" we would not even know. However, this gives a "track" for light to travel on, a speed in which it is allowed to travel. You would not be able to see anything beyond the light traveling "expanding universe" because of course you could never travel faster than the speed of light according to science today. What is beyond the universe to govern the light to travel at that speed? The tiny space in between atoms and the billions of miles between galaxies would all be the same with nothing to reference from. How traveling "instantaneous" would seem to cause a paradox. Say you could travel at the speed of "instantaneous" you would travel 10 light years away and back you would just be right where you started. You would appear to be in two places at once, because light is so slow. However one you would actually not be in. Now if you traveled faster than "instantaneous" you would actually need to be in two places at once, obviously defying physices. Say you traveled 2 times the speed of "instantaneous" and say light traveled at "instantaneous" you would travel far away or close it would all be the same and you would see yourself in the past.... sometime... in theory.... Another very extreme theory.... This theory allows black holes to exist.... maybe it would be more or less a "rip" in space, time, and distant. Causing the "instantaneous" speed. It would just be a super "non-dense" space in which is the complete opposite of what is believed. It would mean that the black hole could appear to be only a million miles wide, but actually be just the same as the width of the universe, but you would not know. It would not be stretched left or right, but up or down if you want to think of the universe as being flat like a blanket. A black hole would be more or less a cone shape, the base of the cone being the edge of the event horizon. The black hole would oddly not be "Sucking" things in with extreme gravity, but more or less be an almost negative space where the universe is actually expanding into. I know the universe is supposed to be a "vacumm" but what if a black hole was just an even more stretched less dense area than the rest of the universe. Then it would act as if it were really dense by expanding outwards, into the black hole. If a supernova were just such an outward blast that it expands to quickly for time and space and kind of stretched it out. So, my conclusion is that if you traveled faster than the speed of light it would only cause optical illusions, not time travel. To complete time travel you would actually need to travel faster than "instantaneous." Also, I know more extreme thinking... could you cause something to go faster than the speed of light? What would if you say had a "perfect vacumm," for any air resistance or resistance of any other partices, with a disc made of a very strong magnetic material that would rotate at a high speed. The container for the disc would be polarized to push against the disc pushing inward on all directions to attempt to help fight the centrifugal force that would pull the disc apart. Now the disc has a radius of 200 meters..... you slowly begin to accelerate the disc, so you can 1. gear it high as hell 2. put as little strain on the disc from acceleration as possible, and get the edge of the disc up to say 75% the speed of light.... Now what if you were to extend a second portion of the disc out and it made it up to a 400 meter radius..... now the entire disc would be spinning at the same rpms, which would put the speed of the disc at 300 meters radius at the speed of light. Then 400 meters out would be 125% the speed of light. If you cannot go faster than the speed of light then it would for some reason be forced to rip into pieces just because of that law.... if it were to stay together though then it would appear to be going slower towards the edge and I'm assuming anything between 300-400 meters would appear to just be stopped.... not a paradox, just an optical illusion...

So it being shaped like a dodecahedron makes no sense. I like the theory that expansion of space isn't limited to the speed of light though. So instead of "inflating" at the speed of light it is more or less just instantaneous. I guess maybe if I could wrap my mind around that crazy concept after having it driven into my mind that it expands at the speed of light it'd be easier to grasp. I don't know if you can really expand at the speed of light into space where there is absolutely nothing. How can you cover a distance in nothing? It's not like there is anything for light to travel through, so maybe it would just instantly be there and it's too much of a concept for people to understand because there is nothing ever seen like what is beyond our universe. So, possibly. Hmm... brain seems to be operating a little slower than usual tonight, but it seems that if the universe in a nutshell were to have x amount of mass and expanding to 100x that size in area then it would still have x mass with less density... or just more spread out and not as clustered together. For that to take effect though wouldn't you either need an orbit around the center of the universe that is expanding by the outer edge escaping the gravitational force in the center in the universe. Those far edged masses would simply use their gravity to pull the next closer mass outward with it more, and so on and so on? Or you would need space to have mass to push and pull masses through space as it expands like current in a river? Or wouldn't you need the expanding outer edge to have a mass that has a gravitational pull and as it is expands too fast it begins to lose the galaxies and other masses being pulled by its gravity just dropping them off randomly in the universe. Yet they would keep drifting outward at the speed they had accelerated to before losing connection with the outward traveling mass' gravitational pull until stopped or slowed by an outward force due to a lack of air resistance or any kind of friction other than slower or opposite moving masses? Idk. just seems like to flatten out like that you would either need a centripetal force to be to great for the gravitational pull. gravitational pull from an outside source. or a medium in which would pull it flat much like buying one of those stretchy toys out of the little machine. When you pull two ends in opposite direction it gets more flat because you have the molecules pulling on each other within forcing them to stretch out. Maybe I have the concept you are explaining wrong in my mind.

Hmm... nvm about the light making a complete circle. It may, but it would never hit the same point i dont think. I guess itd just do an outward spiral infinetely. I dont think it would constantly be escaping the gravitational pull and never pick up an actual constant orbit.... it was an under thought idea. Do the planets ever hit that perfect balance? It seema really unlikely. I could best assume we wouldnt be so lucky and that we'd either have a slow inward or outward spiral towards or away from the sun.

I didnt mean to make the universe sound as if there were matter every where in space. It was simply the easiest way to describe the motion. I actually just saw on youtube a perfect explanation of my idea. "The Orange Theory" it seemed very similar to what i had thought of. I just thought that if spewed out of one side of something such as a giant black hole in giant vacumm that eventually though tossed in to the far reaches of the universe would would begin to pick up a loose orbit slowly being drawn back into the consuming side. Also had an interesting idea that since gravity effects light somehow then if pulles out of its straight line 3 inches to the "left" every 3 million light years or whatever then in trillions of light years would light itself not eventually be pulled completely around? Im not saying it would it would be fast but without anything else then our universe would still apply some pull to an object no matter how far it was away... just maybe a very extremely small amount of force. So maybe light itself even would be pulled completely around to be consumed by the black hole. Also, did the universe, according to the big bang theory, not start off on as an explosion? Hinted at a specific point in which all expanded from? Rewind our universe that is ever -expanding in all equal directions away at the same speed, the speed of light, from the originating point.back to the initial explosion. Then there would be a center point in which all expanded. Where there was those atoms colliding, spark and fuel, or whatever people think caused that extremely violent outward expansion of the universe Even if the initial point of expansion was a million light years across it was still localized. Size of the initial expansion of space does not mean it wasnt localized. If you travel faster than the speed of light to eventually come to the edge of our expanding universe and pass it and escape it then looking back it would appear to be a large ball.... i mean you couldnt actually see it due to the fact that the light hadnt reached you yet so youd be staring into nothingness, but it works for a description of the shape. Now you cant have a perfect shaped ball without a center point. Like inflating a balloon... yeah, just described a universe that is mostly a vacuum by talking about inflating a balloon it just makes the description easier

Ok now this would be completely useless and inefficient in our atmosphere. Would it work if produce lift to have two arms rotating around a rod both going opposite directions to reduce effects of torsion. When spinning they would lengten on the top side and shorten on the bottom side. This would cause an inbalance where centrifigual force would pull upwards moreso than downwards..... in a vacumm could this produce more efficient propulsion than a rocket. An of course you cannot simply use props because there is no air to push against.... if this worked would it also seem to defy laws of physics?? What would be the opposite and equal reaction that creates this propulsion?

Maybe there is a black hole.... if that is the case maybe it is more dense and so the centrifigual force of our sun's orbit cannot overcome the gravitational pull.... If We our sun steadily orbits further and further from the galactic centre then wouldn't that mean that the black hole, assuming that's what is in the center, is just less dense and our centrifugal force from the orbit is escaping the black hole's gravitational pull... I'm unsure how that means that there is some sort of matter being created between the two.... wouldn't you need to record more distances than just that between our sun and the center... how about a couple other floating rocks relatively the same amount of mass/speed (centrifigual force) as our own sun at varying distances from the center.... then you could record to find roughly how close to the centre our sun would orbit at a constant distant.... I could only assume within a certain range our sun would spiral inward, one point it would be a constant orbit and then anything further than that point it would have a outward spiraling orbit which. The further the sun would orbit away, the more the sun would accelerate away from the centre constantly making each orbit longer and longer while the distance between the two would grow faster and faster as it breaks free from the orbit. Interesting idea... I just read more of the posts. Not sure how new stars have come into being from the centre... If everything had an outward spiral away from the center then it sounds like the center would have no gravitational force.... so then there would be no spiraling orbit because there should be no orbit if there is no gravitational force in the center right? I don't understand...

I was thinking about what the shape of the universe must be if it had a shape which it should be more or less a large ball shape that is ever expanding at the speed of light--if the Big Bang Theory were true. However, I thought maybe since our universe seems relativey young and the galaxies seem to have no set orbit around anything and no one can seem to answer what is really at the center of our universe maybe there is no center that exploded. Could it be a ball with a tunnel in the middle; overall a ridiculously large black hole in the center of our universe much larger than any galaxy. A black hole that spews the "ever expanding" universe out one side, the side the Milky Way is on. The galaxies float away from the side of the black hole they were just spewed from somewhat in a random pattern. The giant black hole would be the largest gravitational pull in the "universe" so it would slowly pull the galaxies that were spewed out back into the eating side they had seemlingly floated randomly. This motion being much like pouring a lighter than water substance into a sink full of water. Once hitting the water's surface the substance seperates underwater and begins to float to the top where it is drawn back into the substance that is still pouring into the water and sucked back under only to be spewed out again. The differance being instead of a foreign substance causing the constant rotation and cycle it would be the gravtational pull of the black hole. Of course you would never see the "end" of the universe because the "edge" of the universe would actually only be where the "universe" crosses the horizon and light cannot be seen. This giving the appearance that the universe is ever expanding at the speed of light. Would this theory be possible? If not then how could this theory be disproved? I was reading somewhere that someone believed the universe was horn shaped... This does not make sense to me nor can I make sense of the force that makes our universe ever expanding as done by the Big Bang Theory. Maybe the black hole theory of mine could also use the idea that the universe moves fluid like. The side freshly spewed out could be slightly higher pressure than the other side. When the black hole "eats" it leaves an emptiness in the universe that is then filled by more... universe... I guess I would say, drawing the universe back into the black hole as if the universe actually had a very slight elasticity or surface tension to it. Pretty much that idea would be using high and low pressure. When I say elasticity I mean that of water when you stick your finger into the water how it draws up onto your finger or in this case it would draw it into a "drain," the eating side of the black hole. Or maybe the universe just slowly circulates due to heating and cooling like convection. The same idea that your ceiling fan uses when rotating backwards. Sucks the cold air up forcing hot air out of the way and then using gravity to pull the cold air back down... dense heavy cold side would circulate to the lower pressure hot side and the the hot side would circulate to fill in for the abscense of universe where the cold portion was. Why would the hot and cold side never equalize and the stop the circulation is a flaw to that idea however. Also light would escape this theory. Hmmm..... Anyway... super large black hole anyone?