We are in the outflow of a Universal black hole

[msetlur]

'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Black_holes_banish_matter_into_cosmic_voids_999.html

Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies.

At the scale of our Universal black hole the energy described above is dark energy. The dark energy is delivered to the surrounding galaxy clusters.

 

We are in the outflow of a Universal black hole. As ordinary matter falls toward the Universal black hole it evaporates into a superfluid dark matter. It is the superfluid dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters, causing them to move outward and away from us. The superfluid dark matter outflow is dark energy.

 

Our Universe is a larger version of the following.

 

 

'The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos'

https://phys.org/news/2011-07-universe-born-symmetry-cosmos.html

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

 

Is the universe still spinning?

 

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

The universe has a preferred axis of rotation because our visible Universe is in a larger version of the outflow associated with a supermassive black hole.

 

'Astronomers in South Africa discover mysterious alignment of black holes'

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2816-astronomers-in-south-africa-discover-mysterious-alignment-of-black-holes

Since these black holes dont know about each other, or have any way of exchanging information or influencing each other directly over such vast scales, this spin alignment must have occurred during the formation of the galaxies in the early universe

The reason for the alignment is due to the galaxies being in the outflow of a Universal black hole.

 

'Powerful Black Hole at Heart of Phoenix Clusters Central Galaxy Surprises Astronomers'

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/black-hole-phoenix-clusters-central-galaxy-04623.html

The new ALMA observations reveal long filaments of gas

Galaxy filaments are larger versions of the gas filaments.

 

'Cosmic Void Pushes Milky Way'

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/]CosmicVoid Pushes Milky Way

Astronomers have discovered a giant cosmic void that explains why our Local Group of galaxies is moving through the universe as fast as it is.

The void is where the superfluid dark matter is able to flow through unimpeded, pushing the Milky Way.

 

Our Universe may be all that there is or our Universe could exist in a sea of universes filling the cosmos, a larger version of our Milky Way galaxy existing in a sea of galaxies filling our Universe.

 

It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.

Edited April 10, 2017 by msetlur

[Strange]

We are in the outflow of a Universal black hole.

 

 

What evidence is there for this "universal black hole"?

 

Where is it? If everything is flowing away from it, why do we see everything moving away from us?

 

 

 

As ordinary matter falls toward the Universal black hole it evaporates into a superfluid dark matter.

 

What evidence do you have that matter is converted to dark matter?

 

Why is the density of dark matter greater near the centre of galaxies?

 

 

 

It's not the Big Bang, it's the Big Ongoing.

 

You got that bit right, at least.

[msetlur]

What evidence is there for this "universal black hole"?

 

The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos

 

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

 

Is the universe still spinning?

 

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

The Universe is still spinning because we are in the outflow of a Universal black hole. Our visible Universe has a preferred axis of rotation because our Universe has a preferred axis of rotation as it is a larger version of a galaxy where it has an accretion disk and outflows along the poles.

 

Astronomers in South Africa discover mysterious alignment of black holes

 

Since these black holes don't know about each other, or have any way of exchanging information or influencing each other directly over such vast scales, this spin alignment must have occurred during the formation of the galaxies in the early universe

The spin alignment is caused by the Universal outflow the black holes exist in having a preferred axis of rotation.

 

Where is it? If everything is flowing away from it, why do we see everything moving away from us?

It's at one end of the dark flow

 

What evidence do you have that matter is converted to dark matter?

In terms of E=mc^2, when a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved. The opposite occurs where the pressure is great enough.

 

Why is the density of dark matter greater near the centre of galaxies?

What physicists mistake for the 'clumpiness' of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the superfluid dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

Edited April 11, 2017 by msetlur

[DrP]

I don't understand this 'outflow'. What does that mean? Things get sucked towards black holes, nothing flows out, no?

 

Also - "....when a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter" - I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. Maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow?

[msetlur]

I don't understand this 'outflow'. What does that mean? Things get sucked towards black holes, nothing flows out, no?

We are in a larger version of the following.

 

Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids

 

Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies.

Dark energy is delivered to the surrounding galaxy clusters.

 

Also - "....when a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter" - I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. Maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow?

In terms of E=mc^2, I'm suggesting matter does not directly convert to energy. I'm suggesting ordinary matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter. The physical effects caused by the evaporation is energy.

Edited April 11, 2017 by msetlur

[DrP]

QUOTE: "Ordinary matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter". - Has that been tested?

 

Maybe I should sit out of this one - it is beyond what I learned in my Chemical Physics degree. I'll watch and see what other members more experienced with black holes and nuclear physics make of it. Cheers.

[msetlur]

QUOTE: "Ordinary matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter". - Has that been tested?

It can't be tested in and of itself. It's an understanding of what is occurring physically in nature in terms of E=mc^2.

 

Maybe I should sit out of this one - it is beyond what I learned in my Chemical Physics degree. I'll watch and see what other members more experienced with black holes and nuclear physics make of it. Cheers.

Did the article about supermassive black holes 'banishing' gas far beyond the extent of the host galaxy make sense? The ordinary matter converts to energy as it falls toward the event horizon of the black hole. This energy outflows along the poles of the supermassive black holes. Pushing the gas far beyond the extent of the host galaxy.

 

I'm suggesting this is occurring on a larger scale in terms of our Universal black holes and the galaxy clusters the energy which pushes far beyond the extend of the Universal black hole.

Edited April 11, 2017 by msetlur

[swansont]

In terms of E=mc^2, I'm suggesting matter does not directly convert to energy. I'm suggesting ordinary matter evaporates into superfluid dark matter. The physical effects caused by the evaporation is energy.

The how do nuclear devices (bombs, reactors) work? They seem to have plenty of power from the mass conversion.

 

Why is it that we can account for this energy in radioactive decays?

[DrP]

"Did the article about SMBHs make sense" It seemed to yes (as I read through quickly), but I'm still not sure about this universal black hole. As I said - I'll sit out. I have changed my personal understanding of black holes several times in my life as new things have been discovered. I'll sit and watch some more. Cheers.

 

(Aside - there was recent talk of combining different scopes to 'look' at a black hole and get a picture for the first time ever - I wonder how that is going)

Edited April 11, 2017 by DrP

[msetlur]

The how do nuclear devices (bombs, reactors) work? They seem to have plenty of power from the mass conversion.

The mass conversion is from ordinary matter to superfluid dark matter.

 

Why is it that we can account for this energy in radioactive decays?

Same thing. If there is less ordinary matter in existence due to radioactive decay then there is more superfluid dark matter in existence as the ordinary matter evaporated into superfluid dark matter. The physical effects caused by the evaporation is energy.

 

The power associated with a nuclear bomb explosion is caused by the ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter.

Edited April 11, 2017 by msetlur

[swansont]

The mass conversion is from ordinary matter to superfluid dark matter.

But they give off normal thermodynamic energy. We can see this happening.

 

Same thing. If there is less ordinary matter in existence due to radioactive decay then there is more superfluid dark matter in existence as the ordinary matter evaporated into superfluid dark matter. The physical effects caused by the evaporation is energy.

 

The power associated with a nuclear bomb explosion is caused by the ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter.

There isn't less ordinary matter in existence after e.g. an alpha decay. Same number of protons, neutrons and electrons. They have less mass, and it corresponds to the energy given off in the KE of the alpha and recoil daughter. There's nothing left over that would permit dark matter, which would have some mass, to also be produced.

[msetlur]

But they give off normal thermodynamic energy. We can see this happening.

 

 

There isn't less ordinary matter in existence after e.g. an alpha decay. Same number of protons, neutrons and electrons. They have less mass, and it corresponds to the energy given off in the KE of the alpha and recoil daughter.

"They have less mass" is key and the point I am attempting to make. That mass still exists as mass. The mass that no longer exists as part of the ordinary matter has evaporated into dark matter. The physical effects caused by this evaporation "corresponds to the energy given off in the KE of the alpha and recoil daughter". The evaporation is the energy given off.

 

We have all seen the videos of a nuclear bomb explosion where the trees get knocked over or the house gets destroyed. When the nuclear bomb explodes some of the mass associated with the ordinary matter evaporates into dark matter. The physical effects caused by this process is energy. The mass associated with the ordinary matter which evaporates into dark matter is what causes the trees to get knocked over and for the building to get destroyed.

 

There's nothing left over that would permit dark matter, which would have some mass, to also be produced.

It's not that there has to be something "left over that would permit dark matter". The evaporation of some of the mass associated with the ordinary matter into dark matter is the energy associated with a nuclear bomb explosion. Mass is conserved as mass.

Edited April 11, 2017 by msetlur

[swansont]

"They have less mass" is key and the point I am attempting to make. That mass still exists as mass. The mass that no longer exists as part of the ordinary matter has evaporated into dark matter. The physical effects caused by this evaporation "corresponds to the energy given off in the KE of the alpha and recoil daughter". The evaporation is the energy given off.

 

We have all seen the videos of a nuclear bomb explosion where the trees get knocked over or the house gets destroyed. When the nuclear bomb explodes some of the mass associated with the ordinary matter evaporates into dark matter. The physical effects caused by this process is energy. The mass associated with the ordinary matter which evaporates into dark matter is what causes the trees to get knocked over and for the building to get destroyed.

 

 

It's not that there has to be something "left over that would permit dark matter". The evaporation of some of the mass associated with the ordinary matter into dark matter is the energy associated with a nuclear bomb explosion. Mass is conserved as mass.

 

 

If mass is a conserved quantity then mass is not a form of energy. So where does the energy come from in these reactions? Is this not a conserved quantity anymore?

[msetlur]

If mass is a conserved quantity then mass is not a form of energy. So where does the energy come from in these reactions? Is this not a conserved quantity anymore?

The energy comes from the mass converting from ordinary matter to dark matter. The mass expands as it evaporates.

 

Fill a tire with too much air and the tire releases energy when it explodes. There is still the same amount of air in existence. The air transitioned from being under pressure to not being under pressure. The physical effects caused by the air transitioning from being under pressure to not being under pressure is energy.

[swansont]

The energy comes from the mass converting from ordinary matter to dark matter. The mass expands as it evaporates.

 

Fill a tire with too much air and the tire releases energy when it explodes. There is still the same amount of air in existence. The air transitioned from being under pressure to not being under pressure. The physical effects caused by the air transitioning from being under pressure to not being under pressure is energy.

 

 

Compressed gas has an energy of PV. We can account for this, as energy is conserved. What's the equation that governs the energy released when normal matter mass converts to dark matter mass?

 

And since E=mc^2 no longer works, why does the rest of relativity work?

[msetlur]

Compressed gas has an energy of PV. We can account for this, as energy is conserved. What's the equation that governs the energy released when normal matter mass converts to dark matter mass?

 

And since E=mc^2 no longer works, why does the rest of relativity work?

E=mc^2 still works. What's necessary is to understand the equation relates energy and mass, not that they are the same thing.

 

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN

 

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2.

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as dark matter. Matter evaporates into dark matter. As matter evaporates into dark matter it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into dark matter. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

E=mc^2 defines how much energy 'E' there is associated with the mass of the ordinary matter diminishing by 'm' as it transitions from ordinary matter to dark matter.

 

The radiation is the ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter.

Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur

[DrP]

problem is though, ALL of the mass and energy from a nuclear explosion is accounted for - from where is this 'extra' coming from to form the dark matter... and where does it go?

 

What make's you think this dark fluid matter is formed at all during the explosion?

[swansont]

E=mc^2 still works. What's necessary is to understand the equation relates energy and mass, not that they are the same thing.

 

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN

 

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as dark matter. Matter evaporates into dark matter. As matter evaporates into dark matter it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into dark matter. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

 

E=mc^2 defines how much energy 'E' there is associated with the mass of the ordinary matter diminishing by 'm' as it transitions from ordinary matter to dark matter.

 

The radiation is the ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter.

 

 

Then your bookkeeping is off. You can't have the mass convert to other forms of energy AND have it stick around in the form of dark matter; if the mass is still there then no other energy can be released. Pick one; both can't be true.

 

Physics has chosen E=mc^2, and tested that it works.

[msetlur]

Then your bookkeeping is off. You can't have the mass convert to other forms of energy AND have it stick around in the form of dark matter; if the mass is still there then no other energy can be released. Pick one; both can't be true.

 

Physics has chosen E=mc^2, and tested that it works.

It doesn't convert to other forms of energy. It transitions from ordinary matter to dark matter. The transition from ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off.

 

The radiation given off is the transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter.

problem is though, ALL of the mass and energy from a nuclear explosion is accounted for - from where is this 'extra' coming from to form the dark matter... and where does it go?

 

What make's you think this dark fluid matter is formed at all during the explosion?

The transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off. Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur

[DrP]

So, radiation IS the dark matter given off? - you've lost me. E=MC2 accounts for all of the mass that translates to energy. Surely if the mass was turned to dark mass then we would see less energy than we do. It doesn't make sense to me.

[msetlur]

So, radiation IS the dark matter given off? - you've lost me. E=MC2 accounts for all of the mass that translates to energy. Surely if the mass was turned to dark mass then we would see less energy than we do. It doesn't make sense to me.

Correct, the radiation is the ordinary matter transitioning into dark matter. The energy associated with this transition is given by the equation E=mc^2. The energy is the physical effects caused by the ordinary matter transitioning to dark matter.

 

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN

 

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2.

Ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter is in the form of radiation which is represented in terms of the physical effects caused by the radiation/evaporation by energy L.

Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur

[DrP]

I've never heard it put that way before.... I don't think that's right. The Energy that comes off as EM and particular radiation accounts for all of the mass that started in the reaction before the explosion.. there is no record of any of this dark matter being formed and no need to make something like that up as all of the lost mass is accounted for in the radiation. Where does this dark matter go to after it is formed then?

 

Again - I'm only in the conversation out of interest - I'll sit out now as it is going to get over my head - but I am pretty certain this dark mass thing isn't right (which is why it is in speculations I suppose). Why do you think that this dark matter is formed during a nuclear reaction? What evidence drives you to this line of thinking/conclusion?

[msetlur]

I've never heard it put that way before.... I don't think that's right. The Energy that comes off as EM and particular radiation accounts for all of the mass that started in the reaction before the explosion.. there is no record of any of this dark matter being formed and no need to make something like that up as all of the lost mass is accounted for in the radiation. Where does this dark matter go to after it is formed then?

 

Again - I'm only in the conversation out of interest - I'll sit out now as it is going to get over my head - but I am pretty certain this dark mass thing isn't right (which is why it is in speculations I suppose). Why do you think that this dark matter is formed during a nuclear reaction? What evidence drives you to this line of thinking/conclusion?

In terms of the current understanding of E=mc^2 and radiation, there is considered to be less physical mass in existence when a nuclear bomb explodes. Some of the mass is considered to transition into radiation which consists of waves. This is incorrect. There is still the same amount of mass in existence after a nuclear bomb explodes. As ordinary matter evaporates into dark matter this additional dark matter causes the existing dark matter to wave. The waves in the dark matter is the radiation associated with a nuclear bomb explosion.

 

A body giving off the energy L in the form of radiation relates to the ordinary matter evaporating into dark matter as follows:

 

radiation = evaporation

[swansont]

It doesn't convert to other forms of energy. It transitions from ordinary matter to dark matter. The transition from ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off.

 

The radiation given off is the transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter.

The transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off.

 

 

That can't be. First of all, "The transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off" makes no sense. Radiation is comprised of energetic particles released in some interaction. It may be the result of a transition, but to say it is a transition is nonsensical.

 

In an alpha decay, for example, the radiation given off is the alpha particle, which has some KE. That represents the bulk of the energy released in the decay (the daughter has some recoil KE. Gammas are possible but unlikely) The alpha, and possible gammas — the radiation — are not dark matter. There is no other radiation released.

 

We can do this kind of accounting with all of the nuclear interactions. Your explanation is bunkum.

[Sensei]

msetlur, you're making stuff up on the spot...

 

If you have radioactive isotope with rest-mass m₀

it has energy [math]E_0=m_0 c^2[/math]

(let's simplify example to isotope with even Z protons and even N neutrons, because they have all 0 nuclear spin)

 

When it decays by alpha decay,

It decays to daughter isotope Z-2,N-2,A-4

and Helium-4 nucleus (alpha particle), with Z=2,N=2,A=4.

Daughter isotope has rest-mass m₁,

therefor in rest-frame it has energy [math]E_1=m_1 c^2[/math]

Helium-4 nucleus (alpha particle) has rest-mass m₂ and energy [math]E_2=m_2 c^2[/math]

 

But after decay, they're accelerated. Therefor equation of energy will be:

[math]E_1=m_1 c^2*\gamma_1[/math]

[math]E_2=m_2 c^2*\gamma_2[/math]

[math]\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_1^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

[math]\gamma_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

Giving finally

[math]E_0=E_1+E_2[/math]

[math]m_0 c^2 = m_1 c^2*\gamma_1 + m_2 c^2*\gamma_2[/math]

 

Basically rest-mass of initial particle prior decay is equal to relativistic-masses of newly created particles.

[math]m_0 = m_1 *\gamma_1 + m_2 *\gamma_2[/math]

 

 

Alpha decay recorded on video in Cloud Chamber:

 

The longer trace, the more kinetic energy had alpha particle.

 

So, when using different isotopes, you can see their traces will be different length. And compare them.

 

 

In an alpha decay, for example, the radiation given off is the alpha particle, which has some KE. That represents the bulk of the energy released in the decay (the daughter has some recoil KE. Gammas are possible but unlikely) The alpha, and possible gammas — the radiation — are not dark matter. There is no other radiation released.

Gammas will be when nuclear spin mismatch between parent isotope and daughter isotope. When Z or N are odd, typically. Kinetic energy of alpha will be decreased by energy released by gammas.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Sensei