Center of the Universe Located by Triangulation of NASA Data

[md65536]

Well according to thermodynamics, everything will eventually just become entropy, and then that's it. Perhaps everything will first get devoured by black holes, or most of everything, and then if Stephen Hawking is right, those black holes will "evaporate", leaving behind only entropy.

Is black hole evaporation equivalent to heat death?

 

I'm stuck on the idea that a black hole and a "universe seen from the outside" are essentially the same thing.

[rigney]

Is black hole evaporation equivalent to heat death?

 

I'm stuck on the idea that a black hole and a "universe seen from the outside" are essentially the same thing.

This is about a 20 min. video, but it lets us know just how little we know of the overall scheme of things. Give it a ride! Much shorter than trying to analyze it year by year. But then, you may have already seen it? Me? I'm about fifty years behind the times.

 

http://www.spacerip.com/2010/10/transcript-of-how-large-is-universe.html

Edited December 3, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

I will probably get into trouble, but I'd like to explain my thoughts through a simple mechanical function. Take a piece of wood and begin stroking it with a rasp. The fillings will begin falling and piling up on the floor. May take you a few hours to get the job done, but eventually there will be nothing left of the wood, other than the dust on the floor. Time will eventually determine the entropy of all matter. Like the dust, matter will still be a part of the universe, but in its alternate state, anti energy. I believe each BB begins with the total accumulation of matter at the core of creation as "anti energy". Don't shoot! I'm just a messenger.

Your analogy could be valid if, in fact, the "wood-shavings" of the universe have somewhere to go after all matter has been converted into energy. The other possibility is that once matter stops generating new radiation, the radiation that exists will begin to coalesce under its own weak gravitation. The more it does, the greater its density will become until it condenses into a very small volume with extremely high density. At that point, another big bang could be the result. The issue is whether radiation produces sufficient density to accomplish this and, more importantly, whether radiation can proceed indefinitely away from its origins through "spacetime" except insofar as that "spacetime" exists in the form of intersecting gravitation fields. Do you believe that "spacetime" transcends gravitation? If so, why/how would it?

 

 

[rigney]

Your analogy could be valid if, in fact, the "wood-shavings" of the universe have somewhere to go after all matter has been converted into energy. The other possibility is that once matter stops generating new radiation, the radiation that exists will begin to coalesce under its own weak gravitation. The more it does, the greater its density will become until it condenses into a very small volume with extremely high density. At that point, another big bang could be the result. The issue is whether radiation produces sufficient density to accomplish this and, more importantly, whether radiation can proceed indefinitely away from its origins through "spacetime" except insofar as that "spacetime" exists in the form of intersecting gravitation fields. Do you believe that "spacetime" transcends gravitation? If so, why/how would it?

 

The wood shavings is the only way I can explain what might happen if matter actually goes through the slow osmosis of being converted into anti energy, "If so", could anti energy be the "monopole" scienctist's have been seeking these many years? If monopoles do exist, they could be the most powerful force in the entire universe. That is to say, anti energy doesn't seem to intermix with other energies. As of right now our knowledge of the issue is very limited and only in theory. Going back to the wood shaving thing, let's say the stick, block or what ever the shavings are falling from, represents the physical universe that we see and the falling shavings, anti energy. The shavings have likely been falling since inception and have done so these many billions of years? As of now the wood (matter) is still visible and the chips (anti enery) that we don't see, keep falling. Where do they go? Is it possible that as they fall, they return to the core of where our universe began? Perhaps another hunderd billion civilizations may come and go before the universe advances to the stage of where nothing can survive and it finally succumbs to entropy? When that happens, everything of matter will be gone, but will start all over again as the next BB. The BB is instantaneous but the end of a process taking perhaps trillions of years to get done. Hey! I'm in no big hurry. Again, these are only my thoughts with absolutely nothing to back them up with.

I know the term "space time" was used by Einstein's to describe his theory of special relativity on how light and moving objects interact. Both space and time are relevant to many phenomena, yet totally independant of each other. By the universe being so contaminated, it makes an absolute conclusion almost impossible for me to understand. This is a thing that bothers me about red shift and trying to figure where our own galaxy fits into the scheme of things..

Edited December 5, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

Going back to the wood shaving thing, let's say the stick, block or what ever the shavings are falling from, represents the physical conversion of the universe into anti energy. The shavings have likely been falling since inception. How many billions of years? Who really knows. As of now the wood (matter) is still visible and the chips (anti enery) that we don't see keep falling

I'm sorry, I don't know what "anti energy" would mean except for maybe another way of referring to gravitation. As conservative as you are with space and time being independent, I am skeptical of things like "anti energy" without some plausible natural system that would generate it. Explain that to me, instead of how wood-shavings can really pile up after gazillions of years and I might be able to critically think about your reasoning.

 

I know the term "space time" was used in formula by Einstein to describe how light and movement of objects interact with each other. Both space and time are relevant to many phenomena, but I believe they are independant of each other. The universe is so contaminated; making a finite conclusion of their coincidence is almost impossible.

 

I just use spacetime to refer to the fact that once you get beyond the immediacy of a local gravity well, you're basically dealing with time-relativity and space-curvature in transit between destinations. You can just call it "space" if you want. My point is whether you think that space exists as something other than gravitational field convergence? I don't think that there are sections of space that connect gravity-wells except as areas where gravitational fields converge. The best analogy I can give for how I think of this is to picture two or more gravity fields like floating balls of hot wax in a lava lamp. When two balls are close enough, they merge and their surface tension will either pull them closer together or their separate momentums will cause them to pull apart again. Once two gravity fields pull apart from each other, I no longer see them as having continuous space between them. See what I mean now when I say that space doesn't exist where gravitational fields are not connected?

Edited December 5, 2010 by lemur

[rigney]

I'm sorry, I don't know what "anti energy" would mean except for maybe another way of referring to gravitation. As conservative as you are with space and time being independent, I am skeptical of things like "anti energy" without some plausible natural system that would generate it. Explain that to me, instead of how wood-shavings can really pile up after gazillions of years and I might be able to critically think about your reasoning.

 

I just use spacetime to refer to the fact that once you get beyond the immediacy of a local gravity well, you're basically dealing with time-relativity and space-curvature in transit between destinations. You can just call it "space" if you want. My point is whether you think that space exists as something other than gravitational field convergence? I don't think that there are sections of space that connect gravity-wells except as areas where gravitational fields converge. The best analogy I can give for how I think of this is to picture two or more gravity fields like floating balls of hot wax in a lava lamp. When two balls are close enough, they merge and their surface tension will either pull them closer together or their separate momentums will cause them to pull apart again. Once two gravity fields pull apart from each other, I no longer see them as having continuous space between them. See what I mean now when I say that space doesn't exist where gravitational fields are not connected?

 

If I may, what is your idea on anti energy? Seriously, I ask only because I really don't know myself. Just ideas! With gavity wells I have the same problem since I don't understand them any better than anti energy. Even the word gravity makes me tremble. The "shavings thing" was just a visual to explain something I believe to be happening. For instance, a quasar explodes, we see it, describe it, and explain why it may have happened. But other than that, there is little more that can be assessed. My thoughts are, with all of the anti matter, dark matter and dark energy out there in the universe, why is it there, where did it come from and where is it going? Nothing sits still in space as I know of. Chaos is the word! When the quasar exploded, was the energy of that blast dissipated only to fall back into other energy sources? When the LHC slam atoms together, is all of the particles released, assimilated back into other atoms? I don't know! Get back. I don't mind an honest butt kicking if something can be gained from it. Edited December 5, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

If I may, what is your idea on anti energy? Seriously, I ask only because I really don't know myself. Just ideas! With gavity wells I have the same problem since I don't understand them any better than anti energy. Even the word gravity makes me tremble.

This link shows a simple drawing that explains how gravity wells work: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lh6.ggpht.com/_EePmDw6v-Nk/SzxGdS6kpaI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/UJ7prwIFEQ4/gravity_wells5.png%3Fimgmax%3D800&imgrefurl=http://www.habitationintention.com/2009/12/gravity-wells.html&usg=__VxDCa31uzGldi1dYDF-_upFRjXY=&h=321&w=735&sz=122&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=MiJL-jimVEcUOM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=196&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsolar%2Bsystem%2Bgravity%2Bwells%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1240%26bih%3D569%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=512&vpy=184&dur=3853&hovh=148&hovw=340&tx=76&ty=73&ei=9__6TKTAKIK6sAOdrJj3DQ&oei=w__6TJmcIoz0tgP1pMj2DQ&esq=18&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0.

A gravity well is basically the "hole" that matter falls into when it approaches a planet, star, black hole, or other gravitational field. I don't know what "anti-energy" would mean, except maybe being another work for gravity.

 

 

The "shavings thing" was just a visual to explain something I believe to be happening. For instance, a quasar explodes, we see it, describe it, and explain why it may have happened. But other than that, there is little more that can be assessed. My thoughts are, with all of the anti matter, dark matter and dark energy out there in the universe, why is it there, where did it come from and where is it going? Nothing sits still in space as I know of. Chaos is the word! When the quasar exploded, was the energy of that blast dissipated only to fall back into other energy sources? When the LHC slam atoms together, is all of the particles released, assimilated back into other atoms? I don't know! Get back. I don't mind an honest butt kicking if something can be gained from it.

I think you're using physics questions when what you really want to be exploring is philosophy or metaphysics. As for whether energy released in a quasar explosion or LHC ends up being absorbed by other matter/atoms, the answer is yes unless it somehow manages to proceed indefinitely away from matter. Personally, I don't think it can do that, though, b/c space(time) is curved due to gravitation, which I interpret to mean that energy/radiation ultimately remains within a closed area. There may be other who say that radiation-energy can expand space(time) without limit.

 

 

[rigney]

This link shows a simple drawing that explains how gravity wells work: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lh6.ggpht.com/_EePmDw6v-Nk/SzxGdS6kpaI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/UJ7prwIFEQ4/gravity_wells5.png%3Fimgmax%3D800&imgrefurl=http://www.habitationintention.com/2009/12/gravity-wells.html&usg=__VxDCa31uzGldi1dYDF-_upFRjXY=&h=321&w=735&sz=122&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=MiJL-jimVEcUOM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=196&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsolar%2Bsystem%2Bgravity%2Bwells%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1240%26bih%3D569%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=512&vpy=184&dur=3853&hovh=148&hovw=340&tx=76&ty=73&ei=9__6TKTAKIK6sAOdrJj3DQ&oei=w__6TJmcIoz0tgP1pMj2DQ&esq=18&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0.

A gravity well is basically the "hole" that matter falls into when it approaches a planet, star, black hole, or other gravitational field. I don't know what "anti-energy" would mean, except maybe being another work for gravity.

 

 

 

I think you're using physics questions when what you really want to be exploring is philosophy or metaphysics. As for whether energy released in a quasar explosion or LHC ends up being absorbed by other matter/atoms, the answer is yes unless it somehow manages to proceed indefinitely away from matter. Personally, I don't think it can do that, though, b/c space(time) is curved due to gravitation, which I interpret to mean that energy/radiation ultimately remains within a closed area. There may be other who say that radiation-energy can expand space(time) without limit.

 

Your statement: As for whether energy released in a quasar explosion or LHC ends up being absorbed by other matter/atoms, the answer is yes unless it somehow manages to proceed indefinitely away from matter.

My question then is: "What happens to these particles if they don't get back into some form of matter? What do they become, and where do they go?

Edited December 5, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

As for whether energy released in a quasar explosion or LHC ends up being absorbed by other matter/atoms, the answer is yes unless it somehow manages to proceed indefinitely away from matter. My question is then: What does , Yes, unless it somehow manages to proceed indefinitely from matter?

EM radiation. I.e. photons, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, and gamma-radiation. I don't think I left out any forms of radiant energy.

[rigney]

EM radiation. I.e. photons, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, and gamma-radiation. I don't think I left out any forms of radiant energy.

Radiation sources, I believe you posted them all. Let me bend over to recieve another foot print! But I do like your tenacious posture though.

As I stated earlier, only in May of this year 2010 did I start looking at the universe other than in total awe and wonder, which I still do. If I may, let me ask you another question. Why, after 4.5 billion years does our planer still circle the sun without being pulled into it because of "gravity"? 'course that can be said of any body revolving around any other body. How and why does it happen and "seemingly to be" perpetual? And this at phenomenal speeds. I've read 'til I'm green and still haven't found an understandable explanation.

[lemur]

Radiation sources, I believe you posted them all. Let me bend over to recieve another foot print! But I do like your tenacious posture though.

As I stated earlier, only in May of this year 2010 did I start looking at the universe other than in total awe and wonder, which I still do. If I may, let me ask you another question. Why, after 4.5 billion years does our planer still circle the sun without being pulled into it because of "gravity"? 'course that can be said of any body revolving around any other body. How and why does it happen and "seemingly to be" perpetual? And this at phenomenal speeds. I've read 'til I'm green and still haven't found an understandable explanation.

I'm far from an expert in any of this and it's probably b/c of this fact that I come across as tenacious compared to your meek submissiveness. Imo, you can ask for information/knowledge from people who have it but you have to make sense of it on your own. Otherwise all you're doing is parroting authority. Why does the seemingly perpetual motion of a solar system baffle you? Can't an object feasibly orbit at the same speed and distance if its mass fits that distance and speed relative to the mass/gravitation of the thing it's orbiting? If either mass were different, or if the speed was more or less than it is, etc. the Earth or other satellite would either spiral off or fall into the sun in so many years, right? What are trying to get at, that the coincidence is proof of divine perfection? If so, don't bother. I am already a theist for my own reasons, which have nothing to do with the Earth's perfect orbit. I consider seeking proof of God in materiality devil-worship because it basically implies that you would not have faith if creation was proven false by science. It's a meaningless debate to me.

[jackson33]

rigney; I found the following* off YdoaPs's new thread** link, that you might be interested in, basically another explanation for repeating big bangs. Since YdoaPs's thread does suggest possible pre-big bang activity, which could be a link to the cyclical theory.

 

 

 

* http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

 

 

** http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53212-echos-of-a-bygone-aeon/page__pid__576232#entry576232

[rigney]

I'm far from an expert in any of this and it's probably b/c of this fact that I come across as tenacious compared to your meek submissiveness. Imo, you can ask for information/knowledge from people who have it but you have to make sense of it on your own. Otherwise all you're doing is parroting authority. Why does the seemingly perpetual motion of a solar system baffle you? Can't an object feasibly orbit at the same speed and distance if its mass fits that distance and speed relative to the mass/gravitation of the thing it's orbiting? If either mass were different, or if the speed was more or less than it is, etc. the Earth or other satellite would either spiral off or fall into the sun in so many years, right? What are trying to get at, that the coincidence is proof of divine perfection? If so, don't bother. I am already a theist for my own reasons, which have nothing to do with the Earth's perfect orbit. I consider seeking proof of God in materiality devil-worship because it basically implies that you would not have faith if creation was proven false by science. It's a meaningless debate to me.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither meek, mild nor submissive, just curious about how others deal with science. And no!, the motion of planets, moons, suns and solar systems are no more strange than galactic rotation which I find fascinating. But get yourself a galaxy that doesn't spin and you'll have found an entirely different type of "gravitational" system, if there is such a thing at all. I'm not educated, just curious. There's enough knowledge on the internet about the universe to keep a person busy for a lifetime without ever getting filled up. I try looking at something different every day and hope to retain just a bit of the information. Other than math, I return to reread most of it several times. In six more days, I'll be 78. Now that isn't a record, but it is a pretty darn good average and I deserve a minute or two!! That monopole thing? If it's ever found, the Higgs Boson will have attained the size of a basketball in comparison. "If", (the monopole) is found, words like magnetism, gravity, and special relativity will have to go back to the drawing board. Hey! And if you want to be a theist, atheist or Sshaman, that's your business. Just remember, the sawdust keeps falling even as we discuss these issues. Edited December 5, 2010 by rigney