The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe

[astrocat5]

Then how do you explain the vacuum of space. To my way of thinking the less mass you have in a space the greater the vacuum. I've been trying to find information on any changes in vacuum, but I haven't been able to get any farther than just normal fluctuation. It only makes sense that if there is already a vacuum then any expansion or contraction would adversely affect the measure of vacuum.

Not to mention all that I've heard is that it is expanding or contracting. If it is expanding then what is it expanding away from and in what direction? I've only heard OUT. If it is expanding there ought to be a central point who's location can be calculated and identified. Same with a contraction and probably more so.

 

And to just say we are falling is a little inadequate. Before you could say we are falling you would have to know which way is down in the universe.

Justin W, you can't have a vacuum greater than a vacuum. A vacuum can't increase. A vacuum means there is nothing there - nothing. Empty Space is truly empty, believe me. Everyone in 1998 was expecting the expansion to be slowing down, and it came as a surprise to Modern Scientists that it was speeding up. They promptly made up a new force, an Anti-Gravity they called Dark Energy (a 'cooler' sounding name and much easier to sell.) Anti-Gravity doesn't exist and they say it's running the Universe.

 

They've got it backwards, it's not Anti-Gravity running the Universe, but Gravity. Gravity is all there is. If we're going in, and we are, Gravity is all you're going to need, anyway. There is such a thing as Inward Expansion, tho' it is not taught in schools - it should be. And because I say we're falling, and that's why we're speeding up, you think that's inadequate. I'm saying Gravity is doing it, and you're saying we're speeding up for some man-made reason, Dark Energy - and you think that's a better answer. Excuse me!

 

What evidence and falling where? Also falling implies direction(down). Is it falling/contracting, or just falling?

Okay, Justin W, here's the evidence. In Nature, there are only two kinds of expansion, the kind that starts fast and slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and speeds up.

The first kind 1) is your basic explosion, or popping seed case - or Big Bang. All Outward Expansions start fast, from a Central Point and slow down. That's just the nature of the beast.

They're opposites, these two kinds of expansion, and the second kind 2) is an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start slowly toward a Central Point and speed up.

Inward Expansion? Yes, a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. This snowball started slowly as the kids pushed it over the edge, but it grows (expands) as it heads towardr the Centr5al Point of Earth's Center of Mass.

a) The slow start b) the speeding up expansion, and 3) the inward direction qualify this event as an Inward Expansion.

I hope you can see that.

Now, tell me what you think?

[Realitycheck]

Then how do you explain the vacuum of space. To my way of thinking the less mass you have in a space the greater the vacuum. I've been trying to find information on any changes in vacuum, but I haven't been able to get any farther than just normal fluctuation. It only makes sense that if there is already a vacuum then any expansion or contraction would adversely affect the measure of vacuum.

Not to mention all that I've heard is that it is expanding or contracting. If it is expanding then what is it expanding away from and in what direction?

If the universe was expanding outward in every direction, then all of the matter in it would have a tendency to be drawn outward in every direction, as well; it would have a tendency to follow the bread dough analogy. It's just a hard concept to accept that such a vast entity as the universe would continue expanding.

[JustinW]

Justin W, you can't have a vacuum greater than a vacuum. A vacuum can't increase. A vacuum means there is nothing there - nothing.

I beg to differ. Take a look at the Cassmir affect, vacume energy, vacuum state, etc...

 

 

They've got it backwards, it's not Anti-Gravity running the Universe, but Gravity. Gravity is all there is. If we're going in, and we are, Gravity is all you're going to need, anyway. There is such a thing as Inward Expansion, tho' it is not taught in schools - it should be. And because I say we're falling, and that's why we're speeding up, you think that's inadequate. I'm saying Gravity is doing it, and you're saying we're speeding up for some man-made reason, Dark Energy - and you think that's a better answer. Excuse me!

 

Okay, I agree that it is only a theory, but it is understandable to come up with an explanation for what is being seen. I myself am not sure at all that red shifts proved an expanding universe instead of just one that is in motion. Although I understand that in order for it to be a red shift instead of a blue shift, the object would have to be moving away from the observer. The theory of dark energy, from my limited understanding, was to provide a reasonable explanation for the observed expansion. What you said about gravity is true and the only way to escape gravity is for a potential energy to give you an escape velocity. Since the red shifts were interpreted to be an expansion, then you would also have to have a potential energy to provide that escape velocity. (dark energy) It's just a name for something unseen and undetected.

 

If everything is contracting, why are we seeing red shifts instead of blue?

Edited December 21, 2011 by JustinW

[Realitycheck]

And what about WMAP? That satellite was sent up for the purpose of clarifying this issue, and you just dispense it on a whim? Where are you getting your information from? "Common sense"?

[astrocat5]

If the universe was expanding outward in every direction, then all of the matter in it would have a tendency to be drawn outward in every direction, as well; it would have a tendency to follow the bread dough analogy. It's just a hard concept to accept that such a vast entity as the universe would continue expanding.

There's no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up. Not in Nature, there isn't. All Inward Expansions speed up. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the middle of a room, and the Nozzle will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again, in order to replace the evacuated air.

As the experiment runs, even air from across the room will eventually begin to move, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again toward the Central Point of the Nozzle. (from here on in, and we are going in, you can replace the word 'Nozzle' with 'Black-Hole' if you like) At the Nozzle will be found a vortex, along with air (matter) of the Highest Speed

Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion.

Maximum expansion - and this is going in.

Going toward the Nozzle, the air will be Speeding Up, Losing Pressure (Bernoulli) Expanding (Boyle) and Cooling Down (the Joule-Thomson Effect).

The Observable Universe is also Speeding Up, Losing Pressure, Expanding and Cooling Down.

The point is, the kind of expansion that Speeds Up, is Inward.

If we were going out, we'd be slowing down. As it is, we're speeding up - and that means we're going in.

[JustinW]

The Observable Universe is also Speeding Up, Losing Pressure, Expanding and Cooling Down.

I would like to know how you came by the information that the universe is losing pressure. I have been looking for such information.

 

 

The point is, the kind of expansion that Speeds Up, is Inward.

I would say that depends on what forces are at work and where they are applied. Since we don't know that we only have what we observe to go by.

[astrocat5]

And what about WMAP? That satellite was sent up for the purpose of clarifying this issue, and you just dispense it on a whim? Where are you getting your information from? "Common sense"?

That article (about COBE) came from the Globe and Mail of January 10, 1998 - in an article called 'Infra-red readings shed new light on Big-Bang - Early Universe better understood,' by Steven Strauss. I'm sorry, I should have said. That's my fault, not yours. Well, you see, because of all the fuss caused by COBE's Infra-Red picture, all representations of the CBR must come with the necessawry7 marks, and that's why the WMap has the marks it has. I'm a scientist, and I have to go with the evidence. Can you not see that? The evidence points to a perfectly smooth CBR, that just sits there, hardly moving and all around us, a smooth warm soup. The CBR is the densest zone in the Universe. Because movement here is so slight, you'd think it was a 'peaceful' zone, if you were there. No, I wouldn't dispense anything on a whim. Ok, Reality?

 

I beg to differ. Take a look at the Cassmir affect, vacume energy, vacuum state, etc...

You got me, Justin W. I'm not familiar with the Cassmir Effect. I always thought a vacuum meant there was nothing there. What's less than nothing? But I'm prepared to bend to your greater knowledge.

 

 

Okay, I agree that it is only a theory, but it is understandable to come up with an explanation for what is being seen. I myself am not sure at all that red shifts proved an expanding universe instead of just one that is in motion. Although I understand that in order for it to be a red shift instead of a blue shift, the object would have to be moving away from the observer. The theory of dark energy, from my limited understanding, was to provide a reasonable explanation for the observed expansion. What you said about gravity is true and the only way to escape gravity is for a potential energy to give you an escape velocity. Since the red shifts were interpreted to be an expansion, then you would also have to have a potential energy to provide that escape velocity. (dark energy) It's just a name for something unseen and undetected.

 

If everything is contracting, why are we seeing red shifts instead of blue?

 

 

The Observable Universe is expanding inwardly. That's according to Nature, anyway. All Inward Expansions start slowly, toward a central point - and speed up. With everything converging on the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner, will there be a High Pressure or a Low Pressure, there at the nozzle?

As for Dark Energy (which is a man-made force) pushing the Universe, wouldn't there be some compression and compaction going on? And if you're pouring energy into it - are you sure you're not warming it? If, on the other hand, Gravity7 is pulling the Universe - isn't there a danger Gravity might pull it apart? And if you pull something, you might stretch it - and that might cause a decompresseion. And in its stretched state, it might take up more room in this expanded shape. Are you Cooling it?

 

I would like to know how you came by the information that the universe is losing pressure. I have been looking for such information.

 

Robert Boyle of Boyle's Law was the first, I think to note that Pressure and Expansion were related - inversely. That means, if you Pressurize something, it will take up less space. That's Increased Pressure, Diminished Space. If the space Invcreases, that's because you have reduced the pressure. In thermophysics, pressure and expansion are a 'conjoined couple' (they're married - you can't split them.) Increased Expansion will always be accompanied by a Loss of Pressure, and vice-versa.

I would say that depends on what forces are at work and where they are applied. Since we don't know that we only have what we observe to go by.

 

I agree, we only have what we can see. But we can see (now) the Expansion is Speeding Up. In 1998, everyone thought the expansion was slowing down, as all Outward Expansions must. When they found out the expansion was Speeding Up, Modern Scientists, instead of questioning their Bigy-Bang promptly invented a new force, an Anti-Gravity force they called Dark Energy. This repulsive force is operating the Universe, they say. But Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. If you're so sure it does, show me some!

In Nature, all Inward Expansions start slowly and speed up.

[JustinW]

It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

[Sorcerer]

If we were going out, we'd be Slowing Down. As it is, we're Speeding Up, and that means we're going in. That's not me, that's the evidence.

 

Why?

and

What evidence?

 

I don't understand why an excelerated expansion of space would mean the universe is imploding as apposed to exploding ( or "going in/going out" as u put it) - surely the evidence ( type 1A supernovae, microwave background ,etc) shows the universe is expanding.

 

It would however be possible to conceive of our universe as the inside of a blackhole that has/is expanded/ing.

 

- in thinking on what u said, pehaps the effects of mass(blackholes) distorting/stretching space between us and our observed data could make us "see" dark energy - ie the light has been curved and appears further away because it has travelled further than expected. This could also be accounted for by darkmatter, or darkmatter could be black holes.

 

Ok, I didnt read all the thread just ur first post which wasn't very clear. Did you mean space's excelerated expansion is due to a super massive black hole stretching everything towards it? So, as we approach it we see space expanding at an increasing rate.

 

Well if so, we could observe type 1A supernova from different locations on our horizon, and the difference between them would be propotional to their angle with 0degrees a straightline from us to the supermassive black hole. IE when we are directly between a type1a supernova and the black hole the expansion of space or "dark energy" would have a different value than to when the supernova was directly between us and the black hole.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Sorcerer

[Ben Banana]

I can't wait for when you are banned.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[astrocat5]

Why?

and

What evidence?

In Nature, Sorcerer, there are only two kinds of expansion 1) the kind that starts fast and slows down -that's your Popping Seed Case, or Explosion, or Big-Bang. The second type 2) is the opposite, an Inward Expansion. All Inward Expansions start Slowly and Speed Up.

Inward Expansion? Yes, a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. The snowball teetered for a second as the kids pushed it over the edge, but then it Sped Up, growing (expanding) on its way into Earth's Center of Mass.

The slow start, the speeding up expansion, and the inward direction, qualify this snowball as an Inward Expansion. Every vortex shows this Inward Expansion.

Even a swirl of water going down a drain. The outside of this vortex moves only Slowly, Speeding up as it Loses Pressure on it's way to the drain. At the drain trhe surface is depressed (Bernoulli) and the greedy sucking sound confirms the Low Pressure there at the dain. Now, Sorcerer, water doesn't expand much, but that Low Pressure at the drain would certainly imply a strong 'tendency' to Expand. Note the Slow Start, the speeding up (tendency) to expand, and the inward direction all qualify this as an... Well, you decide.

 

 

 

I don't understand why an excelerated expansion of space would mean the universe is imploding as apposed to exploding ( or "going in/going out" as u put it) - surely the evidence ( type 1A supernovae, microwave background ,etc) shows the universe is expanding.

The Universe isn't expanding - no one has ever observed that. It is completely without evidence. The expansion of the Observable Universe, on the other hand - is amply documented. I'm sorry - I'm a scientist and I have to go with the evidence.

It would however be possible to conceive of our universe as the inside of a blackhole that has/is expanded/ing.

Again, Sorcerer, there is no evidence of any Black Hole expanding. Can we stick to the evidence, please. Are you not a scientist?

 

- in thinking on what u said, pehaps the effects of mass(blackholes) distorting/stretching space between us and our observed data could make us "see" dark energy - ie the light has been curved and appears further away because it has travelled further than expected. This could also be accounted for by darkmatter, or darkmatter could be black holes.

There's no Dark Energy either. Dark Energy ( a 'cooler' sounding name than Anti-Gravity and much easier to sell) is nothing more than Anti-Gravity and Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. If ur so sure it does, Sorcerer, show me some.

Ok, I didnt read all the thread just ur first post which wasn't very clear. Did you mean space's excelerated expansion is due to a super massive black hole stretching everything towards it? So, as we approach it we see space expanding at an increasing rate.

That's exactly right, Sorcere. We're Speeding up, now up to 15 million miles per hour, and any speeding up leades to loss of pressure (Bernoulli) and loss of pressure equals rising expansion (Boyle) and expansion causes cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect) That's just how Nature works.

 

Well if so, we could observe type 1A supernova from different locations on our horizon, and the difference between them would be propotional to their angle with 0degrees a straightline from us to the supermassive black hole. IE when we are directly between a type1a supernova and the black hole the expansion of space or "dark energy" would have a different value than to when the supernova was directly between us and the black hole.

I see. You're saying that if a Type 1a Supernova is between us and the Black Hole (which I call Mable, for it must be the Mother of All BlacK hoLEs, the Black Hole at the center of the Universe.) that would affect the expansion - something I'd never thought of. But you see, this Black Hole Mable is of a different scale to a regular Black Hole. You see, if there's a Black Hole where I say it is, then the Universe is a vortex, probably a lot like the Whirlpool Galaxy, or our own Milky Way - just on a different scale. It would take an awful lot of mass to influence a) our Observable Universe or b) Mable. This is the Mable Theory.

 

It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

Justin, in Thermodynamics, Pressure and Volume are a 'conjoined couple.' You can't talk about one without talking about the other. Pressure and Volume are related, but inversely. That's not me - that's Physics 101. And what red-shifts are you talking about? Andromeda?

The Pressure, of course, is changing. We're Losing Pressure as we expand. And since the expansion is increasing, so is the loss of pressure. You have to be able to see that.

 

I can't wait for when you are banned.

Why? Would it make any difference to you if there was a Black Hole at the center of the Universe? Come on, I'm interested...

[JustinW]

The Pressure, of course, is changing. We're Losing Pressure as we expand. And since the expansion is increasing, so is the loss of pressure. You have to be able to see that.

Sure, I was reffering to volume and pressure as a coupling. By saying that we are LOSING pressure, do you mean that the vacuum pressure is getting stronger or weaker? If space is expanding it would cause the vacuum pressure to get stronger, right? If you have any links to this it would be appreciated.

[astrocat5]

Sure, I was reffering to volume and pressure as a coupling. By saying that we are LOSING pressure, do you mean that the vacuum pressure is getting stronger or weaker? If space is expanding it would cause the vacuum pressure to get stronger, right? If you have any links to this it would be appreciated.

By Losing Pressure, I mean, becoming less dense. As we expand we become less dense. It's further now, between bodies. But there's an 'average' pressure of our Solar System, including the pressure inside the sun (Sol) and Jupiter etc. There has to be, throughout the Observable Universe (OU) an average pressure, whatever it is. Anyway, you can't change the volume of anything in Nature, without affecting the pressure.

As for your vacuum getting stronger - what is a vacuum? It's 30 inches of mercury. A tube, 30 inches high, will be filled. Virtually.

Can your vacuum pull more than that? Can you get stronger than that? As for links, I'd say Google 'vacuum' and that should answer all your questions, Justin W.

 

But this is all off to the side. There are two Universes, it seems to me - the Man-Made Universe and the Natural Universe - belonging to Mother Nature. In your Man-Made Universe we're speeding up because of a Man-Made Anti-Gravity called Dark Energy (invented in 1998) when Modern Scientists found out the expansion was increasing speed (and with an increasing Rate of Acceleration to boot.)

 

Because in Nature, you see, we're speeding up because we're falling (Newton).

 

There's your increasing Rate of Acceleration too. I know - I can't believe it either, it's so simple in Nature.

[JustinW]

I was reading about the vacuum energy of space and got two conflicting answers. It said that free space was estimated to be 10^-9 Joules per cubic meter. But another theory had it at 10^113 joules per cubic meter using the Planck constent. Now since a vacuum is created by removing matter from space I assumed that with space expanding, compared to matter in that space, the greater the negative pressure of the vacuum. And visa versa. So I thought that if the universe were expanding, it would be reflected in the measure of vacuum. Vacuum theoretically can get stronger unitl it reaches what's called a perfect vacuum. Which theoretically can't happen without all matter being removed. At least this is what I've gotten out of the short amount of reading I've done about it so far.

Edited January 4, 2012 by JustinW

[astrocat5]

I was reading about the vacuum energy of space and got two conflicting answers. It said that free space was estimated to be 10^-9 Joules per cubic meter. But another theory had it at 10^113 joules per cubic meter using the Planck constent. Now since a vacuum is created by removing matter from space I assumed that with space expanding, compared to matter in that space, the greater the negative pressure of the vacuum. And visa versa. So I thought that if the universe were expanding, it would be reflected in the measure of vacuum. Vacuum theoretically can get stronger unitl it reaches what's called a perfect vacuum. Which theoretically can't happen without all matter being removed. At least this is what I've gotten out of the short amount of reading I've done about it so far.

Oh, Justin. Now you're talking about a perfect vacuum. I thought Outer Space offered a perfect vacuum. That's 30 inches of mercury (g). Why are we even having this problem?

I forgot to say last time - In Nature, we're speeding up because of Gravity, and it would take a black hole to cause an increasing Rate of Acceleration. We're falling into the black hole at the center of the Universe. That's in Nature.

In Nature Justin W, Gravity (King Gravity) assembled the Universe as it started out - a loose, humungous Hydrogen cloud. The center of this gas-cloud where pressures and temperatures were highest evolved fastest, and black holes appeared there first. These black holes 'ate' the center out, and changed the center from a hot, compact high pressure zone into the Cooling down expanding vacuum we can see developing from here.

 

It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

About the red-shift. We, in the Observable Universe are expanding, at an ever increasing rate - exponentially, in fact. Lee Smolin, in his book 'String Theory' agrees with me that the expansion is increasing exponentially.

If you fall, you speed up (Newton) lose pressure (Bernoulli) expand (Boyle) and cool down (the Joule-Thomson Effect.) That's in Nature, anyway. When you land, the opposite happens - you slow down and stop, compress. compact and warm up. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea (about falling).

Now, if you fall and speed up, lose pressure, expand and cool down, isn't that exactly what's happening to the Obserable Universe?

[JustinW]

Oh, Justin. Now you're talking about a perfect vacuum. I thought Outer Space offered a perfect vacuum.

It's not a perfect vacuum. Just the closest there is.

 

 

If you fall, you speed up (Newton) lose pressure (Bernoulli) expand (Boyle) and cool down (the Joule-Thomson Effect.)

If you fall, you speed up because of gravity. You have to prove that there is something dense enough out there for its gravity to affect the whole universe. You haven't.

 

The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that.

 

It seems that the expansion part is general consensus.

 

At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

[Klaynos]

I don't think that a pressure change of this sort would ever create the effect we see. The galaxies we observe are not gravitationally bound. I fail to see how any pressure change could propagate with such an effect.

[JustinW]

I don't think that a pressure change of this sort would ever create the effect we see. The galaxies we observe are not gravitationally bound. I fail to see how any pressure change could propagate with such an effect.

Who are you commenting to? I wasn't insinuating that the pressure change causes an effect, but quite the opposite. That the effect of expansion should cause a pressure change. There is a vacuum in space because the matter is unproportional to the space that it occupies. With the expansion, space grows more unproportional which should be reflected in a proportional change in vacuum. At least that is what would make scense to me. Unless there is a reason the two are not connected.

[questionposter]

I'm pretty sure like almost no evidence suggests we're falling into a black hole, it's a fringe theory and its very illogical because the hubble constant is relatively constant in all directions, and if there was a black hole massive enough to pull all matter in the universe, everything would be moving towards a single point.

Furthermore, we wouldn't slow down if we were moving outward because of Newton's first law of motion, if the universe contains everything, then there's nothing stopping it from moving outward and slowing it down.

Edited January 10, 2012 by questionposter

[Klaynos]

Who are you commenting to? I wasn't insinuating that the pressure change causes an effect, but quite the opposite. That the effect of expansion should cause a pressure change. There is a vacuum in space because the matter is unproportional to the space that it occupies. With the expansion, space grows more unproportional which should be reflected in a proportional change in vacuum. At least that is what would make scense to me. Unless there is a reason the two are not connected.

 

Sorry, it was to astrocat5...

 

I can't see anything wrong with what you say there. It must be remembered that when things are gravitationally bound (or closer together any of the other 3 forces) then that interaction overrides the expansion, which is why locally we don't see say atoms getting bigger or the earth expanding.

[JustinW]

It must be remembered that when things are gravitationally bound (or closer together any of the other 3 forces) then that interaction overrides the expansion, which is why locally we don't see say atoms getting bigger or the earth expanding.

Yes I agree with the consensus on this. But as far as pressure goes... I can't seem to find any information on the subject that either supports or denies my way of thinking about it. It drives me crazy when I'm left to wonder.

[astrocat5]

It's not a perfect vacuum. Just the closest there is.

Not a perfect vacuum? I wonder why not?

 

If you fall, you speed up because of gravity. You have to prove that there is something dense enough out there for its gravity to affect the whole universe. You haven't.

If you fall, you speed up - quite correct. That's Newton. Now, speeding up leads to a loss of pressure. This was first noticed by one man Daniel Bernoulli. Any loss of pressure equals expansion (Robert Boyle) and any expansion causes cooling down (Joule-Thomson Effect). Are we in agreement?

 

The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that.

We, in the Observable Universe, are speeding up. We're also losing pressure according to Bernoulli.

 

It seems that the expansion part is general consensus.

The expansion of the Universe has never been seen and is therefore without evidence. The expansion of the Observable Universe on the other hand ,is very well documented

 

At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

I have no idea of the rate at which the Observable Universe is cooling down, only that it is cooling as it expands, in accordance with the Joule-Thomson Effect. You should also be aware that compression causes warming up, tho' I don't know who first discovered that. Was it Boyle?

Fortunately Science is built on Laws, Laws which were only arrived at, sometimes - after bitter dispute. These Laws were fought for, and they must be respected, else you could do whatever you wanted, in Science.

The Law of Gravity is another such Law. If you're pushing a Big-Bang (which couldn't have happened in a slowly expanding Universe - a big wheeze, maybe, but no sudden explosion) it's in your best interests to tell everybody Gravity is the weakest force because the Big-Bang flies in the face of Gravity. What's needed is a simple Theory that conforms to all the laws of Science - including Gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I agree with the consensus on this. But as far as pressure goes... I can't seem to find any information on the subject that either supports or denies my way of thinking about it. It drives me crazy when I'm left to wonder.

I don't know who interjected this. Was it you, Justin? Asfor pressure, all you have to remember is speeding up causes loss of pressure according to Bernoulli. I believe this is pretty well accepted, no?

[JustinW]

I don't know who interjected this. Was it you, Justin? Asfor pressure, all you have to remember is speeding up causes loss of pressure according to Bernoulli. I believe this is pretty well accepted, no?

But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet. Edited January 10, 2012 by JustinW

[astrocat5]

But what is getting me is that I can't find any information, one way or another, that says if the vacuum pressure of space is changing. If there was it may give a further indication of what is happening with the universe as a whole.With a vacuum pressure that is getting stronger(more negative) we could assume that the universe is expanding. With a vacuum pressure that grows weaker(more positive) we could assume that the universe is contracting. If the pressure of the universe stays the same that either means there is an outside constant that we have yet to discover or that the indications of expansion that we have observed could just be movement along an eliptical orbit or something of that sort. These questions could probably be punched full of holes, but I haven't found any information that disputes them yet.

There is a constant - the perfect vacuum, or 30 inches of mercury (g) or the vacuum of outer space. A vacuum means there is nothing there, which is absolutely the case in outer space. Take the center of a void. It's called a void because there is nothing there. Of course, in your Man-Made Universe, the vacuum of outer space is full of Man-Made 'Dark Energy,' and a load of Virtual Particles etc. all of it made up (fabricated) none of it real. At the center of a void is the perfect vacuum you seek - that's in Nature, anyway. And no, it doesn't change. Yes, it is a constant - you cannot get a better vacuum than a perfect vacuum.

As for the expansion of the Universe it has never been observed and is therefore without evidence. Of course, Modern Scientists don't care about evidence, but I'm a True Scientist, and I certainly do. The expansion of the Observable Universe, on the other hand, is well documented.

The Universe isn't expanding, Justin. We're going in (in Nature) so how could it be expanding? In Nature, Justin, we're speeding up because we're falling due to Gravity (Newton) and speeding up leads to loss of pressure (Bernoulli) which equals expansion (Boyle) and that's cooling down (Joule-Thomson Effect). These are really all the same thing - I wish you could see it.

It's very simple in Nature. We(in the Observable Universe) are speeding up (now up to 15 million miles-per-hour) but everywhere I see that we're speeding up with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. This could only be caused by a Black Hole. I call that black hole Mable, for it must surely be, in the vernacular of our times, the Mother of All Black hoLEs, the most attractive body in the Universe and none other than the Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.

I realise all this is new to you, but that doesn't make me wrong. In Nature, any expansion that speeds up is inward. Take a snowball rolling down a snowy bank. Note a) the slow start b) the speeding up expansion and c) the inward direction, toward Earth's Center of Mass. In Nature, there is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up, in the manner of your Man-Made Universe.

Nature built the Universe out of Hydrogen. Gravity has the ability to gather huge clouds of the stuff, till pressures and temperatures cause the Hydrogen isotopes to fuse in a nucleaer explosion. Our sun, Sol - is a good example of this. Perhaps Jupiter could go critical soon - it's almost big enough, wouldn't you say?

 

I don't think that a pressure change of this sort would ever create the effect we see. The galaxies we observe are not gravitationally bound. I fail to see how any pressure change could propagate with such an effect.

There is no pressure change, Klaynos. A perfect vacuum is the norm in outer space. And what's this about the Galaxies we see are not bound? They are bound by the gravity of the black holes at their centers, and it'sthe GROWING mass of these black holes that bend 'inward' the 'streamlets' of stars that orbit these black holes, and that's what makes galaxies spirals (vortices).

Modern Scientists say the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is just sitting there - chillin'. This is not right, there is much activity at the center of any galaxy, I hope you can see that tyese black holes are always eating. I almost think they are intelligent, the way tyey order their meals into long streams that deliver food directly into their maws - it just seems like such an intelligent thing to do.

[JustinW]

There is a constant - the perfect vacuum, or 30 inches of mercury (g) or the vacuum of outer space. A vacuum means there is nothing there, which is absolutely the case in outer space. Take the center of a void. It's called a void because there is nothing there. Of course, in your Man-Made Universe, the vacuum of outer space is full of Man-Made 'Dark Energy,' and a load of Virtual Particles etc. all of it made up (fabricated) none of it real. At the center of a void is the perfect vacuum you seek - that's in Nature, anyway. And no, it doesn't change. Yes, it is a constant - you cannot get a better vacuum than a perfect vacuum.

Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole.

 

 

 

I realise all this is new to you, but that doesn't make me wrong. In Nature, any expansion that speeds up is inward.

This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just because your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity.

 

 

 

There is no pressure change, Klaynos. A perfect vacuum is the norm in outer space. And what's this about the Galaxies we see are not bound? They are bound by the gravity of the black holes at their centers, and it'sthe GROWING mass of these black holes that bend 'inward' the 'streamlets' of stars that orbit these black holes, and that's what makes galaxies spirals (vortices).

Modern Scientists say the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is just sitting there - chillin'. This is not right, there is much activity at the center of any galaxy, I hope you can see that tyese black holes are always eating. I almost think they are intelligent, the way tyey order their meals into long streams that deliver food directly into their maws - it just seems like such an intelligent thing to do.

 

Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.