 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008What if (on Planck energy&Time
What if the big bang had a black hole pressure of the whole universe in sphere the size of which could fit inside a Planck length? Pressure would have made almost infinite heat.in this Planck area At a time of 10-^35 seconds ATB all there is of forces were just one big super force. The density of the universe at the Planck time I can't find a word to describe it. Go with super colossal Now 22 billion years have gone by and space accelerating expansion has the temperate diluted down to 27K Expansion gives off heat. Taking this thought in reverse we can say a black hole gets denser and denser over time,but this compression of gravity will not let heat out. Its a boiler of super collosal strength. Sounds familiar so I'll end here Bert > What if the big bang had a black hole pressure of the whole universe in > sphere the size of which could fit inside a Planck length? You would overwork God. It's thought that black holes are at the center of every galaxy, like the one shown here ( in the Sombrero galaxy ): “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Sombrero.JPG ”. How cold and “ black ” is that ? ! Does it look like your “ mega boiler ” which “ never lets heat out ” ? You and Old Coot don't understand engines, i.e. entropy. Net net, entropy only accrues, like interest in an idle savings account. Nothing special happened at the so-called start of the big bang, that's just Our horizon, a human horizon, not a physical event. Net net, the cosmos is simply cooling forever, consuming “ exploitable energy ” ( i.e. accruing entropy ), fueling the engine of “ life ” ( a.k.a. 3-D motion, 4-D motionless ), thinning out 4-D gravitational fields, increasing 3-D space. Intrinsically, there's nothing special about liquid water, i.e. the temperature and pressure we require. On Jul 6, 5:29 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote, replying to Bert: > How cold and “ black ” is that ? ! > Does it look like your “ mega boiler ” which “ never lets heat out ” ? > You and Old Coot don't understand engines, i.e. entropy. Sounds like Jeffykins doesn't understand blackbody radiation or frames of referance. From the frame 'inside' the BH, Bert's "mega boiler" term would indeed apply. From 'out here' outside the event horizon, the BH displays a blackbody temperature of near absolute zero because there's no radiation, no light, no IR, no nada coming from it. Of course this applies to a quiescent or non- accreting BH. An actively accreting BH still radiates nothing, but causes the infalling matter to incandesce to white heat. Evidently Jeffy is confused on this matter. He doesn't seem to understand that there are two classes of entropy, entropy of order and thermodynamic entropy. He doesn't 'get' the concept of there being a *reversal of thermodynamic entropy* beginning with the onset of the Contraction phase of the universe. But neither does the Mainstream, with its "ever-accelerating expansion" / entropic heat death crappola. oc We know entropy as a rate of disorder. Who can say once stuff gets in a black hole it becomes very orderly Well until my critical BH mass density theory kicks in Bert Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) entropy only goes up. What does that have to do with your “ rate of disorder ” ? Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) entropy only goes up ! ! ! So your “ reversal of thermodynamic entropy ” is insane. Einstein dismissed True black holes, so did Hawking ( belatedly ). Infinite density is forever unphysical, metaphysical, never empirical. By itself, relativity says Nothing about how dense something must be. > Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, > entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. Yup. So what? *Reversal of entropy* occurs with the reciprocal compression stroke. > Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) entropy only goes up ! ! ! > So your “ reversal of thermodynamic entropy ” is insane. And "ever-accelerating expansion"/ open-ended, entropic heat death isn't?! Duh. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy too. :-) > Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, > entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. Yup. So what? *Reversal of entropy* occurs with the reciprocal compression stroke. > Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) entropy only goes up ! ! ! > So your “ reversal of thermodynamic entropy ” is insane. And "ever-accelerating expansion"/ open-ended, entropic heat death isn't?! Duh. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy too. :-) The reply to this DOOFUS never came up on G.G. after multiple tries. So apologies if it duplicates on other servers. > >Entropy is very low immediately after > >the fuel in a piston explodes, entropy > >rises as the pressure drops through the > >exhaust. Yup. So what? *Reversal of entropy* occurs with the reciprocal compression stroke (ala a 2-stroke engine). > >Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) > >entropy only goes up ! ! ! So your ... > >reversal of thermodynamic entropy ... > >is insane. And "ever-accelerating expansion"/ open-ended, entropic heat death isn't?! Duh. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy too. :-) Where's your “ entropy reversal ” when it comes time to recreate the Exact Same log you just burned in the fireplace ? Net net ( i.e. all things considered ) entropy accrues. As for the ever-cooling cosmos, what's too hot for one life form is too cold for another, I'm sure. What kind of life exists on the sun ? I wonder. Get another log. The same life that BradBoi put on Venus, Jeff! lmao! Saul Levy On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:33:58 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Where's your entropy reversal when it comes time >to recreate the Exact Same log you just burned in the fireplace ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >what's too hot for one life form is too cold for another, I'm sure. >What kind of life exists on the sun ? I wonder. “ Get another log. ”, you say, but, as I said .. After aging has burned me up like a log on the fire, another “ log ” gets toss on the fire, replacing me .. besides me ( i.e. the log ), no one cares. We're all innocent, no one knows enough to make true decisions. Our sole “ salvation ” is this: To blindly, randomly, pop out more “ logs ” for the fire. Society “ evicts ” those who fall out of favor, placing them on the streets ( or worse ), punishing them for not knowing what they couldn't possibly have known. Most victories ( real or imagined ) simply can't be made pubic, not even to our closest “ friends ”. I'm sure you could also be replaced quite easily, Jeff! lmao! Yes, no one cares. Saul Levy On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: > Get another log. , you say, but, as I said .. > >After aging has burned me up like a log on the fire, >another log gets toss on the fire, replacing me .. >besides me ( i.e. the log ), no one cares. "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote... > Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, > entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Infinite density is forever unphysical, metaphysical, never empirical. > By itself, relativity says Nothing about how dense something must be. And yet science still talks about black holes, such as the massive one at the center of our galaxy. Could it be that science accepts Einstein's and Hawking's dismissals of "true" black holes with infinite density, and yet are still able to justify the existence of "realistic" black holes that aren't infinitely dense, but still denser than the densest neutron star? happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > aren't infinitely dense, but still denser than the densest > neutron star? By whatever name, it's still an object whose mass and gravity are sufficient to keep light 'contained'. "A rose is still a rose....". The actual volume of the "singularity" is not really germane to the issue. To put it in FS terminology, the mass constitutes a large enough flow sink that the inflow-rate exceeds c. Under the CBB model, the mass 'squashes out' into a spinning disc, resembling the 'ring singualrity' of the Kerr model. Nothing is “ exceeding c ” .. Sagittarius A*'s “ inflow-rate ” ( i.e. the depth of its gravity well ) is enough to redshift any light we might see coming from within its 5 kilo light year shroud of radiation ( including gamma rays ), 25 kilo light years away .. keeping us not too hot, not too cold. By itself, G.R. says nothing about how dense something must be, and: No empirical evidence or quantum theory predicts infinite redshift. It's no miracle that Earth has water .. that just happens to be its: temperature, pressure, gravity, age ( i.e. decrepitude ), etc. . "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote... > Nothing is “ exceeding c †.. > . . . Nothing, that is, except space itself! And, oc, i think that this might be the key... The SPED is beyond GR, even the a priori stuff. Space can flow faster than the speed of EM radiation. If a maximum speed (a "constant") can be established or deduced, then the math will easily follow... E = ms² ...where "s" is the maximum speed of space. Still "fanciful". happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net For quite some time, we have been headed back towards the Sirius star/ solar system, and that's obviously another blueshift that isn't supposed to be of the BB forever expanding way of such happening, but it is. In fact all sorts of local galaxy stuff is in blueshift with us, and otherwise many other galaxy encounters have been taking place as though they didn't get that redshift-only memo. Has the speed of gravity been peer replicated to any objective point of accepted physics? (I don't think so) As far as we know, the velocity of gravity or that of the graviton is FTLS. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I thought you said that Sirius reversed direction 8.6 years ago, BradBoi? lmfjao! You changing your story yet again? Saul Levy >For quite some time, we have been headed back towards the Sirius star/ >solar system, and that's obviously another blueshift that isn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > Nothing, that is, except space itself! Of course. C is the speed limit of EM propagation *in* space. But there's no limit on the flow speed of space itself. > And... i think that this might be the key... > > The SPED is beyond GR, even the a priori stuff. Space > can flow faster than the speed of EM radiation. Sure. The point at which the inflow rate into a BH exceeds c is what establishes the event horizon. Conversely, the point at which the outflow from the BB drops below the propagation speed of light *in space* establishes the value "c" (under the CBB model, that is). > If a > maximum speed (a "constant") can be established or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Still "fanciful". Yup. > > Nothing, that is, except space itself! > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Yup. Sounds good enough for an antimatter core to safely exist/coexist within a BH swarm of dead (zeroed out) photons. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth WACKO ALERT! Something 25,000 light years away affects the Earth's temperature, Jeff? BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Saul Levy On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:55:14 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Nothing is exceeding c .. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It's no miracle that Earth has water .. that just happens to be its: >temperature, pressure, gravity, age ( i.e. decrepitude ), etc. . > "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > happy days and... > starry starry nights! I think science still doesn't understand the true nature of these objects. Double-A nightbat wrote Commander Double-A Earth Science Team Officer on the street observing Earth Science Team Officer Painius >>"Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Double-A nightbat Code word "Black Comet" see nightbat most mysterious cosmic object and black hole resolution. Never have so science few enlightened so many except the auk coffee boys, they need brain transplants. as you were, the nightbat > nightbat wrote > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > as you were, > the nightbat Sir, who would volunteer to be transplanted into the Old and diseased bodies of "The Coffee Bois"??? CHJ Hi frootie! lmao! You really mean so few (little) science, don't you? lmao! Saul Levy > Code word "Black Comet" see nightbat most mysterious cosmic >object and black hole resolution. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as you were, > the nightbat “ Could it be that science accepts Einstein's and Hawking's dismissals of ‘ true ’ black holes with infinite density, and yet is still able to justify the existence of ‘ realistic ’ black holes that aren't infinitely dense, but still denser than the densest neutron star ? ”, you wonder. It isn't surprising that we can't see highly redshifted light climbing out of a Finitely deep gravity well, 25 kilo light years away ( Sagittarius ) filtered though 5 kilo light years of thick radiation ( including gamma rays from matter / anti-matter annihilations ). Does that mean the light is Infinitely redshifted ? Einstein says “ No ! ”. Hawking says “ Sorry Sci-Fi fans ! ”. I say “ No f.cking way, José ! ”. Old Coot, Professor Sam Wormley, Eric Gisse, ( Tom Roberts ? ) David A. Smith, Uncle Al .. even the Sci.Physics FAQ .. say “ Yes ! ”. They say “ General Relativity predicts black holes. ” .. Do-o-oh ! But Old Coot's greatest insanity is his how he imagines thermodynamics. Unless I'm Badly mistaken .. entropy climbs a log burns. Net Net .. all things considered .. entropy can only accrue. Enternally .. as the cosmos gets spent, like the burning log, 3-D space accrues because the 4-D gravitational field gets spent. Naturally, “ life ” ( i.e. 3-D motion ) adapts .. eternally. The cosmos “ just is ” .. 4-D static, 4-D motionless, 4-D unchanging. The “ Mind of God ” ( the “ HyperMind ”, if you will ) is choiceless; but the “ mind of man ” ( 3-D ) must pay “ rent ” or get “ evicted ”. Jeff Its the math that goes with GR that gives BHs their credibility. A BH is 3 times more dense than a neutron star. That means 3 neutron stars in close orbit would create a gravity field equal to a black hole. Will do a what if on black holes again Bert > Jeff Its the math that goes with GR that gives BHs their credibility. A > BH is 3 times more dense than a neutron star. That means 3 neutron stars > in close orbit would create a gravity field equal to a black hole. Will > do a what if on black holes again Bert A bunch of stars in close orbit will create the gravity for a black hole! Double-A Double-A The density of water in an area the distance between Sun and Pluto would be a black hole Bert Why doesn't an apple collapse into a black hole ? You Imagine that a sphere centered at the sun, extending to the Pluto, filled with water, would collapse into a black hole but .. no high-energy physics lab could ever confirm your meanderings. The sun in our solar system looks as dark as an arctic winter compared to the HyperBrilliants ( i.e. black holes ) shown here: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. > Why doesn't an apple collapse into a black hole ? Sone do have wormholes. > You Imagine that a sphere centered at the sun, extending to the Pluto, > filled with water, would collapse into a black hole but .. > no high-energy physics lab could ever confirm your meanderings. It is merely a matter of math, Jeff. > The sun in our solar system looks as dark as an arctic winter > compared to the HyperBrilliants ( i.e. black holes ) shown here: > " JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ". http://www.jeffrelf.f-m.fm/HyperBrilliants.JPG Double-A Re: a sphere centered at the sun, extending to the Pluto, filled with water, collapsing into a black hole ( or not ) .. It's matter of impossible-to-get empiral data, not just math. CERN doesn't have anything to compare to it. It's high, high .. Higher .. energy physics. Move this into your URL bar ( FireFox 3 or IE7 ): “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. It works just fine .. no need for the “ http://www. ” prefix. Personally, I prefer plain-text ( non-clickable ) links. Where oh where would you get that much water, Jeff? lmao! Saul Levy On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:42:38 +0200 (CEST), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Re: a sphere centered at the sun, extending to the Pluto, >filled with water, collapsing into a black hole ( or not ) .. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Personally, I prefer plain-text ( non-clickable ) links. > Entropy is very low immediately after the fuel in a piston explodes, > entropy rises as the pressure drops through the exhaust. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Infinite density is forever unphysical, metaphysical, never empirical. > By itself, relativity says Nothing about how dense something must be. What if life is inside a Planck area? It very well might have a person named Bohr a great hypothetical thinker saying this. "The very large macro realm is weird" And this guy Heisenberg is saying its filled with uncertainty. Bert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.