438 reputation
8
bio website
location
age 36
visits member for 7 months
seen May 22 at 17:42

Jul
2
awarded  Curious
May
15
revised A black “superhole” possibility?
Rewrote parts of my question to make it more clear what I am asking about.
May
15
comment A black “superhole” possibility?
@StanLiou When you consider a gravity well that is infinitely small, at one time a single particle could touch both sides. At that point, to me - it sounds reasonable to assume that the particle itself shrinks. If the shrinking makes the particle so small, that it's size is too small to be "spaghettified", and it continues to shrink I think we could expect something similar to the big bang all over again. If we consider this scenario to be true, we should be able to watch our own universe and see for signs that this may be true.
May
14
comment A black “superhole” possibility?
@BlackbodyBlacklight I'm not talking about when you approach. I'm talking about when you're in the absolute center of it. When your own center becomes one with the black hole center, tidal forces only compress you - they can't rip you apart.
May
14
comment A black “superhole” possibility?
@BlackbodyBlacklight That's just something I intuitively believe - local forces working matter inside, will eventually become much more important the tidal forces emitted from the superhole. This as a result of the assumption that particles themselves become smaller after billions of years inside a black hole. Also; I'm talking about the possibility of our observable universe being inside a black superhole. I think the post belongs here.
May
14
comment A black “superhole” possibility?
I'm pretty sure many of the extremely well educated astro*/cosmo* people on this site will tell me that this is a stupid idea, either because it's just speculation - or because nothing suggests that it is true. I've asked a lot of questions and nothing so far suggests to me it's NOT a viable direction to explore, if I were to try to take a PhD Cosmology.
May
14
asked A black “superhole” possibility?
May
14
comment Why do we have the cosmological constant?
@called2voyage Okay, fair enough. Imagining a universe inside a singularity, requires everything to be on the same place when viewed from outside - but viewed from within, affected by time dilution and other GR effects perhaps doesn't require a center.
May
14
comment Why do we have the cosmological constant?
@called2voyage How can you be completely certain that there is no center? Are there any certain ways to know that the universe is NOT inside another black hole? That all matter we see was ripped apart when crossing the event horizon of a black hole in an "earlier" universe, and now have been forming new stars after billions of years inside this superhole? Just curious as to how anybody can be certain and just shoot down that idea. Because a black hole certainly has a center when viewed from outside.
May
14
comment Why do we have the cosmological constant?
I've asked about this in the past as well at marilynvossavant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=376
May
14
comment Why do we have the cosmological constant?
The problem with finding two identical quasars is that you'll be looking at it vastly different distances - a young quasar and an older quasar. You could also imagine that if the milky way was falling toward a giant black hole, you'd see ourselves directly "behind" us. The mirrored milky way would appear to be on collision course with us. The idea came as an alternative explanation for the "Great Attractor" and the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy appears to be on collision course with us, much faster than the galaxies mass can account for.
May
14
comment Why do we have the cosmological constant?
I've been through the a similar line of thought as you, and I also believe that due to 1/r^2 you would see uniform redshift. While falling toward the hole, you would see an accelerating red shift in every direction. I've taken the line of thought a little further: once you cross the event horizon, tidal forces will rip everything apart into the the primary elements - electrons, neutrons or whatever. When this mixture comes closer to the absolute center - they will be less affected by tidal forces and can start to form hydrogen, stars and new black holes - inside the first black hole.
Apr
9
accepted Did time pass more slowly in the past?
Apr
3
comment Rotation and relativity
So, an object that is spinning does not have a higher kinetic energy? And through E=mc^2 you don't get an increase in mass-energy as a result of spin? I will accept your answer if you answer that by editing your answer. :)
Apr
2
comment Rotation and relativity
Is the increased precession the only result of increased mass (due to higher kinetic energy)?
Feb
14
accepted Can redshift be measured using fourier?
Feb
11
comment A clock travelling “faster than the speed of light”
How do I move it?
Feb
11
comment A clock travelling “faster than the speed of light”
@self Imagine watching an analog clock on the wall. At the same time imagine moving away from it at the speed of light. The clock must appear to stop. If you hold a clock in your hand, it must also appear to stop for the other observer. This is simplified and only uses the doppler effect in 3 dimensions. Relativity uses the time-dimension in a much "deeper" way, and adds time dilation on top of the doppler effect. From these I've understood that a lot of other effects must be expected, such as length contraction and the headlight effect.
Feb
10
revised A clock travelling “faster than the speed of light”
added 20 characters in body
Feb
10
revised A clock travelling “faster than the speed of light”
added 20 characters in body