OT: every Black Hole contains another universe
Scott
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/
(if so, it explains RST.)
Raja, The Great
> does every Black Hole contain another universe?http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-al...
>
> (if so, it explains RST.)
Excellent post. I like the article.
Whisper
er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
Whisper
"According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a
tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole
attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted,
but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one,
the theory goes."
Lol - what are these guys smoking?
Scott
> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> > does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>
> > (if so, it explains RST.)
>
> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
do you understand what the phrase, "equations predict" means?
Whisper
Nonsensical. Do you understand what 'universe' means?
Whisper
Unless you're referring to these kind of multiple Universes, each with
their own black hole?
http://canadianfermentation.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/miss-universe-bikini.jpg
Quincy
> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> > does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>
> > (if so, it explains RST.)
>
> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
Correct, the prefix "uni" suggests so.
Joe Ramirez
>
> > does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>
> > (if so, it explains RST.)
>
> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
There may be only one universe, but if so it is certainly not "by
definition." It's been decades since "universe" ceased to mean "all
that exists anywhere." Multiple universes are features of many
legitimate cosmological hypotheses, to the extent that "multiverse"
has become the standard term for describing this possible nature of
reality. The multiverse is a routine feature of M-theory (look it up).
I would define "universe" as a contiguous expanse of space-time that
shares a common Big Bang "birth" event and inflationary history, and
has consistent fundamental physical constants and laws throughout. If
the multiverse exists, each universe would have its own origin and its
own set of physical constants.
A good recent book on all this is "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku
(2006).
Joe Ramirez
Incorrect. See my reply to Whisper. Cosmology is not based on
etymology.
Whisper
> On Apr 17, 7:44 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-al...
>>
>>> (if so, it explains RST.)
>>
>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>
> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
er, I subscribe to New Scientist & a couple astronomy mags so am well
versed in the multiverse theory - complete & utter bollocks imo.
>
> There may be only one universe, but if so it is certainly not "by
> definition." It's been decades since "universe" ceased to mean "all
> that exists anywhere." Multiple universes are features of many
> legitimate cosmological hypotheses, to the extent that "multiverse"
> has become the standard term for describing this possible nature of
> reality. The multiverse is a routine feature of M-theory (look it up).
>
> I would define "universe" as a contiguous expanse of space-time that
> shares a common Big Bang "birth" event
Don't believe in BB either.
> and inflationary history, and
> has consistent fundamental physical constants and laws throughout. If
> the multiverse exists,
Which it doesn't. You can't just pull ridiculous theories like this out
of your arse.
> each universe would have its own origin and its
> own set of physical constants.
>
> A good recent book on all this is "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku
> (2006).
A book like that, based on fantastic nonsense, would put me to sleep by
1st chapter. I don't read science fiction (any fiction in fact) for
same reasons - boring.
Whisper
Except this isn't really under the cosmology umbrella - more Harry Potter.
Joe Ramirez
> On 4/17/2010 10:39 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 7:44 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >>> does every Black Hole contain another universe?
> >>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-al...
>
> >>> (if so, it explains RST.)
>
> >> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>
> > Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>
> er, I subscribe to New Scientist & a couple astronomy mags so am well
> versed in the multiverse theory - complete & utter bollocks imo.
>
>
>
> > There may be only one universe, but if so it is certainly not "by
> > definition." It's been decades since "universe" ceased to mean "all
> > that exists anywhere." Multiple universes are features of many
> > legitimate cosmological hypotheses, to the extent that "multiverse"
> > has become the standard term for describing this possible nature of
> > reality. The multiverse is a routine feature of M-theory (look it up).
>
> > I would define "universe" as a contiguous expanse of space-time that
> > shares a common Big Bang "birth" event
>
> Don't believe in BB either.
LOL. Thus ends this thread, at least for me.
Whisper
> On Apr 17, 9:03 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2010 10:39 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 7:44 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>> does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-al...
>>
>>>>> (if so, it explains RST.)
>>
>>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>>
>>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>>
>> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There may be only one universe, but if so it is certainly not "by
>>> definition." It's been decades since "universe" ceased to mean "all
>>> that exists anywhere." Multiple universes are features of many
>>> legitimate cosmological hypotheses, to the extent that "multiverse"
>>> has become the standard term for describing this possible nature of
>>> reality. The multiverse is a routine feature of M-theory (look it up).
>>
>>> I would define "universe" as a contiguous expanse of space-time that
>>> shares a common Big Bang "birth" event
>>
>> Don't believe in BB either.
>
> LOL. Thus ends this thread, at least for me.
Pretty idiotic to think everything expanded from a pin prick no? I
don't doubt there is what appears to be 'expansion' going on, based on
observations, but it's a phenomena we don't fully understand at this
point.
The universe had no 'beginning' & will have no 'end' imo. It's always
been here. If this sounds ridiculous, then so does concept of 'beginning'.
It's simply beyond human understanding, & I presume you're human?
greg...@hotmail.com
> >> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>
> > Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>
> er, I subscribe to New Scientist & a couple astronomy mags so am well
> versed in the multiverse theory - complete & utter bollocks imo.
Based on what? What experiements or research have you done to reach
this conclusion, which contradicts that presumably put forward by
professional scientists who spend all their time studying this field?
Whisper
>>
>>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>>
>>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>>
>> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>
> Based on what? What experiements or research have you done to reach
> this conclusion, which contradicts that presumably put forward by
> professional scientists who spend all their time studying this field?
>
>
>
er, based on lack of evidence?
felangey
This could be the first time we are in complete agreement. :)
Quincy
No, but if one day it would be proven that there are multiple
universes, the term "universe" would be false.
Why not stick to the facts about the one universe we can access.
a) It has an age.
b) It is not infinite.
c) It has no borders.
Note. b) and c) are not contradicting as e.g. the surface of the earth
is not infinite and has no border either.
All other theories about multiple universes or tachyons or worm holes
or other stuff are only hypotheses even though they do not contradict
existing theories.
If I can't interact with a second universe, why should I bother anyway?
Quincy
> > Don't believe in BB either.
>
> LOL. Thus ends this thread, at least for me.
Why? I can undertsand Whisper's doubts about the BB. He wouldn't dare
doubting that the universage has an age, but the way the universe was
exactly "born" is completely unknown. BB is just one theory.
Raja, The Great
Did you understand how a simple hand grenade cause such a big
explosion? How a small sized nuclear bomb can blow an entire city? So
big bang is possible. I don't know whether it came from a single
point. but it was definitely some explosion of some kind. And when the
scientist say universe, they mean our universe. The universe we can
see from our own eyes/telescope and other sophisticated devices... the
other universe they talk about is just too fucking far for us to make
any calculations or assumptions about them.
I agree that our universe can be in a black hole. Courtesy we being in
a black hole of one kind, we cannot see what exists outside the black
hole. Black holes have been proven and seen. If you are denying it you
are among those who believes the world was created in 7 days by some
dick called God.
Quincy
> On Apr 17, 8:33 am, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/17/2010 11:28 PM, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>
> > >>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>
> > >> er, I subscribe to New Scientist& a couple astronomy mags so am well
> > >> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>
> > > Based on what? What experiements or research have you done to reach
> > > this conclusion, which contradicts that presumably put forward by
> > > professional scientists who spend all their time studying this field?
>
> > er, based on lack of evidence?
>
> Did you understand how a simple hand grenade cause such a big
> explosion? How a small sized nuclear bomb can blow an entire city?
Ergggg... This is not comparable. While a hand grenade and a nuclear
bomb is completely understood and explained the BB isn't. And while a
hand grenade and a nuclear bomb are proven to exist, the BB isn't.
Raja, The Great
You cannot conclusively prove a nuclear reaction which happened
billions of years ago.
And you are confused by what the scientist mean by universe.
From wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
However, using an alternative definition, some cosmologists have
speculated that the "Universe" composed of expanding space-as-we-know-
it, is just one of many disconnected "universes", which are
collectively called the multiverse.
There has to be multiverses which encompass many universes one of
which is ours. The idea of one big giant universe which encompasses
everything that we know is absurd. We obviously cannot see or know
everything out there... it is just too fucking large. May be in a
million years, Man might have technology to travel at the speed of
light and might be able to explore beyond our universe and into other
universes... but currently we don't have the technology to do so.
We just went to the moon FFS! A 50 years people believed we can never
make it to the moon. We are demanding too much from the scientists in
a short period.
Pelle Svanslös
Yeah, the article actualy says:
"But observations show the universe falls flat in all directions."
Quincy
Ergh.. The universe has no borders. That is proven fact. You cannot
leave the universe by traveling with speed under light, speed of light
or whatever velocity. You need some magic pandora box to leave it, if
there is another universe.
> We just went to the moon FFS! A 50 years people believed we can never
> make it to the moon.
This is not true. A lot of people thought we would go to the moon long
ago.
But anyway your analogon isn't any good again. The moon is very
existing and is interacting with earth/us on different kinds, e.g. the
moon is reflecting photons from the sun to our eyes, the moon is
causing tides etc...etc...
A second universe (multiverse, underverse, alice' wonderland, ...),
however, is only a theoretical construct and has no meaning whatsoever
with our live, our physics, our nature.
It's safe to say: There isn't another universe unless we have some
interaction with it and we haven't anything and there is nothing in
sight about such thing.
Raja, The Great
You cannot dismiss scientific theories because they haven't been
proven yet. The earth being not flat was also a theory once... but it
was proven ultimately. In your lifetime, the theory of multiverse may
not be proven but may by 2200 it will be? Have you ever thought of
that?
Rodjk #613
Yeah, smart move.
I am just reading through it for the first time, and that was my
reaction too...
Rodjk #613
Scott
> On Apr 17, 9:38 am, Quincy <ab...@email.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Apr., 16:32, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 8:33 am, Whisper <beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On 4/17/2010 11:28 PM, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>
> > > > >>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>
> > > > >> er, I subscribe to New Scientist& a couple astronomy mags so am well
> > > > >> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>
> > > > > Based on what? What experiements or research have you done to reach
> > > > > this conclusion, which contradicts that presumably put forward by
> > > > > professional scientists who spend all their time studying this field?
>
> > > > er, based on lack of evidence?
>
> > > Did you understand how a simple hand grenade cause such a big
> > > explosion? How a small sized nuclear bomb can blow an entire city?
>
> > Ergggg... This is not comparable. While a hand grenade and a nuclear
> > bomb is completely understood and explained the BB isn't. And while a
> > hand grenade and a nuclear bomb are proven to exist, the BB isn't.
>
> You cannot conclusively prove a nuclear reaction which happened
> billions of years ago.
> And you are confused by what the scientist mean by universe.
>
> However, using an alternative definition, some cosmologists have
> speculated that the "Universe" composed of expanding space-as-we-know-
> it, is just one of many disconnected "universes", which are
> collectively called the multiverse.
>
> There has to be multiverses which encompass many universes one of
> which is ours. The idea of one big giant universe which encompasses
> everything that we know is absurd. We obviously cannot see or know
> everything out there... it is just too fucking large. May be in a
> million years, Man might have technology to travel at the speed of
> light and might be able to explore beyond our universe and into other
> universes... but currently we don't have the technology to do so.
>
> We just went to the moon FFS!
LOL.
>A 50 years people believed we can never
> make it to the moon.
they were right.
Whisper
> On Apr 17, 8:33 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2010 11:28 PM, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>>
>>>>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>>
>>>> er, I subscribe to New Scientist& a couple astronomy mags so am well
>>>> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>>
>>> Based on what? What experiements or research have you done to reach
>>> this conclusion, which contradicts that presumably put forward by
>>> professional scientists who spend all their time studying this field?
>>
>> er, based on lack of evidence?
>
> Did you understand how a simple hand grenade cause such a big
> explosion? How a small sized nuclear bomb can blow an entire city? So
> big bang is possible. I don't know whether it came from a single
> point. but it was definitely some explosion of some kind.
But when a grenade explodes the matter it displaces doesn't accelerate
over time. The rate of expansion is now actually increasing according
to our observations/understanding. This tells me it's a concept beyond
human understanding. This is akin to explaining sight to a person blind
from birth, or sound to a mute - impossible as they have no reference
points.
> And when the
> scientist say universe, they mean our universe. The universe we can
> see from our own eyes/telescope and other sophisticated devices... the
> other universe they talk about is just too fucking far for us to make
> any calculations or assumptions about them.
I take issue with passing off all these whacko ideas as some kind of
science, just because we can't yet prove them wrong. You can't rule
anything out with that approach.
>
> I agree that our universe can be in a black hole. Courtesy we being in
> a black hole of one kind, we cannot see what exists outside the black
> hole. Black holes have been proven and seen. If you are denying it you
> are among those who believes the world was created in 7 days by some
> dick called God.
I don't believe we can exist in a black hole. That's a big leap of
faith & pure fantasy.
Quincy
Next nonsense... There was never a serious theory that the earth was
flat!
The Ancient Greeks already measured (e.g. Erathosthenes) the diameter
of earth, everybody could ever see the horizon and that the earth is
NOT flat.
> was proven ultimately. In your lifetime, the theory of multiverse may
> not be proven but may by 2200 it will be? Have you ever thought of
> that?
Dreams of a boy...Star Trek hocuspocus. This has nothing to do with
reality. There is not a single effect in nature that needs or would
need or could be explain with multiverses. Just drop it.
Whisper
> On Apr 17, 9:38 am, Quincy<ab...@email.de> wrote:
> There has to be multiverses which encompass many universes one of
> which is ours. The idea of one big giant universe which encompasses
> everything that we know is absurd.
Why?
If you really believe the universe is infinite in the literal sense then
you go along with the idea there are many versions of earth & rst out
there - in fact an infinite number. The idea goes something like this -
given enough time/space another raja will evolve on another planet in an
identical way. This tells me humans are limited in how much we can
understand about the universe around us - we're trying to box it into
our limited way of thinking. It's like trying to explain
electromagnetism or sql to an ant - outside the ant's scope.
Quincy
It's rather a smart move when somebody says he doesn't believe some
high hypethetical theories like bigbang, multiverses, tachyons,
wormhole-FTL-travelling, timetravelling, hocuspocus, harry potter and
evil sorcerers.
Quincy
> I don't believe we can exist in a black hole. That's a big leap of
> faith & pure fantasy.
The is nothing to believe about that. Nobody can even exist in the
proximity of a black hole. The huge gravital forces immediatley
destroy anything we define life.
For example: If you put the mount everest on a neutron star (which is
an easy version of a black hole), the whole mountain will be squeezed
to an height of 0.1mm.
Nice place to be around, no?
Quincy
> If you really believe the universe is infinite in the literal sense
There is nothing to believe about this either. The universe (the 3-
dimensional space we are accessing) for sure is NOT infinite. Neither
in literal sense nor in any other sense whatsoever.
felangey
high hypethetical theories like bigbang, multiverses, tachyons,
wormhole-FTL-travelling, timetravelling, hocuspocus, harry potter and
evil sorcerers.<
<G>
felangey
are among those who believes the world was created in 7 days by some
dick called God.<
How do you know it wasn't?
Quincy
You can't prove either way. But if you ask me it higher probably that
some guy created the earth in 7 days than that there are another
universes in every black hole.
Whisper
> On Apr 17, 8:07 am, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 9:03 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/17/2010 10:39 PM, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 17, 7:44 am, Whisper<beave...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/2010 9:01 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>>> does every Black Hole contain another universe?
>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-al...
>>
>>>>>> (if so, it explains RST.)
>>
>>>>> er, by definition there is only 1 universe dumbarse.
>>
>>>> Wrong. Quick with the "dumbarse" but well behind the times.
>>
>>> versed in the multiverse theory - complete& utter bollocks imo.
>>
>>>> There may be only one universe, but if so it is certainly not "by
>>>> definition." It's been decades since "universe" ceased to mean "all
>>>> that exists anywhere." Multiple universes are features of many
>>>> legitimate cosmological hypotheses, to the extent that "multiverse"
>>>> has become the standard term for describing this possible nature of
>>>> reality. The multiverse is a routine feature of M-theory (look it up).
>>
>>>> I would define "universe" as a contiguous expanse of space-time that
>>>> shares a common Big Bang "birth" event
>>
>>> Don't believe in BB either.
>>
>> LOL. Thus ends this thread, at least for me.
>
> Yeah, smart move.
> I am just reading through it for the first time, and that was my
> reaction too...
>
> Rodjk #613
Yeah, it's like talking religion. Pointless.
God
The Universe was created by Hazelwood.
greg...@hotmail.com
It seems that reading a couple of astronomy magazines qualifies you to
comment on these issues, but no-one else can comment on golf and
tennis unless they have played both to a high level. Double standards?
Scott
the last time I tried to teach a group of ants how to query a table
using T-SQL the Queen stepped up and said they'll use .NET instead.
Quincy
.NET?? FU!!