White holes are the opposit of black holes in the univers.

[maddog]

Well, I am trying to point out that the material disappearing in black holes is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.

You have no evidence for this. No even current method to capture said evidence.

For how can Nucleosynthesis (fusion) make a star bigger and bigger ?

You do not know of the Red Giant phase of a star evolution ? This is when an average star

runs out of Hydrogen as fuel. The "blows" up in size from 30-500 time the original size.

Then starts the Helium burning.

 

maddog

[Victor2009]

Since you violently :( refute the expanding earth theory, maddog

 

It serves as no evidence for mye Galactic Recycling Theory in your case.

 

On the other hand, not only stars "blow" up in size as you put it, planets do to, not that much though.To explain this with hydrogen and helium fusion is a bit odd because the fusion leads to tremendes mass loss in stars.

 

As for your "unicorn-like" white holes, let's see what Dr. Pamela Gay of Astronomy Cast has to say,

 

"A white hole is the opposite of a black hole, in terms of black holes, material gets into them and can't get back out. White holes (if they were able to physically exist) would be spewing light and energy out of them. The catch is that sort of breaks the second law of thermodynamics, and not only that but the second you get the smallest fraction of a dust mote, a single atom, a single electron near a white hole, suddenly the white hole becomes a black hole.

 

White holes are a mathematical invention of what happens if you look at all the geometry of a black hole and get rid of the mass in the centre. So mathematically, they're pretty cool. They do totally exist in mathematical formulas and they might have existed when the Universe formed, but we have no mechanism for forming one in the modern Universe. You can't collapse a star and get something with no mass in the centre. Even if any were created during the formation of the Universe, in the 13.7 ± 0.2 Billion years since then, it's safe to assume that some fraction of a dust mote has gotten near every possible white hole that was out there and converted it to a black hole.

 

So, we don't think they could have existed, because they go against the second law of thermodynamics, and even if they did exist, we don't think they exist now."

 

Astronomy Cast - Ep. 31:

 

Doesn't sound like "unicorns" to me, maddog :shrug:

 

Dr. Pamela Gay thinks all white holes have been converted into black holes.

 

I do not ! I think they still exists as exits out of black holes. And play an important role in my Galactic Recycling Theory, where matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy. Which is why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to our galaxy's central black hole.

 

That's just the way nature works, maddog :shrug:

 

Victor :shrug:

[Victor2009]

You have no evidence for this. No even current method to capture said evidence.

 

First of all it's a easy recognizable and very natural model. The difference is only in size and scale, it's a galactic ecosystem.

 

From our point of view, in time and space, we don't see our galaxy as it really is, we only see back through time.

 

In real time, everything spirals up to the top and then falls back through the center, to it's beginning, and so on.

 

So "the theory of relativity" is the best single piece of evidence in favour of my model.

 

That is if you understood it ?

 

Victor

[CraigD]

Have you studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets.

I’ve seen his videos. I’ve not studies them, as I’m not a student of computer generated animation.

 

As comics reader, I’m familiar with Neal Adams as a penciler (drawer) and writer. Though a competent artist and writer, Adams has effectively no science background, and appears to me from writing such as these to lack a basic understanding of it. Like many such folk, he appears to be trapped by intuitive, “common sense” beliefs such as that the idea that less dense bodies can’t be forced underneath more dense ones (“Granitic rock cannot subduct as geologists insist the oceanic plate does, because it’s too light! This is fact!”), and the a very poor understanding of modern physics (“An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.”).

 

In short, though Adams can certainly create nice videos and comics, I’d take his science speculation with a very measure of skepticism.

 

I was acquainted with the expanding Earth hypothesis as a teenager in the 1970s, as part of history of science class. Interestingly, despite the obvious hints at theories explaining the obvious way in which the present day continental coasts nearly fit together provided by high quality world maps available by the late 1600s, the ideas don’t appear to have enjoyed much popularity until the late 1800s (Though an expanding Earth theory is commonly attributed Charles Darwin ca. 1835, by such sources as the http://wikipedia article “Expanding Earth”, a careful read of his writing on the subject (see links of the wikipedia article) reveals that his hypothesis – which he abandoned a year after writing it – bears little resemblance to those that appeared around 1900, proposing only a small expansion of mountainous parts of the Earth’s crust), likely because of common religious beliefs that the Earth was unchanging.

 

Expanding Earth hypotheses enjoyed only a short period of serious scientific consideration, because by 1915, the theory of plate tectonics, appeared (largely due to the dedicated promotion of it Alfred Wegener, who started his theoretical exploration, but soon discarded, the expanding Earth hypothesis) and by the 1930s, became widely accepted as increased geological and astrophysical data supported it, while contradicting the expanding Earth hypothesis.

 

In short, the argument for the expanding Earth and against plate tectonics is that expansion occurs, but convergent plate processes such as subduction, don’t. Were this the case, the surface area of the Earth would be required to constantly increase. However, earth-measuring data over the past nearly 100 years has show beyond reasonable doubt that both expansion and convergence occur. Belief in an expanding Earth requires one to adopt a closed-minded attitude that ignores or denies the existence of this data.

 

A few other points and corrections:

 

I see you understand the Suns core and overall diameter is slowly increasing.

As the linked to articles I provided explain, the gradual increase in pressure and rate of fusion power of the Sun’s core as its amount of Helium increases results in a gradual increase the Sun’s overall diameter, the diameter of its core – its innermost volume, where fusion occurs – remains nearly the same, as it becomes denser and hotter.

I still don't see how this can happen without additional matter being pumped in.

 

I am familiar with the fusion process in stars, that makes them shine.

But I don't see how this could "pressure" the stars to grow that much ?

This is a common source of confusion, due to our everyday experience with visible materials that vary little in density, such as liquids. However, gasses and plasmas such as those of which the Sun is made can vary greatly in density.

 

You can gain an intuitive sense of how this can happen by cooling and heating ordinary air-filled party balloons, such as by placing them in freezers and ovens. Although a heated balloon doesn’t have any added matter pumped into it, it grows noticably in size. Assuming the right initial inflation, the diameter of a balloon in a 263 K (-10 C) freezer to a 363 K (+90 C) oven increases by about 10% ([math]\sqrt[3]{\frac{363}{262}} [/math] ). The balloon’s heat source is external, its inward force due to atmospheric pressure and the elasticity of its skin. The Sun’s heat source is internal, its inward force due to gravity.

[Victor2009]

Craig, intuitive amateurs aren't always wrong, listen to this

 

Dobson's cosmological theory

 

"Dobson advocates a “Recycling” Steady State model of the universe. His model is drawn from Albert Einstein's assertion in general relativity that energy equals matter, and on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli exclusion principle. He says that cosmologists have, in general, overlooked what is going on at the edge of the universe. Dobson claims that at the edge, we know a great deal about a particle’s momentum, so “by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, if our uncertainty in the momentum approaches zero, our uncertainty in where the particles are must approach infinity. The hydrogen simply ‘tunnels’ back in.” Dobson contends that although matter in the universe is forever expanding outward, matter “recycles” over time in a way comparable with quantum tunneling. Entropy therefore remains constant, because atoms rebuild their order as they recycle."

 

This sounds a lot like my "galactic recycling theory"

[lemit]

I have some dumb questions.

 

Isn't a black hole sustained by its retention of volume? In other words, if you start squeezing stuff out of the middle, don't you create an instability that can lead to a fairly rapid collapse, or maybe explosion, of the black hole?

 

Victor, if your expanding earth theory is in any way connected to the expanding universe theory, doesn't it lose its viability? If you define stability as a uniform rate of expansion, the pumping of extra material into one body will increase that body relative to all others, won't it? Haven't we got some pretty good measurements recently? (Anybody: are there any good, dumb-guy accessible references? I'd like to see the measurements and be able to read them.)

 

Also, if the earth has a white hole at its center, does every planet, every moon of every planet, every planetoid, every asteroid, every comet, every single thing in the whole universe also have a white hole at its center, or is it only the things that are large enough to seem mysterious and therefore allow the infusion of a lot of gaseous materials, such as these theories?

 

Just wondering.

 

--lemit

[Victor2009]

I have some dumb questions.

 

Isn't a black hole sustained by its retention of volume? In other words, if you start squeezing stuff out of the middle, don't you create an instability that can lead to a fairly rapid collapse, or maybe explosion, of the black hole?

 

No, our galaxy's central black both swallows and transfers stuff instantly.

 

Victor, if your expanding earth theory is in any way connected to the expanding universe theory, doesn't it lose its viability? If you define stability as a uniform rate of expansion, the pumping of extra material into one body will increase that body relative to all others, won't it? Haven't we got some pretty good measurements recently? (Anybody: are there any good, dumb-guy accessible references? I'd like to see the measurements and be able to read them.)

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Star-sizes.jpg

 

Also, if the earth has a white hole at its center, does every planet, every moon of every planet, every planetoid, every asteroid, every comet, every single thing in the whole universe also have a white hole at its center, or is it only the things that are large enough to seem mysterious and therefore allow the infusion of a lot of gaseous materials, such as these theories?

 

Just wondering.

 

--lemit

 

Only spherical celestial bodies, lemit

[Victor2009]

The established theory has this black hole/dead end and cloudy star formation theory.

 

Whereas my galactic recycling theory connects our galaxy's central black hole with the globules that are all around the galaxy.

 

"Globules are the smallest and most regular features of the interstellar medium."

 

Victor :evil:

[lemit]

The established theory has this black hole/dead end and cloudy star formation theory.

 

Whereas my galactic recycling theory connects our galaxy's central black hole with the globules that are all around the galaxy.

 

"Globules are the smallest and most regular features of the interstellar medium."

 

Victor :evil:

 

The "galactic recycling theory" is yours? If it is, I hope you're prepared for a lot more serious questioning than I can give you. You need to go back and begin at the beginning. Provide a concrete theory. Provide well-developed, mathematically and observationally supported defenses. You're taking on the big boys. You're challenging Olympic- or NBA-level players to a game of horse. The weekend league players here (Moderators, is that an insult?) have, in a reasonable act, moved your thread to the realm of scifi.

 

So you'd better be ready, and you'd better understand you're on their court and you're playing by their rules, since they have made the rules using the method I outlined above. Providing a reasonable theory and supporting it using Scientific Method is the only way you're going to get anybody, including me, to accept your theory. Look at Steps of the Scientific Method. Follow its steps. You'll be all right if you can successfully complete all those tasks.

 

Also, I couldn't find any measurements on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Star-sizes.jpg. I liked the pictures, though. I used to play pool, so the pictures were evocative for me.

 

Good luck. Be careful.

 

--lemit

[CraigD]

Craig, intuitive amateurs aren't always wrong, listen to this

 

Dobson's cosmological theory

Thanks for this reference to Dobson, Victor – I’ve learned a bit of biography behind a term that was once everyday for me. :)

 

Most astronomy enthusiasts of my generation (I was born in 1960) or later are familiar with the Dobsonian telescope mount, referring to both to a specific style of mount construction and generically to any non-equatorial mount. At the peak of my interest in astronomy (1978, when I interned at Haystack observatory, discovering that my enthusiasm for astronomy, especially telescope making, wasn’t enough to set my on a professional astronomy career), I heard and used the term many times a day. I assumed, and wasn’t disabused of the assumption, that Dobson one of the “grand old men” of astronomy, of Hale or Shapley’s generations, because people commonly called the mounts of not only small “sidewalk” telescopes, but many large observatory telescopes, some very old, “Dobsonian”.

 

However, it appears this is a case of a term creeping into everyday to describe things older than it, as Dobson and his mounts and telescopes weren’t widely spoken of until the late 1960s. Dobson wasn’t a recognized amateur telescope maker and astronomer before then, as from 1944 he as a Hindu monk, who’s growing interest in astronomy and telescope making, often clandestine, lead to his expulsion from his San Francisco CA USA monastery in 1967!

 

As interesting as his biography is, Dobson isn’t in any sense an educated astrophysicist, even in such basic areas as classical or modern physics, or even what would have passed for a optics maker in the high school classes where I made my first telescopes. His major contribution to astronomy is, I’d say, having just yesterday read a bit about him and his works (my favorite is this 2000/5 space.com article), and related it to my recalled experience, furthering the realization of the value of a larger mirrored, imprecise, inexpensive, easily transported telescope vs. a smaller mirrored, precise, expensive, difficult to transport one.

 

Dobson’s wordview, however, appears to me to remain Vedantan Hindu, a dogmatic worldview committed to the presumption the universe is eternal and, in large scale, unchanging. Despite how highly his name is recognized among astronomers, Dobson appears to be nearly the opposite of a scientist, a devout religionist. Though many people find great pleasure and comfort in religion, it’s a bad idea, I think, to attempt to build scientific theories out of religious dogma. :naughty:

 

Dobson’s “new hydrogen” steady state universe theory (from his essay “Origins”, written in response to a questionnaire from the 1993 Parliament of Religions, an interfaith religious convention) appears to me to be, as previous scientist critics have noted, based largely on his wishful, incorrect interpretation of ideas he doesn’t formally understand, such as the uncertainty principle. Contrary to his claim, for some inertial frame, the momentum of a specific proton or electron (not just any particle, as uncertainty applies only to the complementary uncertainy of momentum and position of a particle, not to what kind of particle it is) is not exactly known ([math]\Delta p = 0[/math]) “near the border” of the universe. Even if it were, according to the uncertainty principle, the likelihood of the particle being detected in some volume of space “back in” some distance from any given location ([math]\Delta x[/math]), would be no greater than it being detected in any other volume, including volumes at points of infinity. In other words, particles with exactly known momenta cannot be predicted to be anywhere with greater likelihood than anywhere else, and thus can be interpreted as having a zero probability of being detected in any finite volume.