Function of black holes

[simay77]

My own theory in relation to black holes is that they exist for the sole purpose of transferring mass from one universe to another.

At the moment ours is expanding and accelerating, therefore it must be gaining mass. Our universe is growing into the space left behind by other universes. The mass is transferred via black holes.

[Harry Costas]

A Black Hole is part of the never ending story.

 

Its funtion is to absorb and suck in matter and expell it by the way of jet streams created by the spin of the Black Hole.

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?quasar

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?Black+Hole

 

The recycling process cretes a new date time for the new expelled matter into space.

[HydrogenBond]

That is an interesting theory. The only practical mathematical deduction of black holes is that blak holes are suppose to make infinite wavelength energy. Maybe mass is compressed, converted to energy, and then energy is totally red shifted to infinite wavelength for recycle into our own universe. This would make the boundries of the finite universe become infinite via the infinite wavelength energy output of the blackholes. This creates an entropy potential for continued expansion.

[Racoon]

Love the discussion on Black Holes!!! :hihi:

 

Could there be anything more cool? Until one of us goes into a black hole, or gets close enough, who the hell really knows??

 

It would be like getting flushed down a toilet, and spat out into another universe or dimention. (assuming you survived)

 

Its the Yin Energy of the Universe. Balancing out the Yang energy of Stars and Novas.

 

Balance. :eek: Yin & Yang

[Harry Costas]

Hydrogen Bond said

 

"That is an interesting theory. The only practical mathematical deduction of black holes is that blak holes are suppose to make infinite wavelength energy. Maybe mass is compressed, converted to energy, and then energy is totally red shifted to infinite wavelength for recycle into our own universe. This would make the boundries of the finite universe become infinite via the infinite wavelength energy output of the blackholes. This creates an entropy potential for continued expansion."

 

We know that matter can be compressed see link

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html

 

Forget about mathematical deduction to infinity.

Many scientists use maths and statistics to mold their theories. The idea that entropy potential for continues expansion is hoo haa.

 

As for the universe no age and infinite and the parts within are always mixing and recycling.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Racoon

 

A Black Hole is not a hole as so to speak.

 

Matter is broken apart to subatomic particels. Neutron and quarks and than compressed billions of time to make an ultra dense plasma (matter). This ultra dense matter creates a spin that is able to eject matter back into space. Most of the sucking in of matter is done away from the spin.

 

There is no way that a human could ever go through a Black Hole.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040224.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031128.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050403.html

 

Read the baove you may get some idea of Black Holes

[HydrogenBond]

The one problem with recycle of mass/energy into/out of our finite universe has to do the expansion. The expansion implies that it was smaller at one time. Where does the potential for continued expansion come from. If we are adding to the universe that could slow expansion via increasing gravity. If we are subtracting from the universe that could cause the expansion via lower overall gravity. A steady state input-output shouldn't have stemmed from a smaller original universe.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Hydrogen bond

 

THere is no evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

 

You are assuming expansion of the total universe.

 

There is expansion and contraction within the parts of the universe. We can see some galaxies moving away from others and others moving towards an attractor. Such us our local cluster of galaxies as a unit are moving towards Hydra attractor. And hundreds of other galaxies colliding.

 

People talk about expansion but are unable to prove it or show it.

 

As for the recyclic process it covers all. It just that the topic is too darn big to close the theory.

 

I wish I had a team of cosmologists and put the theory together.But! you need lots of money and time to do so.

[Racoon]

Thanks for the Links Harry! :) I will check those out when I get time.

 

I admit the only real thing I know about Black Holes comes from movies and my Imagination! ;)

 

Think its fascinating stuff!

 

I still believe that Black Holes are part of Universal Balance. :)

(thats an easy, unscientific way of explaining)

 

Looking forward to more on what you have to say :hihi:

[CraigD]

There is no evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

Yes, there is. Some of the earliest statistical astronomical observations throught the most recent provides a large amount of spectroscopic and luminosity data to support the idea of a ”Hubble flow” of fairly uniform and centerless expansion of the observed universe.

There is expansion and contraction within the parts of the universe. We can see some galaxies moving away from others and others moving towards an attractor. Such us our local cluster of galaxies as a unit are moving towards Hydra attractor. And hundreds of other galaxies colliding.

Although some galaxies are approaching and even colliding with one another, most of them are receding from one another per the Hubble Flow. The Great Attractor about 200 million light years in the direction of Hydra is indeed a large-scale anomaly in this apparently fairly uniform expansion, but it is not an interruption in the Hubble Flow – galaxies on opposite sides of this region still tend to be receding from one another (although galaxies many galaxies near it appear to be behaving in very unusual ways).

People talk about expansion but are unable to prove it or show it.

Although “proof” is a moot concept in Science, and even, to a lesser extent, in Math, extensive observed data “shows” evidence for expansion sufficient to make it a widely accepted “fact”.

 

The only way I can imagine the Hubble Flow being refuted is through the discovery of a radical flaw in Hubble’s Law, which relates redshift to distance. Although some intriguing problems with this “law” exist, such as those described by Arp (thank you again, Harry, for introducing me to this work), I think these problems cast doubt on the age and size of the observable universe, the chronology and even the existence of the Big Bang, but do not convincingly refute expansion.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Nice people we have here.

 

Right or wrong keep smiling.

 

I was going to expand on the idea of the nonexpanding univers,but! i just got a call to go and pick up the kids.

 

 

Have Fun