My hypothesis

[thespeculator]

This is my hypothesis on the universe. Please contend, comment and/or question it. It helps me to evolve my ideas.<br /><br /><br /><br />What is energy? Is it just a physical property or is it actually something? I think it is something because energy can be converted into matter and matter into energy. Therefore isn't it a logical assumption that matter is composed of energy? Without energy the electron on an atom would disappear, and the same goes for the other atomic particles athough the protons and neutrons contain a lot more energy than the electron. <br /><br />Energy is the air of space (a lot of times it's referred to as aether). There are winds in it (solar winds) and it has gusts or waves in it (light and radiation). Without energy, lightwaves have no medium to travel through, which means that energy is the fabric of the space of our universe. Energy is within everything and everyone. The speed of light is only limited by the reaction time of energy.<br /><br />Why is light unable to escape black holes? Think of it this way. A black hole pulls on energy, and light is a wave in energy right? So now the fabric of space is streched taught (because energy is the fabric). Near the event horizon of the black hole the light waves' wavelength will be streched too. Only light with high amplitude and short wavelengths can get through, but they will be distorted because even their wavelengths will have been streched. At the event horizon, the gravitational density pulls the fabric of space so taught that waves of all kinds are streched to the point that they can't even be considered waves anymore. For exapmle, try taking a rope and making waves with it. Now try tieing off the end of that rope and pulling it taught. It will be dramatically harder to create waves with it. The rope will remain a straight line no matter how hard you try to make waves with it if it's pulled taught enough. <br /><br />So, Where did all this energy come from? I believe that it came into existance t

 

[lucas_900]

Only just scanned the first few paragraphs, but you have a few misconceptions with black holes. Firstly, black holes don't suck, they act exactly like the sun acts on us - the pull because of gravity, and they aren't technically holes, they are massive stars collapsed into a super dense point. The reason light can't escape is that the black holes escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, which, as far as we know, nothing can travel faster than, therefore nothing can escape, even light. It's the same principal as with the earth - we can't escape the earth's pull because we can't jump fast enough, however if we could jump at 7 miles per second we would continue upware into space.<br /><br />That's my understanding on the way black holes prevent light from escaping anyway.<br /><br />As for the atom and eve scenario, you are right, everything has an opposite, anmely matter and anti matter - electrons(-) & positrons(+), quarks and anti quarks, electron neutrinos and anti electron neutrinos - every kind of matter particle. When they come in contact they annihalate - basically, they cancel each other out. Here's a link.<br /><br />Also, as a little off shoot, every action has an equal an opposite reaction. So, maybe the creation of the universe created and anti-universe. We would never know, as if we were to go there we would cease to exist, but I suppose it is a possibility.<br /><br />My understanding is probably a little hazy - i'm only studying this at college at the moment, but I think the basic ideas are ok.<br /><br />There are some good ideas there though. Keep at it.

 

[plutocrass]

Light does escape a black hole. <br /><br />Don't you guys remember how Stephen Hawking lost his bet? Here, I'll clue you in: <br /><br /> Light Escapes Black Holes: Hawking Loses Tenure, Seeks Welfare <br /><br />by the way, when light escapes, is it one single frequency, or many? if it is one single frequency, then what is its relative frequency as it escapes the black hole? extremely high or extremely low?<br /><br /><br />(ed-misspelled hawking, we gotta guy named dawkins in my field, so i guess i mangled it. )

 

[lucas_900]

Oh yes, I remeber seeing a program on this a few months ago. Good point.

 

[thespeculator]

Okay, I'll do more studying on black holes. I know it doesn't suck (Ohh I see.. I guess I should change my wording there). It pulls at a force relative to it's center of mass, amount of mass, mass density, and your distance from it. I don't see how my 'rope model' wouldn't work though.<br /><br />As for matter and antimatter: I don't believe that they are complete opposites. Yes, when they attract eachother they will blow eachother up, but that releases a huge amount of energy. So, it means that it doesn't cancel out to make zero, which the exact opposite would need to do.

 

[betafox]

lucas_900: "The reason light can't escape is that the black holes escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, which, as far as we know, nothing can travel faster than, therefore nothing can escape, even light."<br /><br />False. The assumption that "nothing can travel faster than light" is a THEORY. It's a question of time when this theory will be refuted.

 

[lucas_900]

Hence the "as far as we know".

 

[yevaud]

The poster of that thread back when mistyped the name: It's "Hawking," not "Hawkins."<br /><br />And no, it's not light, per se. It's one half of a particle/anti-particle pair created through Quantum fluctuations at the verge of the Event Horizon.<br /><br />Nor did Hawking "lose tenure." He is, at last account, still the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University (a seat once held by Isaac Newton).<br /><br />However, the premise itself here is true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[thespeculator]

Today I got to thinking about relative simplicity and illusion. It means that something that may look very simple to you can be very complex to something or someone else. This got me thinking about my hypothesis on how there must be an opposite to our universe. The simplest way to make 0 = 1 in our minds would naturally be 0 = 1 + (-1), but what if it's not easy for the nature of the universe to produce such a problem. What if I'm wrong and that is not the simplest path to follow... They say that time slows down as you near the speed of light. That light wave can be travelling for billions of years but at it's speed, time is stopped. So, it is destroyed at the same instance in its time that it is created. Does this make it non-existant? Well, we can see it so it must be existant. What does this mean for us?... Is our universe like the reverse of a light wave: moving so fast that on the outside it seems to be destroyed at the same instance that it is created? If it is destroyed at the same instance that it is created, wouldn't that equal a zero? Also, why does time seem to move so relatively fast inside of it, if it is destroyed and created at the same instance? Right now Im thinking about cars and about how if you are driving and looking out the window everything outside seems to be moving, when in actuallity it is you that is moving, but you don't feel any wind in your face from your motion. So does that mean that time for an object is only relative to that objects immediate surroundings? Also does this mean that our universe is like a car, carrying within it a seprate time that is not relative to it's speed through the space around it? So, this universe is barely even existant. It's not really there, yet it is, because it is destroyed at the same instance that it is created. For the universe, time is stopped so it can exist forever in that instance and be destroyed without effecting the absolute value of the space around it. Within the universe on the other hand,

 

[nexium]

Suppose we have this super massive black hole with a gravity field of one g at the event horizon. A gamma ray photon is captured by the event horizon, but it is promptly absorbed by a particle causing the emission of a smaller particle back toward the event horizon which is only one foot away. The one g field slows the escaping particle to 1 mile per hour by the time it is a billion miles outside the black hole event horizon. It is about to reach the top of it's ballistic trajectory, when it emits an visable light photon in the direction away from the black hole. Clearly the visable photon will not return to the black hole. Perhaps that is why Hawkings lost the bet. Particle pairs are mostly recaptured and likely cannot be concidered light, even if they do escape very long time. Neil

 

[detriech69]

I love this!!!! Another dreamer to share ideas with and someone who hasn't caught the ire of the skeptics.<br />How rare and wonderful.<br />You are in the same situation as every thinker on this little blue marble we call Home. No one, and I mean no one, has an answer to what caused the Universe to come into existence. A lot of untested theories are floating around cyberspace. If you'd like a mental challenge to cosmological thinking try this website:<br />www.everythingforever.com. This website gave me a lot of food for thought when I first discovered it in 2002. <br /> But as to concrete answers or definate truths about our origins: More questions than answers. I think it is better this way. You seem like a very intelligent person with a very cool imagination. Keep stoking it and feed your mind with the ideas of others, as well. You may just come up with some testable theories that could pave the way to the stars.