White holes?

newtonian · Dec 9, 2005

SiriusMrE - I agree the standard model of how our sun operates is not entirely correct - but it is not as far off as you seem to think either. Our sun is indeed electric, as is our universe. Our sun is also dominated by nuclear fusion, also a very important factor in our universe. It is not a case of our sun either being nuclear or electric. Our sun is both. The solar corona is indeed way much hotter than the solar surface. Likewise in our universe the IGM, intergalactic medium, is way much hotter than the CMBR, the cosmic microwave background radiation - incredibly hotter. Both phenomena (real natural scientific phonomena, btw) are caused by ionization and magnetism. However, nuclear fusion is behind the cause of the ionization. For our sun, it is nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium, with the resulting neutrino flux (and apparently spontaneous oscillation between the 3 types of neutrinos). For our universe astronomers are not quite sure but suspect supernovae as the cause of the extreme heat and ionization. Ions in motion cause magnetic fields. And this is where I believe the standard model of stellar evolution does not apply completely to our sun - i.e. the standard assumption of zero mixing from core to surface. The solar corona is powered by magnetic fields from deep within the sun, in a sort of dynamo caused by ions in motion. This motion is probably in part caused by convection from heat from the core - there is observational evidence that these magnetic fields float from core to surface - though we still have much to learn. Here is one simple quote from some years ago concerning the observational evidence: "Dr. Bernard Durney, a research director, graciously offered to answer some questions about the sun. He explained that he is working in the field of solar seismology. We needed an explanation of what that meant.

bonzelite · Dec 22, 2005

... Because of these studies, it is known that the sun expands slightly and then contracts again about once an hour, much as if it were breathing. An investigator first saw these movements of the sun in 1975. In 1976 Russian scientists also reported a rising and falling of the sun’s surface. It was not until 1979-80 that this vibration was confirmed, partly at the Sacramento Peak Observatory. wow. in the thread about the Pioneer effect, i proposed that the heliopause is "breathing," ie, contracting and expanding, to possibly contribute to the slowing down of the craft --as the heliopause contracts, the craft is taken back into the sun slightly. whether this is true or not is of lesser importance to me than the fact that actual scientists out there have observed conditions that may corroborate my johny-come-lately hypothesis. rather, they have made actual observations that confirm that the sun expands and contracts, using my exact words of breathing. that reasons, too, that the heliosphere does such the same thing --it must expand and contract. and this behavior undoubtedly, at the very least, affects celestial mechanics within the solar system. possibly perturbing or redistributing mass over vast distances as a cumulative, perpetual, effect.

darknrg · Dec 29, 2005

following black hole theory an event horizon is the point of no return for pretty much everything however the sigularity does not have to be a specific size, a black hole the size of the solar system need only be as dense as liquid water to have the gravity capable of establishing an event horizon not that this would happen of course if a body of water this size was to exist it would instantly collapse. A black hole the size of our galaxy need only be as dense as ....you guessed it our galaxy for the event horizon criteria to be met..... a bit off topic but something to ponder there

savagehenry · Dec 29, 2005

That does not mean it is a totally accurate analysis. It is in need of some serious updating in light of recent observations/events While I have read the page before, scanning through again via your link slapped me in the face with his first slip up imo regarding the neutrinos, Where as they are starting to find the elusive buggers. As per the argument dissolving belief that because we are finding neutrinos the electric theory is hogsplatter. Case in point...Do a Google on the Z machine. (gorgeous pictures btw) http://zpinch.sandia.gov/Z/Images/z.jpg Thing sucks up 290 trillion watts of electricity to get a glimpse of fusion so we can understand the sun better and naturally build fusion reactors ...and of course kill people better...And when it is firing with electricity it is spitting out neutrinos left and right...more in that moment then have ever been recorded in total. Thompson needs to update. I think we all do. Look at the image... Think about what they are doing... Micro, Macro, Micro, Macro... Pure and simple Even the most brillant minds forget to put their pants on. The best place to hide everything is right under your nose, in that little dimple you cannot ever view first hand.

kyle_baron · Dec 29, 2005

"If a blackhole leads to a white hole, the white hole opens on a parallel universe not some place else in this one". I have a different view. We give things names like white holes, quasars, etc. Why can't the two be one in the same? I don't believe quasars are billions of light years away. I believe they are born from the existing galaxy's blackhole, and is a plasma energy moving near the speed of light ( which is highly redshifted because it is new). Eventually slowing down and becoming normal matter (new baby galaxies according to Arp). A perfect example of E~Mc2 where mass turns to energy and back to mass again. In layman's terms, the black hole eats, then takes a dump. I've been lurking on this forum for over a year. This is my first post, so be gentle! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 31, 2005

Hi Ranur, Because I or anyone else on this forum doesn't have all the answers, all we can do is speculate, and learn from each other. So, I'll answer your questions with a series of other questions: What could strip the electrons from normal matter, and accelerate it to near light speeds? Answer: Black Hole (with it's enormous potential-gravitational energy). What is Plasma? Matter, Does it act like energy?, Or is it something in between? Answer: I believe it can't be normal matter while moving at near light speeds. It can be normal matter when it cools down ( loses speed). It also can be normal matter when ejected from our sun as a by product of nuclear fusion. IIRC, the sun's plasma ejections don't travel at the speed of light, it takes days for the particles to reach earth. Why is Quasar light so highly redshifted? Answer: It has to do with Intrinsic Redshift (Arp). I don't have a specific answer because I'm still learning about it. However, any guy that bases his theories on observation will get my attention. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Jan 2, 2006

Another reason why Quasar (matter-energy) light is so bright and and highly redshifted, as you stated "...light emitted from fast moving objects in a direction away from the observer" is that the light that we observe from a quasar is actually distorted. Because of the Lorentz contraction (Special Relativity). You take a given amount of light and spread it out, it will dim. However, if it's contracted, it will brighten (from our relative viewpoint of course). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Jan 3, 2006

kyle: What could strip the electrons from normal matter, and accelerate it to near light speeds? Answer: Black Hole (with it's enormous potential-gravitational energy). Ranur: Many different physical effects can produce plasma. Plasma is a special state of matter. Some of the most common properties: highly conductive and react to magnetic fields. Check out Wikipedia or do a search on google. I did exactly that, at the Thunderbolts website, under Plasma: The other 99.9% Why should plasma become "not ionized" when it moves near lightspeed? I don't know where you're going with this question, it seems irrelevent. The cold gas, or stars are torn apart by the black hole inside of the event horizon. The "Plasma" at this stage spirals downward toward a so called singularity (I don't believe it's a tiny quantum state, but that's another thread...). At this point, I believe the plasma (ionized or not) is accelerated to near light speeds. Some of it leaks out of the black hole (because the space is stretched within). And at this point, what we observe is a Quasar (White Hole). I don't need a Phd in Physics to understand that we're dealing with Plasma here. You're question should be What happens to Plasma when it is accelerated to near light speeds? Answer: I don't know exactly. The Halton Arp work is mostly controversial. I have no problems with controversial stuff. It is needed. Still, not all controversial stuff happens to be correct. Agreed I am not able to shoot down all of Arps work, but I am skeptic to some of its form. I do not agree on the "Us and Them" way of discussing cosmology. There are many fragments in cosmology. It not a "Us and them" problem. You shouldn't care so much, (I don't). Be more objective say what you believe, and use a little imagination. This makes for a lively debate. The problem is to present work that can or <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Jan 17, 2006

I believe Rob Nissen found a possible entrance for a white hole. Where the white hole exits, is anybody's guess (my guess is it's the quasars that we see). He's got a few wrong assumptions, but his final assumption (conclusion), I believe, is correct. "Let’s say we send a rocket probe to the Sun. When it gets to the Sun, what happens to it? It is drawn in by the Sun’s gravity, and the violent forces in the Sun break it down into it’s component atoms. It becomes part of the Sun. Now, imagine that the entire Sun is the size of a baseball. At the surface, the force of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Anything that goes into this very small Sun is simply squashed by the Universe’s most efficient trash compactor, and it becomes part of the Sun." Rob didn't say this, he's quoting someone else, but I need to comment. Black holes come in sizes ranging from 9 solar masses (single star) to billions of solar masses. When this 9 solar mass star goes super nova, it blows off approx. 6.75 solar mass of material. This leaves 2.25 solar mass, which is compressed into a sphere 4 miles across (Night Sky Observers Guide Vol.1 Intro, page xxi). Your analogy is incorrect, and in fact a black hole is closer to being a "black hole" than it is anything else. The reason your analogy is incorrect (and the reason that a black hole is an accurate name), is that the "trash compactor" never stops "compacting." Not entirely correct. It stops compacting at the surface of this 4 mile diameter sphere (singularity) where the gravity has crushed the electrons, protons, and neutrons to a degeneracy (not moving). The problem with a black hole, is that because the "squishing" never stops as the singularity gets smaller and smaller because NOTHING can overcome the gravitational forces and prevent the singularity from continuing to squish, is what happens to all that mass as the sin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Jan 19, 2006

Black holes come in sizes ranging from 9 solar masses (single star) to billions of solar masses. When this 9 solar mass star goes super nova, it blows off approx. 6.75 solar mass of material. This leaves 2.25 solar mass, which is compressed into a sphere 4 miles across (Night Sky Observers Guide Vol.1 Intro, page xxi). It stops compacting at the surface of this 4 mile diameter sphere (singularity) where the gravity has crushed the electrons, protons, and neutrons to a degeneracy (not moving). The problem with a black hole, is that because the "squishing" never stops as the singularity gets smaller and smaller because NOTHING can overcome the gravitational forces and prevent the singularity from continuing to squish, is what happens to all that mass as the singularity approaches and becomes smaller than the volume of a quark. What I think your talking about here, is a quantum (tiny) singularity with no volume. I think this is possible, but not as you percieve it. In order to squish the degenerative neutrons down smaller than a quark, you would need more volume and density, which is exactly what you'd have with a 1-2 billion solar mass black hole. The location of your quantum singularity would be at the center of this huge singularity ( I'm guessing 100-1000 miles across, I really have no idea, some math expert could figure it out. This is how gravity works, you have to pile on more material (mass). Well, I did do some basic math to figure out the size of a 2 Billion solar mass singularity. My previous guess of 100-1000 miles was way off. Because I know the minimum size of a blackhole (2.5 solar masses) and it's singularity (4 miles), I can use a simple algebraic proportional equivalancy to calculate the size of a 2 Billion solar mass singularity. The reason I can use this simple equivalancy is that the matter continuousl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

abhinavkumar_iitr05 · Jan 23, 2006

Hello!Does there exist the white holes?Its a really a quation of debate.The existance of white holes is only supported by what comes out to be the solution of Schwarzschild geometry. The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole.According to this concept everything can come out from the what is termed as white holes. Now the biggest problem lies is the violation of all set 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS which in simple language states that all the natural processes moves from disorder to order. That's why the existance of WHITE HOLE is denied.

neutron_star6 · Jan 23, 2006

Exactly how does a "black hole", persay, cause disorder then move to order? That doesnt make to much sense.

neutron_star6 · Jan 24, 2006

I would like to know how a black hole causes disorder.

kmarinas86 · Jan 24, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics Entropy (so called disorder) can be thought of as inverse potential. The more entropy, the less potential there is. As energy is being used, matter is being converted into radiation, heat, and molar motion. Therefore, matter represents potential whereas radiation represents entropy (or inverse potential). The more radiation generated, the more entropy is generated. Radiation put into storage (in an atom's electron) increases potential, and thus reduces entropy. The solar system's entropy increases because the conversion of matter into radiation is faster than the conversion of radiation into matter. Black holes are thought of as a place where radiation is lost forever rather than a place where radiation can turn into matter. According to the mainstream, instead of being places of low entropy, black holes are places high entropy precisely because the light which is there will never return to atoms and become mass. Entropy occurs when "the genies come out of the bottles". The only way to stop it is to put the genies back into the bottles. In this case, the bottles are atoms which by taking in radiation have the capacity to do work. Without this happening, all the genies (e.g. photons) escape, thereby increasing the entropy of the universe. One would need structures hundreds of billions of times heavier than galaxies (many times denser) to collect all the radiation that leaks away from stars, planets, and galaxies. Another mechanism would be required for this radiation to turn into matter, and without such a mechanism the universe is doomed, and the genies will take over <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />. Realize however, that according to the big bang, radiation condensed int

aorton27 · Jan 27, 2006

"“Black holes”, if they exist, would be the furthest thing from a hole that can possibly exits." Why do you feel that there is no "hole"? Lets see some logic back up your thoughts. The object that created the black hole was too massive for the fabric of time space to hold it. A similar way a cement block sinks to the bottom of a lake. This object fell through the fabric of time and is continuing to fall and will continue to fall. The black hole will close up in time in a similar way a rain drop seperates from the pool of water and becomes independent. Time space is fluid and has bouyancy qualities but most importantly a surface tension. If a certain object has a certain mass with in a certain area then space and time can't hold it up. You can have visible objects and planets with a lot more mass than a black hole but it would take up much more area in order to stay bouyant in time. Just like a aircraft carrier floating but a small nail sinks.

mikelawre · Apr 17, 2006

I think you guys are starting from the wrong angle. Why should a white hole be different in action to a black hole? If you want pure symmetry, then a black hole would have positive mass and attract positive masses, whilst a white hole would have negative mass and ATTRACT negative masses. Now think what you would get if they were merged - a zero mass black hole. Useful.... Then add in that a positive mass BH also has an equal amount of positive charge, and a white hole has negative charge, and your zero mass black hole is even more interesting. Now consider what would happen if the resulting black holes and white holes chased each other. Strings?? Now consider them as Planck mass in size, have a string of six form a loop, add in a dash of spin for each, and you get only 8 possible combinations - all with zero total mass (positive plus negative) - and a charge (due to the spinning) of +/- 1, 2/3, 1/3 and zero. The quarks and leptons!!! Consider the frequency of rotation as the mass of the ring, then you also get time thrown in for no extra cost. Now there's something to consider. If you started with zero mass black holes, split them out in a rip in space, the subsequent enlargement from Planck mass frequency of loop formation to current sizes (about x10 +23 times), it's about what you expect for inflation. Anyway, just a thought. Mike

mikelawre · Apr 17, 2006

Guys, apologies, but I just replied to an earlier part of this thread, so I'm not sure if it will get through to this end. I'm new to this lark. I'll repeat it, because it's even more relevant to your more recent discussion. I think you guys are starting from the wrong angle. Why should a white hole be different in action to a black hole? If you want pure symmetry, then a black hole would have positive mass and attract positive masses, whilst a white hole would have negative mass and ATTRACT negative masses. Now think what you would get if they were merged - a zero mass black hole. Useful.... Then add in that a positive mass BH also has an equal amount of positive charge, and a white hole has negative charge, and your zero mass black hole is even more interesting. Now consider what would happen if the resulting black holes and white holes chased each other. Strings?? Now consider them as Planck mass in size, have a string of six form a loop, add in a dash of spin for each, and you get only 8 possible combinations - all with zero total mass (positive plus negative) - and a charge (due to the spinning) of +/- 1, 2/3, 1/3 and zero. The quarks and leptons!!! Consider the frequency of rotation as the mass of the ring, then you also get time thrown in for no extra cost. Now there's something to consider. If you started with zero mass black holes, split them out in a rip in space, the subsequent enlargement from Planck mass frequency of loop formation to current sizes (about x10 +23 times), it's about what you expect for inflation. Anyway, just a thought. Mike

Search

White holes?

newtonian

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

darknrg

Guest

savagehenry

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

abhinavkumar_iitr05

Guest

neutron_star6

Guest

neutron_star6

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

aorton27

Guest

mikelawre

Guest

mikelawre

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page