But what happens at the event horizon? Presumably stuff does eventually get there to condense and create the pull for more stuff. ...unless its originating from another dimension or something. In either case, its whatever is at or beyond the event horizon that I refer to as possibly existing in a different and/or unpredictable (relative to us) nature. And I mean the 2+2=3 kinda different.
You have to realize, "event horizon" is largely a myth. What you have is the area of where the gravity can affect outside objects. And we can not actually detect or "see" a black hole. All that we can see is the accretion disk at the edge of the black hole where objects start to fall into it. Past even a "theoretical event horizon", we can see nothing. This is only logical, because in order to "see" an object, we have to be able to observe the photons of the light reflecting off of it's surface. And by definition nothing escapes that gravity, even the light reflecting off of something. And the accretion disk is so bright and blinding that it would obscure anything even close to it. It would be like looking for a lit match in front of a huge spotlight. Behind which is a cone of complete darkness. And yes, things do eventually join in the mass of the black hole. But this is now an entirely different level of time. It may take a few score million years to get there, an eternity for us, a blink of the eye in the life of the universe.
K, well, w/e the part of the black hole where mass goes is called then. Unless you're suggesting it never actually goes (or stays, if thats a better term) anywhere, but just keeps moving slower and slower until the universe ends (or something happens to the black hole that we've not yet 'seen' floabt).
Oh, it does reach the center eventually. Time dilation is not absolute, but the scale we are talking about as I said is measured in scores of millions of years in the least. If we "observed" an object falling into a black hole, not even our replacement species will see it actually happen, but the species that takes over after they become extinct just might observe it. Remember, we are talking about events in a universe that is around 14 billion years old. What is 60 or 80 million years when compared to that much time? It literally is like trying to obsesses over a period of 8 years over a time-span of over 1,400 years. And as for the eventual fate of them, if Stephen Hawking is correct, they will eventually just evaporate. But we are talking about even more vast time frames here. To give an idea, the universe is just under 14(9) years old. That is 14 to the 9th power.. For a black hole with the mass of our solar system, it is 10(64). For a supermassive black hole like at the center of our galaxy? 2x10(100) years. or 2 googleplex years. And in the theoretical future when many massive galaxies like Andromeda and Milky Way collide and combine, those black holes will take 10(106) after the universe enters it's "heat death" phase. All stars have died, no more heat is being generated other than through the minute amount from radioactive decay. And that is in roughly 10(40) years. So in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years from now, all stars and galaxies will be dead, and the only things left will be scattered matter and black holes. When Dr. Hawking was talking about "infinitely",he was talking about in reference to the observer and not in reality.
Roger. Just for clarity: are you just telling me about black holes (if so, I dont mean to sound unappreciative!) or are you refuting or coraborating my original point about the big bang particle potentially operating under different natural laws than we currently understand?
It all revolves back. At the time of the big bang, the level of time dilation due to the huge amounts of gravity at that area were extreme. Think of the entire Universe being in a similar state, time dilated as the original matter started to disperse. Consider it as this, a black hole in reverse. All matter leaving the black hole (singularity), with time being compressed in the same way as it is today. Huge jumps of time between "galactic moments", as the huge amounts of matter in a relatively small location cause a dilation effect until it spreads far enough apart until that is no longer an effect. Then time seeming to "fast forward" once this effect stopped and essentially "normal time" as we think of it started. This is something I have watched cosmologists speculate about for decades. They talk about the big bang "starting in an instant". When in reality it might have been a period of hundreds of millions or even billions of years, in a kind of frozen time until the expansion spread the universe out enough for time to continue as we know it now. We already know and can calculate the mass and dilation of a black hole. But we can not even imagine what this would be like when all of the matter in the entire universe is compressed into a small area. We already know due to the Hubble Deep Field studies that there are many more galaxies in the universe than we even suspected in the past. To give an idea, this is an area of the sky that is the equivalent to seeing a tennis ball at 100 meters. And each of the over 3,000 objects in it is a galaxy. Another similar photo known as the Deep Field South found another 3,000 or so galaxies. Then you have the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, another 10,000 galaxies. Over 16,000 galaxies. Imagine just the mass of that alone as a black hole, and the time dilation effect. And that is still just a tiny fraction of the mass of the Universe.
And to finally wrap this all up, many cosmologists now believe they have no idea how old the Universe actually is. All of their estimates are based upon the time that has passed since the start of "normal time" as we know it now, because the amount of time immediately afterward the singularity appeared is impossible to measure because of that time dilation. The Universe may be twice as old, 10 times as old, or a million times as old, but because of the dilation effect of the mass of the earliest "moments" of the Universe, most believe we will never really know. Because time did pass, that can not actually be stopped. But it would be at such a fractional speed when compared to the flow of time today it would be almost impossible to measure. This is why many try to study red shift and the microwave background, to see if they can piece together how long this "phase before time" actually lasted.
I can't spend the time to read 15 pages but I'll jump in, just the same. First, to post #1, the big-bang theory as the formation of the universe is clearly not possible. There had to be something that went bang. Bang doesn't happen in a vacuum. There was something there and something before. There may have been, even probably was, a big bang but it didn't create a thing; it simply moved stuff around. There was a time when the universe, and the reason it is called the universe, was supposed to be all there is... there's nothing else... until the theories changed and now multiverse is all the rage. Next, there is nothing contradictory either way, between creationism and the big-bang theory. God certainly understands natural law. We could debate until Kingdom come (pun intended) about whether God created natural law or is God because of his perfect understanding of natural law... But, in any case, God could very well have moved a rock on a planet that ended up, in chain reaction, with the big bang. Maybe the universe, as we know it, started with some big bang. Maybe the light was the big bang. Neither science nor religion knows those answers.
This is not quite right. The object has long reached the mass of the black hole. It is just to the observer that it would appear that the object is being stretched out slowly reaching the mass of the black hole.
Beyond the event horizon, time and space reverse roles. So it isn't just that light cannot escape beyond that point. And the effects of gravity extend throughout the universe. I don't understand what you mean by an area where gravity can affect outside objects.
Are you sure about this? To the object crossing the event horizon there is no time dilation - his "clock ticks" normally. To the observer, the objects clock has stopped
Yes I am sure. Relativity is not just an illusion. The effects are real. Observers in the two frames do not agree on the passage of time and they are both correct.
" 1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe? 2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event from a Creator? 3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe? " 1. if God did not need a creator, either does a big bang 2. the big bang is less complicated than a God popping into existence 3. the expanding universe, means light expands with it, then it's up to the speed of light
Yes, relativity is real, hence why we are discussing what the observer sees - the observer sees the object as being stationary at the event horizon but never crossing it, ie to the observer, time has stopped on the object. The object has crossed the event horizon so no longer at the event horizon
Time dilation is complex, especially when talked about from this direction. To explain the concept, I prefer going the other way. We know for a fact that the closer to C an object travels, the more time dilates for those on such a vessel. If we take a star ship capable of traveling to .9C and launch it to Alpha Cenauri, those on the craft will experience time dilation. Time will essentially slow down for them from our perspective, but ours will continue as normal for us. From their perspective, time for us will speed up, while they continue as normal. And both are correct. Hence, the often talked about paradox of a child going on such a space flight, and by the time he returns all of his childhood friends are grandparents. Many even speculated entire "Space Traveler Cultures" arising, composed entirely ofthose who live close to C, because making friends on the surfaces and space stations would be impossible because the odds are they would never see them again because of time dilation. This is no different. Because the astronaut falling into the black hole is inside of this dilation, to them they would just fall into it until their body dissolved from sphaggetification. But to the outsider who is outside of this dilation, they would appear to fall forever because we are outside the dilation's direct effects, only it's observable effects.
The big bang theory of experimental science (scientific method) doesn't begin at the absolute beginning. There isn't an testable theory of exactly what existed at the "absolute" beginning. Wast it as big as a basketball, an orange? Unknown. Those working on ideas concernig "before" the big bang are in the range of theoretical physics - which involves creating mathmatical models that appear to give us what we have today, but can not be tested. There are a good number of those, but they are outside of experimental science, as they aren't testable. Yes. Religious philosophy wants there to be a first mover. That could come before the big bang, of course. A perfect god could create a big bang from which brough humans on earth through natural processes, for example. At the beginning, the universe was too dense to allow light to escape. When the expansion allowed light to escape, what we got was a major event that we can still detect as cosmic background radiation. My personal view is that if we agree on the big bang portion - the stupendous expansion and progress toward what we see today, science and religion should be able to get along.
