Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Victor2009 on 19/05/2009 12:47:24
-
White holes are the opposite of black holes in the universe. Everything swallowed by black holes, comes out of white holes. There is a white hole at the center of each star and planet in our galaxy. Everything swallowed by our galaxy's central black hole. Comes back out through billions of white holes, that are inside all of the stars and planets in our Galaxy. Our galaxy's central black hole is not only swallowing stars and planets. It also has a feedback process. It is feeding the stars and planets. But it doesn't feed back more than it swallows, nesesery mass quantity to function as black hole is maintained.
White holes pop up in proper spots all around the galaxy. Some become stars others become planets.
The earth, sun and stars constantly grow, as matter and energy flows out of the white holes, that are within them, thats why they are constantly increasing in mass from the inside.
Even the molecules of life are recycled this way.
The elements and building block of life pass thru our galaxy's central black hole and reappear inside our galaxy's planets. Our galaxy's central black is recycling life and everything needed to sustain that life in in our galaxy.
-
How did you arrive at this theory and where is your supporting evidence?
-
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory
That seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.
I also read about Black smokers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_smoker
And about white holes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
About geoneutrinos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
There is a lot of stuff pointing in this direction.
All comes from inside Earth.
-
So if we tunnel to the core of a planet we'll find a big shiny white hole then?
-
I suspect that black holes as well as white holes do not exist as accepted by most everyone. My speculation is that we will find some principle that prevents the singularity at the centre. When we find that principle we will be able to calculate the maximum possible density of matter IMHO. [:)] I predict that it will be just short of the density required to restrict light from escaping.
-
Black holes, white holes, worm holes........ Holy Moses, there's a whole lot of holes in the whole affair.
-
You forgot a**holes
-
Sorry, pardon....
Black holes, white holes, worm holes, a**holes........ Holy Moses, there's a whole lot of holes in the whole affair.
-
Ah! It's no wonder I have Trypophobia.
-
Best not get involved in a round of golf then!
-
Are we going to enter into another battle of puns? [:)]
-
Well we all seem to be in the club (not 'in the club' but 'in the club'(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-confused004.gif&hash=da949c2a43f9add368c5935e0e85e236) (http://www.freesmileys.org))
I must have a drink first.... get some tee out of the tea caddy and have a sip while I watch the birdies.
-
I quite like the albatross, don't you? But as I approached it, the darn thing appeared to be handicapped and did a leg break so that it ended up wedged between the driver's legs.
-
What's the matter? Too busy eating your sand-wedge?
-
That's a fair way to describe the hole flagged incident.
I've had my drink and could have done with a sandwich, so I donned my apron but found we have no sliced bread.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Frude%2F7.gif&hash=3d0abe2d792c49f29c1887a7773ef0dd)Oh! I say, what a bogey
-
It pleasing to see Victor's post receive the attention it deserves.
-
So if we tunnel to the core of a planet we'll find a big shiny white hole then?
Don't know if it's big :)
-
People just LURVE Symmetry.
-
I suspect that black holes as well as white holes do not exist as accepted by most everyone. My speculation is that we will find some principle that prevents the singularity at the centre. When we find that principle we will be able to calculate the maximum possible density of matter IMHO. [:)] I predict that it will be just short of the density required to restrict light from escaping.
Stephen Hawking said this a couple of weeks ago:
"This perspective also supports the idea that if you fall into a black hole, you may come out in another universe. If there is a large hole and if it is rotating, you may pass through it and into another universe. So, you cannot come back to our universe. Though Hawking said that he is keen on space flight, he is not willing to transport himself to another universe."
(Black Holes: Eternal Prisons No More, Stephen Hawking's Lecture March 10th, 2009)
http://www.physorg.com/news156450506.html
-
It pleasing to see Victor's post receive the attention it deserves.
Thanks Ophiolite :)
Do you believe the universe is expanding ?
Do you believe in Red giants ? (Red giants are stars with radii tens to hundreds of times larger than that of the Sun)
Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)
Do you believe these images ? > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
-
#1 yes
#2 yes
#3 yes
#4 some of them
All these can be seen, but we can't see a black hole, only activity which might suggest their existence, so they are not an absolute certainty, therefore, your white hole cannot be supported.
-
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory
That seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.
It has a problem with quite a few things, it's been fairly thoroughly discredited.
-
#1 yes
#2 yes
#3 yes
#4 some of them
All these can be seen, but we can't see a black hole, only activity which might suggest their existence, so they are not an absolute certainty, therefore, your white hole cannot be supported.
What about White dwarfs, Don_1 ?
White dwarfs are thought to be the final evolutionary state of all stars whose mass is not too high (over 97% of the stars in our Galaxy)
-
Do you believe the universe is expanding ?
It gives that appearance, so I provisionally accept it.
Do you believe in Red giants ?
Cetainly. Our understanding of nucleosynthesis as revealed by Hoyle et alcoupled with what we have deduced of the life cycle of stars renders their character unremarkable.
Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)
Although I am not much of a believer in eye witness testimony I have seen a couple of these myself. I found the Pioneer, Voyager and Magellan data much more compelling. So put me down as a believer.
Do you believe these images ? > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
I believe some of them are artists impressions. However I do believe stars explode.
Your point?
-
White Dwarfs ; yes = Sirius.
-
Well I read the Expanding Earth Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory
That seems to have a problem explaining where the sea came from.
It has a problem with quite a few things, it's been fairly thoroughly discredited.
Wikipedia articles are unbiased with many references within them. Neal Adams is one.
Have you studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets.
It does seem a strong case can be made for an expansion phase in planets and moons.
Earth > http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
Mars > http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip13.html
Europa > http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip02.html
The experiment with Jupiters moon Europa is breathtaking
My interest however is in stars and planets cores.
-
Do you believe the universe is expanding ?
It gives that appearance, so I provisionally accept it.
Do you believe in Red giants ?
Cetainly. Our understanding of nucleosynthesis as revealed by Hoyle et alcoupled with what we have deduced of the life cycle of stars renders their character unremarkable.
Do you believe in giant planets ? (giant planets are planets with radii much larger than that of the Earth)
Although I am not much of a believer in eye witness testimony I have seen a couple of these myself. I found the Pioneer, Voyager and Magellan data much more compelling. So put me down as a believer.
Do you believe these images ? > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=stars%20exploding&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
I believe some of them are artists impressions. However I do believe stars explode.
Your point?
Stars and planets are growing like balloons, Ophiolite
Additional matter is being pumped up from the inside.
There's a connection between stars/planets cores and black holes in the universe.
-
You have presented zero evidence to support this contention. The sizes of stars, planets and other heavenly bodies is well addressed by current theory. That current theory provides explanations for these sizes that is detailed and quantitative, not a bunch of unsubstantiated hand waving.
I have no idea if you are uneducated, or merely delusional. However, I am certain that you are wrong. (And I am certain of very little in the universe, so you do at least enjoy that distinction.)
-
Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.
That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.
That's just the way nature works, Ophiolite :)
Supporting 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
-
I think most folks here understand the theory of relativity. I doubt that any of them would see it as evidence that your concept has any relation to reality. How do you see relativity phenomena as evidence that a black hole eats energy and matter and spews it back out in the centre of stellar and planetary masses?
What are the physical rules for such phenomena? It would have to be a real stretch from the rules that we are able to deduce from observations.
BTW: a theory is not evidence of anything. It is only observed phenomena that is evidence. [:)]
-
Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.
That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.
That's just the way nature works, Ophiolite :)
Supporting 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
I'm not sure that's what classes as supporting evidence. It doesn't matter how nice it feels, or how complete it looks to you, or how much sense it seems to make - it has to fit with the facts. If being a nice story and making sense was all we needed as evidence, then Kipling's Just So Stories (http://"http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/")would be considered as facts.
As I mentioned earlier, and your own wikipedia link also explains, you are basing all of this on a idea that has been discredited. Expanding earth doesn't fit the facts, so we reject it.
-
I think most folks here understand the theory of relativity. I doubt that any of them would see it as evidence that your concept has any relation to reality. How do you see relativity phenomena as evidence that a black hole eats energy and matter and spews it back out in the centre of stellar and planetary masses?
What are the physical rules for such phenomena? It would have to be a real stretch from the rules that we are able to deduce from observations.
BTW: a theory is not evidence of anything. It is only observed phenomena that is evidence. [:)]
Vern,
You most certainly got the picture [::)]
Now look at our galaxy's central black hole.
What you observe right now, happend 26 000 years ago.
Mass you observe being swallowed right now, is already back at it's origin.
The spacetime continuum prevents you from observing this in real time.
Entry points and exit points that exists simultaneously seem unrelated.
Therefor the theory of relativity [:)]
-
I have to admit that I have imagined things as weird as the scenario you suggest. However, I usually dismiss them immediately when I find no evidence that supports the idea. For your scheme to work we need some mechanism for instant transfer of material from the centre of black holes to stellar and planetary objects in the galaxy. Then we need some way to keep this happening in the local galaxy and not scattered around throughout the universe.
I can't imagine what observable phenomena would need this as an explanation.
-
Try this image, Vern
Inside our galaxy's central black hole, our galaxy's lays in-folded
Outside of our galaxy's central black hole, our galaxy's lays out-folded
As our galaxy's is folding into our galaxy's central black hole.
It is instantly unfolding, distantly outside our galaxy's central black hole.
A simplified image (http://i41.tinypic.com/e6p2ly.jpg)
The observable phenomena in question is,
Matter that enters our galaxy's central black hole is reappearing inside stars and planets around the galaxy.
That's why stars and planets are growing, exploding and returning to the our galaxy's central black hole.
Victor
-
Ok; I can visualize that. The spiral image is nice. How does this fit with reality? Does it explain any phenomena better than established theory? [:)]
-
Ok; I can visualize that. The spiral image is nice. How does this fit with reality? Does it explain any phenomena better than established theory? [:)]
Yes, Vern
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." (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/globule.html)
Victor [:)]
-
Does it not bother you that there is no mechanism to transport the matter from the black hole centres to the globules?
-
transport line > black hole > worm hole > whith holes
Our galaxy's central black hole has a feedback process.
Our galaxy is a cyclone, recycling matter and energy at high speed
-
Nah!!! Sorry, but you are using one theory to back up another theory.
On that basis, I could claim that black, white and worm holes are evidence for my theory of Red Holes.
You must have some hard fact to back up a theory, not a bunch of other theories which, themselves, have no hard fact to back them.
-
Nah!!! Sorry, but you are using one theory to back up another theory.
On that basis, I could claim that black, white and worm holes are evidence for my theory of Red Holes.
You must have some hard fact to back up a theory, not a bunch of other theories which, themselves, have no hard fact to back them.
My Galactic Recycling Theory (GRT) is trying to explain one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics: how protostars grow to become high-mass stars. (http://crd.lbl.gov/DOEresources/2008highlights/ASCR_accomplishment_star_formation.doc)
A question not even the astronomers and astrophysicists have a good explanation for.
And you ask for hard facts ? [:o]
Victor
-
Don't spam us with links Victor - one in your profile will be quite enough...
-
corrected, Ben Sorry [::)]