Re: My response to, "Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theory"

From: Dan Gannon (dgplexus1_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: 22 Jul 2004 10:23:54 -0700

Hi Dale,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.

Your ideas about space dilation are interesting, and I don't wish to
dispute them at this time. My personal view of this type of effect is
that, essentially, the distortions are more properly viewed as
observer-dependent effects, rather than an objective portrayal of what
is being observed. I think it is similar to how the perceived pitch
of a train's sound changes as it approaches and passes an observer.
That doesn't make such distortions unreal - they are certainly real
and measureable, from the observer's perspective. I first came to
this conclusion when considering the famous example of identical
twins, one of whom leaves Earth and travels in a spacecraft at high
speed (as close to the speed of light as possible) for some amount of
time, then returns to Earth to meet up with his/her twin, to find that
differing amounts of time have passed for each twin.

I concluded that, when the spacefaring twin returns to Earth, the
perceived time distortion disappears. Their watches, if accurate,
would remain synchronized. Of course, I could be wrong. If you wish,
I can try to explain that in more detail. But mathematical
descriptions aren't my forte, I'm more inclined to thought experiments
and speculation. I should note that I am not a professional
physicist, but that certainly doesn't preclude me from reading and
thinking about such things. :-) I believe that amateurs, such as
myself, can certainly contribute useful ideas to many fields,
including physics.

It appears that I haven't described my hypothesis in enough detail.
I'm not thinking of a universe being created within a black hole. My
hypothesis essentially "normalizes" the Big Bang phenomenon, making it
a repeating phenomenon that occurs throughout space and time, with
each Big Bang existing within a shared, and possibly infinite,
spacetime. The mass from just a few stars certainly wouldn't be
enough to create a Big Bang, in my thinking. Rather, a
super-super-massive black hole would be necessary. Its mass would be
equal to the mass of our expanding universe (or local universe, as I
like to call it,) or in other words, equal to the mass that was
ejected from what we call the Big Bang (our local Big Bang, in other
words.)

I'm speculating (hypothesizing) that such a super-super-massive black
hole wouldn't require, for its formation, our local Big Bang to
implode in a Big Crunch. Instead, some of the material from our local
Big Bang may join with material from other Big Bangs, relatively
nearby (but outside the boundaries of what we can currently observe,)
and eventually reach the critical mass necessary to create another Big
Bang. I suspect it would take a very long time. How long would
primarily depend on how close the other "universes" (areas of
expanding Big Bang ejecta) are to our own. I suspect that these Big
Bang epicenters would tend to be roughly evenly spaced throughout
spacetime, but some irregularity would be expected.

Implied in my hypothesis is that these Big Bangs do not create
spacetime. I am saying they are not singular or unique phenomena, but
are regular and repeating phenomena. As for "what created" spacetime
itself, that is another issue, that I have posted about before (about
10 years ago, in this newsgroup, when I described my hypothesis
regarding 25 or more dimensions.)

P.S., I recognize that these hypothesis are on the "wild" side. That
is, essentially, by design. If these hypothesis are correct, their
"wildness" would only make them more profound and useful for advancing
our understanding of physics. And if they are not correct, I hope
they will at least stimulate thought and discussion. In other words,
I advocate daring to think of what no one has thought before. I don't
respond to certain people who call me a crackpot, as I view that as
being very narrow-minded and inappropriate.

Cheers,

Dan Gannon
Portland, Oregon, USA
email: dgplexus1@yahoo.com

Dale Trynor <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:<xNzLc.80953$Np3.3823874@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> Before I get into any discussions with you on this, here is a slightly
> edited post I have done to get people thinking about how the gravity
> caused time dilation one must get around black holes can be shown to
> expand space.
>
> You probably know about the Shapiro delay and how it involves how light
> is delayed as it passes
> by a gravitational body and if you don't look it up first. its
> well documented so we can ignore details and just skip by and use our
> analogy of the pole-vault
> and barn gedanken that
> becomes rather similar to the Shapiro delay when we have a black hole
> within the barn.
>
> Trying to keep this ridiculously simple, lets put in a time dilation of
> an average of 300,000,000
> times and make the barn 1 meter long where it equals 1 light second long and
> our rod is some reasonable percentage of light speed where even after
> Lorentz contraction it will
> still measured as some reasonable amount longer than the barn. We allow
> both the rod as well as
> a series of light pulses to enter the
> barn at about the same time and because we know the rod cannot travel
> faster than the light its
> only logical to expect the
> rod will also take at least 1 second to
> exit the outlet door as this must also be the case for the light.
> Note that we will still be able to show that the longer rod
> will still fit nicely within the
> barn from the prospective of our outside observers and given that much
> time delay they will all
> have agreed that both doors
> were at some time, more or less simultaneously closed. You cant do this
> without the time dilation
> effect within the barn as you
> will get different observers disagreeing on when both doors were closed
> but I wont repeat this old
> stuff as I know you must
> know it already and its importance to simultaneity arguments.
>
> Ok so do you now agree that we actually have a circumstance where we can
> indeed argue that a
> longer rod has indeed fitted nicely within the barn for almost a whole
> second.
>
> Alternatively now it gets more tricky, even with these simplified
> extremes of now trying to show
> that from our rods prospective it will also measure more distance within
> the barn, as now we also have Lorentz contraction effects to also
> account for and they become
> more significant because it is in free fall. This is because of the way
> one gains speed when traveling through a gravitational lens and because
> objects traveling faster measure shorter as well as measuring a shorter
> path from their prospective it makes this whole thing more
> complicated. So try doing this where the rod is prevented from gaining
> speed relative to its
> prospective of the black
> hole and it will become
> more obvious that it will indeed measure more distance inside the barn
> than it would have
> estimated before it entered. Doing this you will need to remember that
> we have two ends of the
> rod where we can also place observers and we need to show where both
> have sufficient time to
> agree that they are able to observe both doors closed and or observe
> more space within the barn
> than they would have originally predicted from viewing the outside of
> the barn before entering.
>
>
> Note that this alternative theory leads to the idea that an infinite
> time dilation equals an infinite space expansion, assuming anything
> infinite is ever actually approachable. This leads to the idea that
> black holes will have a minimal orbit that on after passing it all later
> orbits become longer. It gives the most of the same predictions as given
> for inflation theory if you could be inside of a black hole when it forms.
>
> >
> > I predicted that if a black hole reaches a certain critical mass,
> > equal to the mass of our expanding local universe, another Big Bang
> > will occur. I predicted that these occur regularly, throughout
> > spacetime, with matter and energy from one big bang merging with that
> > from other big bangs, forming black holes that approach that critical
> > mass over time.
>
> The above theory has some incomplete questions dealing with mass. For
> example how could only a few stars worth of mass create a universe like
> ours. Where would the extra mass come from or dose this mean that not
> all black holes have universes like ours etc.
>
> >
> > I also predicted that what goes into a black hole doesn't get sent to
> > a "parallel universe" through a "white hole."
>
> Oddly enough this alternative theory hypothesizes that an event horizon
>
> if it can still be called one, has a reverse side that fits the
> description of a white hole for our internal observers.
>
> I posted these ideas on
> > the Internet at the time (to the sci.physics newsgroup,) and never
> > received a response.
>
> Even Hawking doesn't have it completely right. This theory has proposed
> ideas for experiments as well as a lot more to it than included here.
>
> Dale.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Expansion/Contraction
    ... My theory is that the big bang was the result of hydrogen atom fusion ... And, as noted, you can't bang your way out of a black hole. ... as a real particle. ... when you get back to the big bang you're at the universe's north pole - ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Big Bang Refuted--Again
    ... if we accept the current iteration of the constantly mutating "Big Bang" ... Black Hole Is Most Distant Ever Found ... The object, called a quasar and given the catchy name CFHQS J2329-0301, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Of whats become nondisclosure/taboo
    ... perhaps like that black hole sort of passage that sucks in more ways ... amount or seed of antimatter as having been nicely surrounded by those ... those nearly resting photons might become as great as 1e130. ... In order for there to be a "big bang" there HAD to be ...
    (sci.astro.seti)
  • Re: They drove up to the scientists cars...
    ... an absolutely correct view which works so badly ... Since your "incorrect view" must also necessarily contain a "just ... But once somebody gets curious about why nuclear weapons have more bang ... "just because they convert more mass to bang" doesn't ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: In the Beginning
    ... >> Because if the expansion velocity was at or below light speed and the ... >> density was high enough to be a black hole, ... > It doesn't matter what you accept, the math is clear: the big bang is ... you find that the boundary conditions are not at all like ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)