# Reverse Black Holes... My Theory

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Boat Shredder, Mar 12, 2012.

1. So I have been pondering this for quite some time now... Give me feedback on what you think... I've also attached a picture to make more sense.

As an object gets sucked into a black hole, it accelerates. When that object reaches the absolute point in the black hole, it reaches the speed of light. As it approaches the other side of the black hole and continues to accelerate, it goes faster than the speed of light, thus it begins going back in time. Eventually it loops back around itself back to where it started.

What do you think? I'm sure this has been thought of before, I just wanted to share my thoughts before they get skewed after I go read about this myself on google.

#### Attached Files:

• ###### IMG_7596.jpg
File size:
194.3 KB
Views:
84
2. technically speaking it would "come out of" a white hole. That is the mathematical opposite of a black hole in which matter is ejected from a singularity. Although it's only a mathematical object ad has not been observed (and probably won't for many reasons, see the wiki page about it)

Also, there isn't a "other side" to a black hole. It's a 3-D hole so there is only "in" or "out". Kinda like going from 3-D to 1-D where the only options are into the point or out of it.

I think it would be better to not use the word accelerating, you can use it up to the point it hits the event horizon but after that it's gaining energy. That's the only way I can think of saying it because it's not actually going anywhere but sitting inside the singularity. Well ok what happens is half is "kicked" into the singularity and the other half is emitted as Hawking radiation. This is why you can't really say it's accelerating because it reaches a surface and then "enters" it or I think it's actually said to be sitting on the surface.

I'm sure some physics major can probably say what I did better but that's how I understand what's going on.

I did have the thought that it might be going backwards in time once inside the singularity but this wouldn't make much sense because that would then mean that we should be able to see hawking radiation being emitted from a point in space before a black hole is formed (because the atoms moving backwards in time would become the hawking radiation in the black hole's "past"). Although I think we will eventually find out that time travel to the past isn't really possible. What really happens is time relative to the person traveling stops (asymptotically slows toward 0) when compared to the outside.

3. It is not possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

4. this is fast becoming outdated....it has been proven by experimentation that the speed of light can be slowed down (the cold sodium atoms/laser experiment)....and faster-than-speed-of-light is hotly debated right now...as in "were those neutrinos faster than light?" sort of debates....like some scientifically/experimentally claim that faster than speed of light has been achieved (the neutrino experiment)...

5. Neutrinos do not travel faster than light. Try and keep up. At least two faults in the original experiment have been discovered.

6. #6
Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2012
I like the input guys

So if white holes DO exist, then that means my theory can still possibly have relevance. Simply because the basis of my idea consists of a two sided wormhole. One place for enter and one place for exit.

Let me clarify a bit more clearly:
If "something" continues to gain energy as it enters the black hole, does that increasing energy ever stop? does that "something" exponentially gain energy to infinity and beyond? Or DOES it stop?

Assuming that the "something" exponentially accelerates or exponentially gains energy as it moves through a black hole, at some point, it SHOULD reach and even SURPASS the speed of light. Am I right? I know it takes an infinite amount of energy to make something with mass go the speed of light, but in a black hole, I assume energy and speed are infinitly increasing upon entrance.

The ultimate question is what happens after that "something" reaches the speed of light?

THAT SOMETHING COULD ALSO HOWEVER, never even get to the speed of light. It could just get closer and closer and closer and closer and closer to the speed of light but never reach it.

Whats your guys input on this?

7. The matter in question wouldnt accelerate past the speed of light because matter cannot exists at the speed of light.

Also, theoretically speaking, all things that enter black holes, exit a second hole somewhere in space called a "white hole." Its also theorized that all objects entering black holes will exit them as pure Hydrogen

8. It is laughable for you to say that the speed of light being the fastest speed is outdated.

There is no debate whether neutrinos are faster than light, there was a test performed on faulty equipment, meaning as far as we as humans are aware, nothing can travel faster than light, so it isn't 'outdated', it's still factual.

9. to both my detractors:

1. for the experiment that slowed down the speed of light, go here:
Physicists Slow Speed of Light (by harvard, no less)

2. for the speed of light being debatable, it is being debated whether you like it or not...both in theory and the lab...

bottomline: is has been proven light can be slowed down so thats half the argument...and science is making headway into speeding up light so maybe you want to tune down the haughtiness....

10. We don't actually know very much about the universe. To suggest that we've already got it all figured out concerning the speed of light is a bit short-sighted.

We don't even fully understand gravity outside of our own solar system.

11. What you just said here, is pretty much what we arent aware of means what we know is factual.

So it was once a fact the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around us?

Or are those just theoretical, not factual..... you decide

12. My theory consists of the following. A giant donut galaxy constantly being moved in one direction.

This is my analogus. A donut.

13.
14. So light can be slowed down how have you made a relation between that fact and faster than light?? As for your second point you sound like a creationist claiming there's some controversy where none exists at all.

15. The slowing of the light thing isn't really relevant, because it's been known for awhile light going through a dense array can slow it down. The real issue is the possibility of it going faster than what we've measured.

16. i think they are bringing up a technicality lol

if light can be slowed, things can go faster than it

but that doesnt change the fact that nothing we perceive or have discovered can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Its not things going faster than light... its things going faster than the speed of light in vacuo (c).

17. @OP, what makes you think something can infinitely accelerate in a black hole?