# Reverse Black Holes... My Theory

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

1. Well you also have to consider that you would have to heat up space though.... imagine heating a football stadium

then multiply that by billions of miles in each direction, and add in the fact space is like -454 degrees F (3K)

where in "absolute zero" is 460F pretty much

Even the space outside of stars is frigid, only once you apply a planet, or something that can conduct its heat, do you have heat... And a particle/atom every square CM isnt enough

2. I dunno much about that either, from my understanding vacuum just means empty.

But we have vacuum chambers n shit, where its pretty much just a chamber where all the air is sucked out.... creating negative pressure

Negative pressure really confuses me lol

3. the more i think on this, the more ideas form....the experimentally proven fact that light slows down in media where there are many particles (colder or denser) does not apply to the heat being able to, theoretically, speed up light because:

because the mechanics of light slowing down say light hits particles, thus slows down...if there were less particles to hit, light would slow down lesser and lesser....like a car slows down more and more if it continually hits parking meters....

in a vacuum that has just a few particles, light is gonna go thru unscathed, not hitting anything...thus getting to that number around 300000 m/s....so when i heat a vacuum up thru the few particles in there, how is this going to fasten the speed of light that is going thru?....

heres a freaky fucking tangent that has been popping into my mind as i have been trying to type this post out: in the quantum, i think there is a concept where a particle can be in more places than one (teh famous bohr vs einstein debate)...if this is possible, then the few particles in the vacuum maybe MAYBE be manipulated to be in many many places at once, which, hHAhahhAHAHAHHhah, would cause light to actually slow down again because the veeery few particles in the vacuum are now everywhere!!...HhhAhAHHAHahahHahAHHahHahHahaaaa

4. I applaud you for composing the most interesting thread I've seen on here so far. I believe the speed of said particle subjected to a black holes gravity would come infinitely closer to the speed of light but would experience xeno's paradox where it would approach closer and closer but never achieve the speed. As for can we go faster than the speed of light I don't believe so because there is a certain amount of matter and momentum in the universe and if you traveled through time their would be more matter/momentum than belongs in that time.

5. yea, but a car hiting parking metes is a bad analogy, light hitting a particle every cm squared is more like a car hitting a drop of water

6. the best i could do without losing my train of thought

7. What if a black hole scrambles the matter in such a way that on the other side dark matter is ejected?

I have NO science behind that, just trying to think outside the box.

8. you might be interested in the fecund universes theory where it says new universes are born thru blackholes....

9. Ignore that bit of advise fecund universes theory predates the big bang theory it's discredited.

10. he said interested in, not that he is stating its the theory that stands lol

old science is interesting as hell

11. OK we'll give him the benefit of doubt.

12. is it?...i went thru google a bit and this one from science 2.0 says smolin wins The Verdict: Smolin Vs Susskind Final Part 4

ialso went thru google scholar a bit and all i saw when i input "Cosmological natural selection" (the real name of the theory), i couldnt see "debunked" "disproved" "discredited"....idk man...id like to see how it has been discredited, where are the articles? (honestly)

im waiting to see if it has been made obsolete....but old science is def interesting thats for sure....

dont give me shit man, put forth what you can

13. kinda skipped the last page or two cause most of it is babble. some notes:

the problem with heating a vacuum up isn't that you can't give it heat. It's that there is nothing in it to absorb the heat you give it. Think of the space station as an illustration, when they are in the "shade" it is close to absolute zero but when they go into the sun the temp. goes up to a couple hundred degrees because now the material is absorbing the rays from the sun. When they go back into the shade the heat is drawn back out from the material again and into the vacuum (because of entropy).

So to answer the question, yes you can heat a vacuum but it doesn't do any good because the heat goes through it without being absorbed by anything.

Also a vacuum isn't technically empty, even a vacuum has partials popping in and out of existence very quickly. This is from the fact that even empty space has some amount of latent energy. In cause your curious, yes they have proven this from an experiment where they created photon's from a vacuum.

the problem is the speed of light is measured by how much distance you cover during a period of time. When your talking about a black hole you eventually get to a point where that description isn't useful as a metric. That's because once you enter the singularity you're no longer "going" anywhere because everywhere you could go is the same point inside the singularity. It's like saying "Stand on this spot but run." (not run in place, run with forward momentum).

Also yes there is a finite amount of energy put into each atom that enters it. Once on the "other side" of the singularity it's no longer being pulled by gravity so there is nothing giving it energy. Kinda like you standing on the surface of the earth. There is just enough energy being put into you to keep you on the ground but once you are there you have to add or subtract energy by other means to move yourself around. An equilibrium I suppose is a better term to use. The amount of energy that this equilibrium is at is also the amount of energy Hawking radiation has (because it's as close to the point you can get without crossing it).

The main problem with a white hole is that they would have to exist in a dimension one lower than the black hole they were created from. (if I understand them correctly). So your idea could still be true but it would be a one way trip and into a lower dimension than where you started.

To the point everyone else keeps making about the speed of light. It's kinda a moot point because if you bend space enough you don't have to worry about all the problems that come with traveling that fast so why would you even worry about it? Bending space allows you to step around the speed of light limit.

Also it should be said that it is known that information is not limited to the speed of light so technically there are things that go faster than the speed of light. It's been observed via a wavefront traveling through gas. The wave was traveling at the speed of light but in front of it was a "bow-shock" wave that had to be traveling faster than the wave itself in order to keep conveying that the wave is still traveling.

14. "the problem with heating a vacuum up isn't that you can't give it heat. It's that there is nothing in it to absorb the heat you give it."

a physical-world vacuum would have particles in it...thus heatable if more than one particle

"So to answer the question, yes you can heat a vacuum but it doesn't do any good because the heat goes through it without being absorbed by anything."

your statement above said you couldnt heat vacuums?

"a vacuum isn't technically empty, even a vacuum has partials popping in and out of existence very quickly. "

exactly

"the problem is the speed of light is measured by how much distance you cover during a period of time. When your talking about a black hole you eventually get to a point where that description isn't useful as a metric."

its more a matter of not being to able observe how light behaves beyond event horizon than it being a useful metric...but who used "speed of light" as a description of a black hole?...

the rest after the response to the above....

15. ok then yes it is "heatable" but any useable amount? I don't think so. It would be like having to put in a ton of energy to get 1 degree in temp. change. At what point would you say that it's not useful as a method or that it's effects are negligible?

yes, heat as radiation can travel through space without bumping into anything. that is how it can travel through a vacuum without heating it.

by very quickly I mean they disappear before any interaction can happen with them. I think the current amount of time they exist is something like 10^-26 sec. or something. Also when they disappear they take exactly the same amount of energy that they came into existence with so the net effect is 0. Even if they did interact the net affect is that it didn't heat anything.

in respect to the OP's idea. He was using the speed of light as a signal that it could be then going backwards in time once it exceeds that speed. Sorry if you guys moved on from this, i did skip a lot of the reply's.

16. i wasnt about moving on, just trying to understand you...for isntance, why bring in "useful"?...we were talking on a basic "faster/slower" level where utilization is not important or relevant to theorizing...

plus it appeared you contradicted yourself with heating up vacuums because you said A equals B, then you said A does not equal B....

i see about ops words...since your original long text had many points in it that were apparently directed at me, i thought using the speed of light to describe black holes was also directed at me...

17. Lol I used the star example earlier... ok... so you have our solar system.... the sun heats earth quite nicely, yet the space outside our atmosphere is hundreds below 0f.

If a star can't heat space above that, no human is gonna heat space up in anyway lol....

18. As if on que we enter the world of special pleading Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

19. I think we get his drift now.So much for the benefit of doubt!

20. is that what you put forth?...honestly dude, id prefer if you were like...not in my life so im gonna just avoid you from now on....youre like paulis "not even wrong"....

• ### Find Us On

© Copyright 1999 - 2020 Grasscity.com is a part of High Tide Inc. Company | All rights reserved