The Universe

The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved."
-Psalms 104:5

This bible verse shackled the minds of men for thousands of years, and held back the advance of science. It was this verse that was used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called to Rome in 1633, and tried for the crime of heresy. The aged Galileo, in his 70's, was taken down into the dungeons of the church and shown the instruments of torture that were going to be used on him if he did not recant. Fearing the torture, and fearing that he might share the fate of Giordano Bruno, whom the church burned at the stake a generation earlier for the same crime, Galileo recanted the truth. He was confined to his home under house arrest, neither allowed to leave or to receive visitors, for the last seven years of his life.



http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html

here Bob...you need to define EARTH in your verse...here's one from Job

American King James Version
He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing.


here's another...
“It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22).

PkrBum wrote:lol... true... but einstein predicted the gravitational curvature of space... distance may be irrelevant. Especially if matter can appear and disappear even at the smallest level... or if there is different polarity. We may simply not be able to detect layers of dimensions right in front of our nose.

Einstein's description of gravitational curvature of space may simply be a description of the immediate vicinity of the universal black hole.

As for the rest or your statement... It does give one hope that we may be able to find a way around the light barrier.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well if it takes light all those years to get back to us we are looking at a universe at distance that is ancient ancient history...it may all be spiraling into a black hole right now and we won't find out until it's our turn.....all that relative stuff....

Almost pancake time!...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLQhKLPwUp4

TEOTWAWKI wrote:here Bob...you need to define EARTH in your verse...here's one from Job

American King James Version
He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing.


here's another...
“It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22).

<sarcasm and smartass'ism and confrontational'ism and rhetorical'ism off>
<purely a request for clarification on>

The language of the Bible sometimes is difficult for me to comprehend.
Please explain to me (in your own words) what exactly those two Bible verses mean and how they relate to what was in my post.

boards of FL wrote:
That would require for there to be matter. Also, black holes don't spew a universe of space and energy. They actually do somewhat the opposite.

Stephen Hawking's disagrees with you on black holes being unable to spew energy across the void.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3CLFj6_Ag

Damaged Eagle wrote:Stephen Hawking's disagrees with you on black holes being unable to spew energy across the void.

No he doesn't. I said black holes do not spew a universe of space and energy. Hawking and every physicist worth their weight in salt agree with me. You stand alone in your incorrectness.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Stephen Hawking's disagrees with you on black holes being unable to spew energy across the void.

No he doesn't. I said black holes do not spew a universe of space and energy. Hawking and every physicist worth their weight in salt agree with me. You stand alone in your incorrectness.

Wrong again me Bucko...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-630203.html

Hawking's New Black Hole Theory

"Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Wednesday that black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."...

...For someone who criticizes others beliefs you sure don't know your own.

*****LMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLb_wsZDrkw

The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

PkrBum wrote:The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

It's been suggested that black holes act as massive generators also.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk

In Star Trek the Romulans use quantum singularities (extremely small black holes which Hawking's theorized) to achieve warp drive vice the matter/anti-matter reactions that the Federation uses to power their ships...

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_core

"On Romulan starships, a different approach is used; an artificial quantum singularity in the warp core is used to harness the energy necessary to power warp flight. (TNG: "Timescape")"

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0OokTuq7Bw

PkrBum wrote:The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

Just had an interesting thought... What if a universal size black hole dropped into a wormhole it created and reached it's final destination.

When it drops back into whatever it's final destination was wouldn't it start spewing out matter and energy just like Stephen Hawking's and the Big Bang theory suggests?

Food for thought.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

Damaged Eagle wrote:Wrong again me Bucko...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-630203.html

Hawking's New Black Hole Theory

"Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Wednesday that black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."...

Perhaps you should re-read your article a few more times. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

Just had an interesting thought... What if a universal size black hole dropped into a wormhole it created and reached it's final destination.

When it drops back into whatever it's final destination was wouldn't it start spewing out matter and energy just like Stephen Hawking's and the Big Bang theory suggests?

Food for thought.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

I like the thght... but the string theory postulates that gravity may be much stronger in other dimensions... and that it's effects in this dimension are less than should be expected. That helps explain why our universe is thght to be expanding. There might be stationary equilibrium in another dimension and even collapsing universes in others. It's all very interesting... but reminds me of the blind men describing an elephant. I suspect that our perspective and observations are missing many factors and not able to account for countless variables... most unknown now. I wish I could get a physics book from the future... this is all very new thght really.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Wrong again me Bucko...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-630203.html

Hawking's New Black Hole Theory

"Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Wednesday that black holes, the mysterious massive vortexes formed from collapsed stars, do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."...

Perhaps you should re-read your article a few more times. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Once you start showing information to the contrary I might start believing you. You disagreed with my statement...

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Stephen Hawking's disagrees with you on black holes being unable to spew energy across the void.

...and I proved you wrong.

I think I'm more read up on Stephen Hawking's than you.

******CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

PkrBum wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

Just had an interesting thought... What if a universal size black hole dropped into a wormhole it created and reached it's final destination.

When it drops back into whatever it's final destination was wouldn't it start spewing out matter and energy just like Stephen Hawking's and the Big Bang theory suggests?

Food for thought.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

I like the thght... but the string theory postulates that gravity may be much stronger in other dimensions... and that it's effects in this dimension are less than should be expected. That helps explain why our universe is thght to be expanding. There might be stationary equilibrium in another dimension and even collapsing universes in others. It's all very interesting... but reminds me of the blind men describing an elephant. I suspect that our perspective and observations are missing many factors and not able to account for countless variables... most unknown now. I wish I could get a physics book from the future... this is all very new thght really.

I've read that. It would also suggest that the reverse is true in other dimensions where gravitational attraction would be a lot less. Like you say to many variables. As I suggested earlier in the discussion I think we're overlooking something or somethings that we observe every day but don't even think about.

Even time is affected in a black hole so that book you want might become available if someone made a time machine using quantum singularities...

They'll just have to make sure they don't create a paradox.

*****GRIN*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBuLoRzhWeI

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

PkrBum wrote:The effects we see around a black hole are thght to be the effects of gravity outside the black hole on spacetime. The singularity inside the hole is theorized to be inescapable. Some speculate that the mass can be moving to another dimension (wormhole)... unlikely imo.

Just had an interesting thought... What if a universal size black hole dropped into a wormhole it created and reached it's final destination.

When it drops back into whatever it's final destination was wouldn't it start spewing out matter and energy just like Stephen Hawking's and the Big Bang theory suggests?

Food for thought.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

I like the thght... but the string theory postulates that gravity may be much stronger in other dimensions... and that it's effects in this dimension are less than should be expected. That helps explain why our universe is thght to be expanding. There might be stationary equilibrium in another dimension and even collapsing universes in others. It's all very interesting... but reminds me of the blind men describing an elephant. I suspect that our perspective and observations are missing many factors and not able to account for countless variables... most unknown now. I wish I could get a physics book from the future... this is all very new thght really.

I've read that. It would also suggest that the reverse is true in other dimensions where gravitational attraction would be a lot less. Like you say to many variables. As I suggested earlier in the discussion I think we're overlooking something or somethings that we observe every day but don't even think about.

Even time is affected in a black hole so that book you want might become available if someone made a time machine using quantum singularities...

They'll just have to make sure they don't create a paradox.

*****GRIN*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBuLoRzhWeI

You tried to attribute to me the idea that a large black hole basically exploded and produced our ever expanding universe, though I never said anything of the sort.

I pointed out that it is not in the nature of a black hole to "spew a universe of energy and space".

You claimed that Hawking disagrees with that statement.

I disagreed.

You then posted an article in which Hawking concedes the idea that black holes can retain and emit matter/information.

Here again, you are struggling to read and follow the subject at hand. I never said black holes cannot retain information or emit anything. I said black holes do not spew entire universes of space and energy. As in, our rapid expanding universe is not the result of some sort of black hole emission. This has nothing to do with the way that Hawking has theorized that black holes may leak information.

Imagine if I were to say "A human being cannot piss so much that they fill up an empty swimming pool", and then you were to say "Oh yeah? Well read this" and you then link to a wikipedia article explaining the process through which human beings sweat. That is essentially how off you are right now.

Eagerly awaiting your next post in which you completely misinterpret everything I just said, attribute more arguments to me, and then post completely irrelevant articles that you also misinterpret in order to refute something that neither I or anyone else has said.

If a person is thrown into a pool, and they decide to drink their way out of the situation, how many gulps will it take...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

If I'm traveling in a space ship going the speed of light, and I stick my hand out the window and fire a gun in the direction the space ship is going, what will happen with the bullet? Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, will the bullet be suspended in front of the gun or what?

Bob wrote:If I'm traveling in a space ship going the speed of light, and I stick my hand out the window and fire a gun in the direction the space ship is going, what will happen with the bullet? Since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, will the bullet be suspended in front of the gun or what?

I don't think you could travel the speed of light to begin with.

Ya... the theory of relativity doesn't allow it. I've read it called einstein's tax... there is a reduction factor and cumulative effect.

Now ya'll both are just nitpicking. Okay so we make it one mph less than the speed of light. Then what? If I'm traveling one mph less than the speed of light and I fire a gun, what happens with the bullet? Does it leave the gun traveling at a little less than 1 mph or what?
It's a valid question.

We could put the same question into the context of Star Trek.
When the Enterprise is traveling at "warp" speed, it does so because of a massive matter/antimatter propulsion system allows it to travel faster than the speed of light (we just have to accept that such a thing exists).
But even if we suspend disbelief and accept that the Enterprise is traveling at warp speed, how could it fire a photon torpedo that goes even faster when the photon torpedo aint got no massive matter/anti matter propulsion system? Seems to me the photon torpedo wouldn't even be able to get out of the torpedo tube and would blow hell out of the Enterprise and take Kirk, Spock, and Scotty with it.

Well Bob the old Jugs P 47s were the first planes to shoot themselves down...they could out dive the speed of their own bullets...hope that helps in a real world way....



aka Thunderbolts

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well Bob the old Jugs P 47s were the first planes to shoot themselves down...they could out dive the speed of their own bullets...hope that helps in a real world way....



aka Thunderbolts

I didn't know about that. So if the aircraft is traveling faster than the speed of the bullet, then the bullet it fires will not get out ahead of the aircraft?
Question. Since today's modern jet aircraft all travel faster than bullets, when they're doing so, how do they shoot another airplane with their machine guns when in a dogfight?