I've been thinking about the general rule with science where it is stated that "with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction".
Here are a couple of the things that I've been wondering about...
If we have black holes that suck time and matter out of the universe, can there be a white hole that releases time and matter into the universe ?
If we have time that runs fowards, is it possible that time can run backwards in other parts of space ?
Can anyone support these thoughts and add to it on what might exist ?
- Mike.
If we have black holes that suck time and matter out of the universe, can there be a white hole that releases time and matter into the universe ?
No, the answer is that there are no known objects that constantly release matter. Black Holes do not suck matter into oblivion, but simply aggregate it around their extremely dense cores. Certainly for every action there is a reaction. In this case the absorption of the matter causes disturbances around the hole which can be perceptible indirectly. Nevertheless, matter cannot be created out of nothing therefore it is impossible for the opposite of Black holes to exist as you have described them.
| igor123d wrote: |
| Nevertheless, matter cannot be created out of nothing therefore it is impossible for the opposite of Black holes to exist as you have described them. |
How is it possible that the universe was created then - to support The Big Bang Theory, if you cannot create things from nothing ?
- Mike.The alternative to the black hole is the white-hot origin of the universe out of which came matter. Another alternative is to explain how as the black hole attracts the star, the star also attracts the black hole (2 bodies affect each other).
The time is irreversible because of the laws of thermodynamics, same as an explosion can only occur in one direction. To unexplode something requires a massive amount of work that isn't possible. Since time naturally flows in the forward direction, any amount of gravity field distortion even black holes is insufficient to provide enough work to reverse the space-time field. The only way time could be reversed is if gravity was strong enough to form wormholes which in recent research seems to be more unlikely.
keep in mind that this rule (with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction) does not imply that it has to be an opposite reaction even though the word is actually in the name, an opposite reaction would say be a fire burning and as a result of that action heat and carbon is produced. This rule basicly applys to the very nature of the way things release energy and what reaction occurs when it does release this energy.
The opposite reaction does not hold for relationships.
Opposite Personalities do not always attract.
If you really like someone the chances are they don't like you (but human laws bend 
).
However, this law holds for businesses.
If one company releases a brand, so does the other.
If one company changes it's image, so does the other.
For science, the trick to following the laws of nature is to see the complex model and apply the laws of motion, quantum mechanics, chemistry etc to the model. Actually folks, with the development of the new, superpowered telescopes that they now have floating around out there in space, they've had to change theirwhole theory on black holes.
There are now images of black holes spewing matter?energy? STUFF out into space.
I don't have the link off hand, not sure if it's at NASA or the Hubble sight.
But they're pretty amazing images.
And kind of mess with your brain. Because, of course, that's not what conventional "knowledge" about black holes would have us believe.
Kind of makes me question a lot of our beliefs about the way the universe is put together...
Damn That was a really goood q i wish i was smart enofe to a it lol but i have seen the images the poster above me talks about i think i will look around and see if i can find them agine
| izcool wrote: |
I've been thinking about the general rule with science where it is stated that "with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction".
Here are a couple of the things that I've been wondering about...
If we have black holes that suck time and matter out of the universe, can there be a white hole that releases time and matter into the universe ?
If we have time that runs fowards, is it possible that time can run backwards in other parts of space ?
Can anyone support these thoughts and add to it on what might exist ?
- Mike. |
Probabbly in an opposite dimension lol. And I think you got a little mixed up. That law of "with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" it's Newtons First Law and doesn't have to do with any of the rest you said.Einstien's General Theory of Relativity allows for, but does not require, white holes. Black holes can (at least theoretically) become white holes, and vice versa.
--Ryan
broken2144
If you're going to be hanging around, how about a bit of theory. I love theory... 
Yes lennons right, yet your right as well, we have a white hole its just not called a white hole. I believe you commoners refer to it as the sun. Though I dont know why personally I like white hole /sarcasm]
Ah yes, where some see sunshine and their eyes light up, others see a White hole. Singing to myself "common people" now...
Well, first of all "every action has an equal but opposite reaction" is a rule of newtonian physics. newtonian physics is a generality in the sense that it does not hold true for subatomic particles. when you are dealing with black holes everything eventually breaks down into the interaction of said particles.
Black holes are thought to be radiating some type of energy back out into the universe therefore they ARE subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The major problem many scientists had was that all theories prior to the discovery that black holes radiate energy was that they do not have any sort of entropy enacting upon them. This would not be possible considering nothing in the obsvervable universe doesn't in some way dissolve or decay.
They way that it is theorized that black holes decay is explained through Heisenburgs uncertainty principle. It is stated in this principle that no subatomic particle can have a measurable definite value of both position and velocity at the same time. This means that the more you know of the position of the particle the less you know of the velocity and the more you know of the velocity the less you know of the position.
Heisenburg went further with this idea and stated that it isn't the fault of the apparatus we use to measure such things but that this oscilation of position vs. velocity is a fundamental characterstic of the universe.
From this Heisenburg stipulated that since nothing really has an absolute value of measurement in any real sense at the subatomic level that then that would mean that a unit of space-time(open space, the stuff that our planets are contained within) could not have a energy value of zero.
ALL POINTS IN THE UNIVERSE EVERYWHERE ARE IN A CONSTANT STATE OF QUANTUM FLUX.
What does this mean for black holes?
This is where Stephen Hawking takes over and theorizes that at the event-horizon of black holes there is a sort of subatomic "tug of war" where there is a particle and an antiparticle constantly canceling one another out just below the thresh hold of observable reality. The event horizon of a black hole is where the gravity becomes so strong that not even light can escape, thus the term "black hole". The gravity is so powerful at this point that it literally rips the particle and the antiparticle apart. The antiparticle falls into the black hole, canceling out a tiny fraction of its mass and the particle is released out into the universe to interact with it and become things like matter and energy.
If anyone has trouble understanding anything I typed please feel free to ask or send me a pm. I am a chemistry major and I hope to teach someday so it'll be good practice.
Last edited by SkullPizza on Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total
| riv_ wrote: |
Actually folks, with the development of the new, superpowered telescopes that they now have floating around out there in space, they've had to change theirwhole theory on black holes.
There are now images of black holes spewing matter?energy? STUFF out into space.
I don't have the link off hand, not sure if it's at NASA or the Hubble sight.
But they're pretty amazing images.
And kind of mess with your brain. Because, of course, that's not what conventional "knowledge" about black holes would have us believe.
Kind of makes me question a lot of our beliefs about the way the universe is put together... |
Here is a picture taken from the Hubble back in 98
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1998/22/images/a/formats/web.jpg | riv_ wrote: |
Actually folks, with the development of the new, superpowered telescopes that they now have floating around out there in space, they've had to change theirwhole theory on black holes.
There are now images of black holes spewing matter?energy? STUFF out into space.
I don't have the link off hand, not sure if it's at NASA or the Hubble sight.
But they're pretty amazing images.
And kind of mess with your brain. Because, of course, that's not what conventional "knowledge" about black holes would have us believe.
Kind of makes me question a lot of our beliefs about the way the universe is put together... |
The stuff that can be seen through a telescope is what is known as the accretion disk. Interesting are black holes because the hungrier they get the more they starve themselves.
The accretion disk is a orbiting body of energy and highly charged gas that is being compressed and further energized by the black holes gravitational field.
Through this compression of the accretion disk it radiates massive amounts of energy thus pushing away any other matter that would've otherwise been caught in the black holes gravitational field. | SkullPizza wrote: |
| If anyone has trouble understanding anything I typed please feel free to ask or send me a pm. I am a chemistry major and I hope to teach someday so it'll be good practice. |
Well, I must admit that this cleared up my mind a bit, but I'm not an native in English so it wasn't too easy to read. I got a few questions:
1. Why knowing the position of a particle we don't know its velocity? I've been taught this in school but no one ever explained me why it is that way.
2. Do you mean that in the black holes particles and antiparticles simply come into existence made of energy? I've heard only about the opposite process, and I'm confused now 
3. I've heard somewhere that though nothing can escape from a black hole, it gives out radiation and some kind of waves that can be detected by a radiotelescope. Is that true? If so, how is this possible?
Damn, I feel so uneducated and stupid now I have a physics question for anyone who thinks theyre qualified. our physics teacher told us that there is no such thing as centifugal force. he said that when something spins, the force is pulling inward, so it's actually centripedal force. now, if centripedal force exists, and every force has an equal and opposite force, how can centrifugal force not exist?
| the_mariska wrote: |
| SkullPizza wrote: | | If anyone has trouble understanding anything I typed please feel free to ask or send me a pm. I am a chemistry major and I hope to teach someday so it'll be good practice. |
Well, I must admit that this cleared up my mind a bit, but I'm not an native in English so it wasn't too easy to read. I got a few questions:
1. Why knowing the position of a particle we don't know its velocity? I've been taught this in school but no one ever explained me why it is that way.
2. Do you mean that in the black holes particles and antiparticles simply come into existence made of energy? I've heard only about the opposite process, and I'm confused now ;)
3. I've heard somewhere that though nothing can escape from a black hole, it gives out radiation and some kind of waves that can be detected by a radiotelescope. Is that true? If so, how is this possible?
Damn, I feel so uneducated and stupid now :P |
1. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. A google search for this term will show you lots of interesting tutorials, save me explaining. Very easy to find.
2. I'm not sure about black holes and gamma radiation degradation.
3. Except gravitons. Gravitons are the messenger radiation from gravity i.e. the gravity field is emitted by black holes. Best way of seing the gravity field is to see how stars are getting sucked or moved by strong forces of gravity.I believe that the "universe" has existed forever. It was never created, it has just always been. And not necessarily that is has "always been" because that uses the dynamic of time, which I think is irrelavent because we create time in our heads, but the universe just IS. That is pretty vague but is meant to say that the universe has always been the universe.
This is the most logical explanation I can come up with, but only because I have no evidence to contest it. If anyone can give me scientific information to throw that idea out of the window, please let me know. Thanks.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| 1. Why knowing the position of a particle we don't know its velocity? I've been taught this in school but no one ever explained me why it is that way. |
There were experiments done where you would have a particle in a definate fixed state(sitting still) and two measurements were taken of the particle. One of the momentum and another of the position. Under these conditions it was theorized that the readings should be almost identical. they never were. this was thought to be due to the fact that the apparatus used to take the measurements was not infinitley precise. Heisenburg theorized that this was not just because our testing devices were not accurate enough but an inherent characteristic of the universe.
This finding seemed to partially explain wave-particle duality.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| 2. Do you mean that in the black holes particles and antiparticles simply come into existence made of energy? I've heard only about the opposite process, and I'm confused now |
I'm not sure what you mean.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| 3. I've heard somewhere that though nothing can escape from a black hole, it gives out radiation and some kind of waves that can be detected by a radiotelescope. Is that true? If so, how is this possible?Damn, I feel so uneducated and stupid now |
Another way to describe how things escape from the black hole is to think about the uncertainty priciple in another way. Think if a photon gets trapped inside the black hole the chance of it's position being within the event horizon 99.99999...% - but it is not 100%.(This is because the uncertainty principle does not allow for exact measurements of anything to be possible.) So therefore there is a 0.0000.....00001% chance that it is outside the event horizon. Given enough time that probability will occur and once it does the photon is outside of the event horizon and escapes the gravitational field of the black hole.I would just like to say that we place way to much trust in modern theories...For example, back in the day people thought the earth was flat, then they were proved wrong. Then we figured that the earth was the center of the universe...wrong again. The "laws" of thermodynamics are fine and dandy, but these laws are derived from natural observations and mathematics (which man developed). It is only a law because it has not been proven wrong.
| silvermesh wrote: |
| I have a physics question for anyone who thinks theyre qualified. our physics teacher told us that there is no such thing as centifugal force. he said that when something spins, the force is pulling inward, so it's actually centripedal force. now, if centripedal force exists, and every force has an equal and opposite force, how can centrifugal force not exist? |
This is one of those topics that confuses students from day one. I would hope, unless I am mistaken, that your teacher only told you this so that you consider the correct direction when working physics problems. Often we use our logic to solve a physics problem and our logic is wrong. When swinging a ball around on a string, we feel the the string pulling away from us due to the centrifugal force in the string, so when we set up the problem we assume the force is away from the center of the circle. This however is incorrect. We are applying a force toward the center of the circle to get the ball to swing around in the first place and therefore the force we feel pulling away is the reaction to the centripetal force. However, the centrifugal force would not exist if there was no centripetal force to cause it. So, you are correct. | seodfac wrote: |
| I would just like to say that we place way to much trust in modern theories...For example, back in the day people thought the earth was flat, then they were proved wrong. Then we figured that the earth was the center of the universe...wrong again. The "laws" of thermodynamics are fine and dandy, but these laws are derived from natural observations and mathematics (which man developed). It is only a law because it has not been proven wrong. |
In science nothing is proven and all is suspect ideally.Time isn't real. It's a human made measurement of, well, time. Things exist, and change. The equal and opp reaction occures within our no time zone.
| izcool wrote: |
I've been thinking about the general rule with science where it is stated that "with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction".
Here are a couple of the things that I've been wondering about...
If we have black holes that suck time and matter out of the universe, can there be a white hole that releases time and matter into the universe ?
If we have time that runs fowards, is it possible that time can run backwards in other parts of space ?
Can anyone support these thoughts and add to it on what might exist ?
- Mike. |
yeah you think logical but we dont have anything to proof thatEverywhere, there is a balance.
When you have action, you get reaction.
You got protons and elektrons.
Therefore, for everything there MUST BE something opposite of it, in order to keep the balance.
THis basically means, that there must be an anti-jacob(thats my name)
An anti-skullpizza, etc...ALso for objects as well(i want to see the opposite of my cpu 
)
If you believe that "whiteholes" should exist, then the above should exist as well...
But who says that they don't?
They might just are inside a different dimention;
Think:THe black while, might have an other ending, a place where all the matter(and light) goes.In that place, it will be a white hole, doing the exact opposite of what they do here.Why not?
We might one day manage to travel back in time,or even forward in time...
WE Will be able to measure time.
One friend of mine, said"time traveling is impossible, because time isn't measurable"OPEN YOUR MIND
Nothing is, but we can.E.G. if we created a machine, than could create, "windows" to other times, even places, then we could measure time, with somethng like this:by applying 1000000MW we go back in time 1Year, 10years=10000000MW etc...
Imagine a universe, where time goes backwards .
LoL
How about the theory, that suggests that if one day, someone fully understands the universe, then the universe will be automatically destroyed, and be replaced, by an other one more complicated...(some say that this has already happened more than one times...) If you're referring to Time Machines that would act as "going back in time" like "Backwards universes", I would say that they wouldn't exist in our history, becuase if someone from the future shown up today, then we would have known they existed.
Just think - male, the equal but opposite is female.
White, the opposite is black.
Up and down.
..And so on.
I figured that if there was a universe that runs forwards (our own), there must be an equal but opposite one to our's that runs backwards.
Almost anything is possible. Just wondered if it could be supported with facts and figures.
- Mike.
| izcool wrote: |
I've been thinking about the general rule with science where it is stated that "with every action there is an equal but opposite reaction".
Here are a couple of the things that I've been wondering about...
If we have black holes that suck time and matter out of the universe, can there be a white hole that releases time and matter into the universe ?
If we have time that runs fowards, is it possible that time can run backwards in other parts of space ?
Can anyone support these thoughts and add to it on what might exist ?
- Mike. |
There is no such thing as time, there is just what is.
Yes there are white holes.The closest theory that I can think of to support this hypothisis is a famous experiment that took place in oxford? in the early 1900's. (please forgive me for not remembering exact details) yet the experiment went something like this:
they wanted to prove the existence of proton particles and thier relationship with each other????
but what it consisted of is isolating protons and projecting thier "shadows" on to a screen. when they ran the experiment the first time the results where as expected: a shadow from the protons resulting in wavy lines.
next they isolated one proton?? and casted its shadow on the screen. the result was unexpected and resulted in many wavy lines. a conclusion to this experiment is that perhaps the proton where interacting with protons in a slightly different "time" phase or dimension as our own.
so that there would be a universe completely exactly as this one; yet one proton different. and from that universe is a universe like the second yet one proton different...all the way to where there is a universe that has completley different protons from this universe.
Within this theory then all things can be a reality...
now allowing for for interactions among very similiar universes with "every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" this reaction can be played out in an infinate number of resulting universes; such that the results are not always measurable in this universe but yet still has an effect upon us...
just a thought...
any more details on this experiment would be helpful .. .my memory is getting foggy
| izcool wrote: |
| igor123d wrote: | | Nevertheless, matter cannot be created out of nothing therefore it is impossible for the opposite of Black holes to exist as you have described them. |
How is it possible that the universe was created then - to support The Big Bang Theory, if you cannot create things from nothing ? |
My understanding of the Big Bang Theory is not that all that matter of the universe banged out BIG from nothing, but that all that matter was actually already in existence, albeit extremely small and close together (dense).
It may be difficult to believe that all matter of the universe was that compact, but proving this to yourself seems easier than proving to yourself that it came from nothing. Would you not agree?
So, let's consider the concept of "small". One approach I would offer is to gain a better understanding of how matter -- in general -- can be more compact sometimes and less compact other times. In your study, start with much easier cases of matter expanding and contracting. Then, once you have some of those physics principles down, I think the Big Bang super duper dense point will begin to make more sense. | silvermesh wrote: |
| I have a physics question for anyone who thinks theyre qualified. our physics teacher told us that there is no such thing as centifugal force. he said that when something spins, the force is pulling inward, so it's actually centripedal force. now, if centripedal force exists, and every force has an equal and opposite force, how can centrifugal force not exist? |
It is true that there is no centrifugal force. The force you feel when swinging a ball in a string is actually the intertia of the ball. As you know from newtonian physics, any object remain in its current state unless an external force is applied. Thus, the ball at any given moment has a movement vector (direction and speed) and if you cut the wire the ball would continue in the vector it had the instant the wire was cut.
To spin the ball in a circle around you, you constantly have to accelerate it in a curving motion to eventually descibe full circles. It is this acceleration that you exert on the ball (centripetal force) that gives the illusion of a centrifugal force.
