The Cycle of the Universe

[Sai Samarth]

This is how I think our Universe was created and how it will be destoryed. Please read fully to understand completely. And if you have any objections with this theory, please be free to comment or contact me.

Albert Einstein first, then many other scientists believed that black holes bend the fabric of space-time a lot, causing time to slow down near one.  That's what many people believe. But, if Einstein is correct and time stops just before the event horizon of a black hole, then any body just before the event horizon will freeze in time for outside observers, but it will  run normally for that body. If that body was a person, he would experience the next trillions of years, or maybe infinite years until the universe dies or the black hole which he is consumed by vaporises in a jiffy, in precisely no time. So, if there is an end to our universe, then that person will be present during the birth of the new universe. All I mean to say is, whatever mass a black hole sucks in, it stores that mass in time, keeping it frozen in time. So one day, when the universe will stop expanding, black holes will start consuming everything and other black holes too there will be one final super massive black hole, which is holding all of the universes mass in time. Then when it vaporises, or collapses on its own, all the matter which is frozen in time will come out in the form of an explosion , a creation of a new universe, a big bang. So, if a human enter's a black hole, he will feel like no time passed, but will see a new universe being born. ( If he is alive, because his body will be ripped in atoms). In a simple way, " Black Holes consume and then stores matter frozen in time, and later on releases all the matter when it dies. When it releases all the matter, a new universe is born.". Therefore, I conclude that black holes create and destroy the universe by holding and releasing matter by freezing all stored matter in time, making the matter's clock to freeze, or never tick.

[Mak the Night]

The only problem with Black Holes is that I can't see them with my Mak.

[Sai Samarth]

Its obvious you can't see it through a spotting scope or a normal telescope, because they are very dim and require highly sophisticated telescopes. But that is to my point, my point is about how the universe was created and what happens in a black hole... the relation between them.

 

[Ravenous]

Do you have any evidence?

[Mak the Night]

I dunno, it beats me, I think you can go mad trying to contemplate the universe and any perception of its ontological existential presence through the process of analysing what may or may not happen in a quantum singularity such as a Black Hole.

I can't see any Black Holes with my 90mm Mak, maybe with the 235mm SCT I'm getting in a few days. I'd probably need a Singularity Filter though. I bet Lumicon charge the Earth for theirs. I think Dave in Vermont has one of those filters. I bet Baader do one half the price and just as good, plus it will definitely fit my WO diagonal, that's more than can be said for the Lumicons!

Orion probably do a Singularity filter too, but I bet it's just an overpriced rebadged GSO.

[Sai Samarth]

This is a theory and so I don't have full evidence, but I have gathered data from websites, and then formulated my theory. These are the following websites :-

1. http://functionspace.com/topic/848/How-does-time-behave-near-a-black-hole--

2.http://www.livescience.com/19683-happen-fall-black-hole.html

[Ravenous]

14 hours ago, Mak the Night said:

 ...I bet Baader do one half the price and just as good, plus it will definitely fit my WO diagonal, that's more than can be said for the Lumicons!

Ah, the Baader Singularity Filter. It's a great buy, but only half as good as the full Lumicon one.  You can see either the quantum effects or the relativity effects but not both at the same time.  

[Mak the Night]

32 minutes ago, Ravenous said:

Ah, the Baader Singularity Filter. It's a great buy, but only half as good as the full Lumicon one.  You can see either the quantum effects or the relativity effects but not both at the same time.  

I suppose that's why those Lumicons are so expensive! It's all relative though.

[Ravenous]

16 hours ago, Sai Samarth said:

Black Holes consume and then stores matter frozen in time, and later on releases all the matter when it dies.    (snipped)

Isn't this just saying that matter (and energy) are conserved, which we more or less knew anyway?

[symesie04]

17 hours ago, Sai Samarth said:

So one day, when the universe will stop expanding, black holes will start consuming everything and other black holes too there will be one final super massive black hole, which is holding all of the universes mass in time. 

Why do you assume the Universe will stop expanding? Current observations indicate that not only is the Universe continuing in its expansion but is actually speeding up in its rate of expansion. Hence the general consensus at the moment is that the Universe will have a very dark cold ending. Although we all kinda like the continuous big bang big crunch theory current evidence disagrees with the theory.

[Sai Samarth]

45 minutes ago, symesie04 said:

Why do you assume the Universe will stop expanding? Current observations indicate that not only is the Universe continuing in its expansion but is actually speeding up in its rate of expansion. Hence the general consensus at the moment is that the Universe will have a very dark cold ending. Although we all kinda like the continuous big bang big crunch theory current evidence disagrees with the theory.

Well, if you dont think our Universe will stop expanding, then how is our Universe formed? Cycles need to take place, or a new universe cant be created. I think a some point , many the universe will stop expanding ( maybe because dark energy will be exhausted ) or one massive singularity will be created containing all of universes mass and its gravity, will be stronger than the universes expansion. Or else, how can you explain the birth of our universe?

[Sai Samarth]

1 hour ago, Ravenous said:

Isn't this just saying that matter (and energy) are conserved, which we more or less knew anyway?

Yes. But take a situation in which, a mass of Uranium ( whichever isotope ) or any radioactive element thrown or sent in a black hole. As it reaches the event horizon, its time stops. So it never decays or never attains half life. I am meaning to say, mass in a black hole has no progress in time, until the universe dies or the black hole vaporises. 

[Ravenous]

15 minutes ago, Sai Samarth said:

Yes. But take a situation in which, a mass of Uranium ( whichever isotope ) or any radioactive element thrown or sent in a black hole. As it reaches the event horizon, its time stops. So it never decays or never attains half life. I am meaning to say, mass in a black hole has no progress in time, until the universe dies or the black hole vaporises. 

Right but anything in a dense gravitational field has a slower "clock" compared to the surroundings. That doesn't necessarily explain where the universe came from.

[psamathe]

2 hours ago, symesie04 said:

Why do you assume the Universe will stop expanding? Current observations indicate that not only is the Universe continuing in its expansion but is actually speeding up in its rate of expansion. Hence the general consensus at the moment is that the Universe will have a very dark cold ending. Although we all kinda like the continuous big bang big crunch theory current evidence disagrees with the theory.

Personally I think we do not yet understand enough to make any real statements about the expansion accelerating/decelerating continuing/slowing/etc.  The Universe has been through several "eras" and it is only in the last 5bn years that dark energy has started to dominate.  Prior to that we would have been making very different statements about "the end of the Universe".  And given how little we understand about dark energy, it would seem a bit premature to assume its" era" will not be surpassed by some other era at some point in the future.

Of course I have absolutely no evidence that my thoughts are in any way valid.

Ian

[symesie04]

1 hour ago, psamathe said:

Personally I think we do not yet understand enough to make any real statements about the expansion accelerating/decelerating continuing/slowing/etc.  The Universe has been through several "eras" and it is only in the last 5bn years that dark energy has started to dominate.  Prior to that we would have been making very different statements about "the end of the Universe".  And given how little we understand about dark energy, it would seem a bit premature to assume its" era" will not be surpassed by some other era at some point in the future.

Of course I have absolutely no evidence that my thoughts are in any way valid.

Ian

Well i would say thats not correct. We do know that the Universe is currently accelerating in its expansion. We know its not slowing at this point in time or decreasing its expansion. With regards to the domination of dark energy it seems its sometimes taken to mean that before it dominated that the Universe was in reverse from its present state. That it was either decreasing or at best in a steady state. As i understand it it is more a case that the early universe was in a close to but not quite equilibrium state but its continued expansion and cooling allowed dark energy (which may or may not have been formed due to the continued expansion and cooling) to take stage and accelerate the expansion process. Observation and testing clearly show the Universe is expanding and accelerating in the process. We know that there is not enough matter (including dark matter) currently in the Universe to reverse this process. So unless there is a totally as yet unknown (and it is possible) process we can only project and model the future of our Universe based on current observations. To predict another scenario would require a immense amount of data, modelling and maths i would of thought as it would have to contradict what is currently being observed, and unless things have changed i believe it still stands that if it does not agree with observations it must be wrong right?

[Mak the Night]

3 hours ago, Sai Samarth said:

Well, if you dont think our Universe will stop expanding, then how is our Universe formed? Cycles need to take place, or a new universe cant be created. I think a some point , many the universe will stop expanding ( maybe because dark energy will be exhausted ) or one massive singularity will be created containing all of universes mass and its gravity, will be stronger than the universes expansion. Or else, how can you explain the birth of our universe?

‘Well, if you dont think our Universe will stop expanding, then how is our Universe formed?’

This question is not logical. There is no correlation between primal causality and any apparent ceasing of the expansion of the universe as a whole. The universe could expand infinitely or it could cease expanding and collapse in on itself due to entropy. Or it may do something entirely different. None of those three particular ultimate outcomes are necessarily predicated on the initial nature of the Big Bang with the knowledge available today. Evidence seems to be indicative that the universe is expanding rapidly with no slowing down.

‘Cycles need to take place, or a new universe cant be created.’

Again, this is conjecture, you are assuming the imperative that ‘cycles need to take place’ without actually producing any evidence to support this asseveration. As the universe is a unique event as far as anyone can tell it is a teleological assumption to claim anything new can or cannot be created, especially as it would essentially defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics anyway.

I think a some point , many the universe will stop expanding ( maybe because dark energy will be exhausted ) or one massive singularity will be created containing all of universes mass and its gravity, will be stronger than the universes expansion. Or else, how can you explain the birth of our universe?

The ‘birth of the universe’ can be roughly determined to the age of the observable evidence for the Big Bang. Anything else is surmising or inference on little or insufficient evidence.

[Mak the Night]

2 hours ago, Ravenous said:

Right but anything in a dense gravitational field has a slower "clock" compared to the surroundings. That doesn't necessarily explain where the universe came from.

I'm pretty sure the BIOS clock on my Win 7 machine is like that. lol

[psamathe]

4 minutes ago, symesie04 said:

Well i would say thats not correct. We do know that the Universe is currently accelerating in its expansion. We know its not slowing at this point in time or decreasing its expansion. With regards to the domination of dark energy it seems its sometimes taken to mean that before it dominated that the Universe was in reverse from its present state. That it was either decreasing or at best in a steady state. As i understand it it is more a case that the early universe was in a close to but not quite equilibrium state but its continued expansion and cooling allowed dark energy (which may or may not have been formed due to the continued expansion and cooling) to take stage and accelerate the expansion process. Observation and testing clearly show the Universe is expanding and accelerating in the process. We know that there is not enough matter (including dark matter) currently in the Universe to reverse this process. So unless there is a totally as yet unknown (and it is possible) process we can only project and model the future of our Universe based on current observations. To predict another scenario would require a immense amount of data, modelling and maths i would of thought as it would have to contradict what is currently being observed, and unless things have changed i believe it still stands that if it does not agree with observations it must be wrong right?

To my mind, we have no real idea what the process of dark energy is nor how it behaves  nor pretty much anything about it.  So to assume it is just going to continue as it is now when we really don't even understand what it is now is more guesswork.

So if whatever dark energy (which may or may not have been formed as the Universe cooled) came to dominate as the Universe cooled who is to say that further cooling will not change the behaviour of dark energy (as we believe it has already formed or changed significantly in the past).  So to me, I don't feel it safe to assume the current state of affairs will continue when we believe it has changed in the past.  Similarly, were we to predict the destiny of the Universe during its period of Inflation we would have been very confident of the outcome.  We have seen different eras where differenct factors dominatd so I can't see any reason for assuming we are at the end of the different eras.  So I would not feel happy predicting anything, neither that things will continue nor that they will change.  They have changed in the past (more than once).

e.g. before dark energy formed/predominated (say 9bn years ago) we would have been making very different predictions about how things would be based on the (now incorrect) assumptions about the expansion of the Universe (because dark energy had not formed or started to dominate).  Seems unsafe to assume where we are at now will continue unchanged.

Ian

[Sai Samarth]

On 10/05/2016 at 16:14, Ravenous said:

Right but anything in a dense gravitational field has a slower "clock" compared to the surroundings. That doesn't necessarily explain where the universe came from.

I also said a lot more things above, that say that black holes consume everything.... that leads to the destruction of the universe. But the main idea of my concept is what matter does inside a blackhole. More or less...

 

[Sai Samarth]

On 10/05/2016 at 19:02, Mak the Night said:

‘Well, if you dont think our Universe will stop expanding, then how is our Universe formed?’

This question is not logical. There is no correlation between primal causality and any apparent ceasing of the expansion of the universe as a whole. The universe could expand infinitely or it could cease expanding and collapse in on itself due to entropy. Or it may do something entirely different. None of those three particular ultimate outcomes are necessarily predicated on the initial nature of the Big Bang with the knowledge available today. Evidence seems to be indicative that the universe is expanding rapidly with no slowing down.

‘Cycles need to take place, or a new universe cant be created.’

Again, this is conjecture, you are assuming the imperative that ‘cycles need to take place’ without actually producing any evidence to support this asseveration. As the universe is a unique event as far as anyone can tell it is a teleological assumption to claim anything new can or cannot be created, especially as it would essentially defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics anyway.

I think a some point , many the universe will stop expanding ( maybe because dark energy will be exhausted ) or one massive singularity will be created containing all of universes mass and its gravity, will be stronger than the universes expansion. Or else, how can you explain the birth of our universe?

The ‘birth of the universe’ can be roughly determined to the age of the observable evidence for the Big Bang. Anything else is surmising or inference on little or insufficient evidence.

That's why I told, this is a theory.... Many scientists also believe that there are cycles for our universe. I do not have any hard evidence.... if you any or found some.. please share

 

[Mak the Night]

12 minutes ago, Sai Samarth said:

That's why I told, this is a theory.... Many scientists also believe that there are cycles for our universe. I do not have any hard evidence.... if you any or found some.. please share

 

A scientific theory has to have some plausibility and at least a certain amount of data though. A theory in idiomatic English is essentially a subjunctive. The noun itself is from Late Latin: theōria, ultimately from the Greek meaning a 'sight to gaze upon'.  Meaning something that can be objectively visualised. There is no evidence or data to support the concept that the universe isn't a unique event. There may well be cycles or phases, but it is a subjective belief and has no basis in observable reality.

[ollypenrice]

I think the OP should read a little more about what constitutes a theory in science. It is important to uderstand the difference between a theory and an hypothesis. It may also be useful to reflect upon the difference between one's own intellect and Einstein's.

[Uranium235]

And a bit more understanding of entropy and the arrow of time.... which (at the moment) pretty much points to a fizzling out of the universe after a very long time.... slightly depressing really... not that anybody is going to be around to see it though

 

[Mak the Night]

If I had the arrow of time I'd probably end up shooting myself in the foot with it! Lol

[Macavity]

On 5/12/2016 at 20:21, ollypenrice said:

I think the OP should read a little more about what constitutes a theory in science. It is important to uderstand the difference between a theory and an hypothesis. It may also be useful to reflect upon the difference between one's own intellect and Einstein's.

^^^ In a nutshell! Recently, I read Einstein was not THAT clever...
http://www.listsofnote.com/2012/04/einsteins-demands.html
So it was "Microwave Meals for ONE" from then on... Eh, Albert?