Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineApexNightmare
Retired Psychonaut
Male


Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1,075
Loc: Netherrealm
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place?
    #22443146 - 10/28/15 02:27 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I understand that much about astrophysics is theoretical, but maybe someone has a better understanding than I do.

How can a black hole have gravity so strong that light can't escape, yet a star can have the same mass and still burn and be as large as they are without collapsing upon reaching that X amount of mass needed to become a black hole? 

Side question, if the Big Bang was all matter condensed into a singularity, wouldn't that be a black hole? If so, how did it expand? How long was it a singularity before it expanded?

I don't expect clear answers, but I do love hearing people's own theories and the latest research finds on the topic. Got to love physics.


--------------------
Psychedelics experienced:
LSD, Mushrooms, LSA, THC, Salvia Divinorum, DMT



Edited by ApexNightmare (10/28/15 02:39 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: ApexNightmare]
    #22443197 - 10/28/15 02:50 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

It's actually quite simple.

It has everything to do with mass per volume (think: inverse squared when it comes to distance).

The Earth would become a black hole if it were compressed to the size of a pea.

Black holes are formed when the center of a very massive star collapses in on itself.

This causes lots of heat, plasma and who knows what else right before it rips a fucking hole in space-time :V



EDIT: To add an analogy I just remembered from a book (not sure how intuitive inverse squared is)

Picture space-time (of which gravity is part) as a sheet suspended in air. Now think of the planets as pool balls on that sheet. They make a dent in it, curving space-time and this curvature is representative of gravity.

Now picture the sun as a giant bowling ball that gets really hot and collapses and burns a hole right through the sheet with molten plasma. Okay, I'm not quite sure that's how it went but basically that's the idea :V


Also, no -- the singularity could not have been a black hole since that was the universe. A hole would require space, and there was none. This isn't to say it couldn't have been CAUSED by black holes with gravitational attraction to one another.


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Edited by micro (10/28/15 02:58 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineApexNightmare
Retired Psychonaut
Male


Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1,075
Loc: Netherrealm
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22443264 - 10/28/15 03:21 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Ah I see. I don't know why that didn't click in my head haha. I guess I just found it odd that two things could have the same total mass but one doesn't suck light in :p

Let me put it this way then. If you kept adding dirt to earth until it was millions of times it's size, at what point would it just collapse into a black hole? Or would it even do that?

And if the entire universe was there at the beginning, doesn't that mean time was there with it? Isn't space expanding faster than the universe anyway? I'm thinking about this all wrong maybe.


--------------------
Psychedelics experienced:
LSD, Mushrooms, LSA, THC, Salvia Divinorum, DMT



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: ApexNightmare]
    #22443550 - 10/28/15 07:11 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ApexNightmare said:
Let me put it this way then. If you kept adding dirt to earth until it was millions of times it's size, at what point would it just collapse into a black hole? Or would it even do that?




It will if it ever reaches the Schwarzschild Radius.

Quote:

ApexNightmare said:
And if the entire universe was there at the beginning, doesn't that mean time was there with it? Isn't space expanding faster than the universe anyway? I'm thinking about this all wrong maybe.




Space is time, and both are expanding at about the speed of light, last I checked.

Space itself is expanding (however much nothing can expand) but this can be seen via red and blue shifts in visible light (indicating something is moving fast away, or toward us, respectively.) It can also be seen by the Hubble Effect.


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22446745 - 10/28/15 09:25 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

micro said:
Space is time, and both are expanding at about the speed of light, last I checked.





That is a little too extreme of a statement I think.  They are related, but certainly are not the same.  They have different fundamental units.  Space has the dimension of length and unit of meter.  Time has the dimension of... time... and has the unit of second.  Also, the space-time metric has a different sign in front of the spacial components than it does in front of the time component.  And of course our experience of time vs space is quite different.

I'm not sure where you checked.  According to wikipedia the radius of the observable universe is about 50 billion light years.  At only 14 billion years old that makes the expansion of space faster than the speed of light.  This makes sense because when space itself expands the speed of that expansion is proportional to the distance between two points.  Two points near each other expand slowly, two point apart from each other expand quickly.  Two points on opposite ends of the universe expand away from each other very quickly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: DieCommie]
    #22447027 - 10/28/15 10:25 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

ok, I'll try to explain this

a metric is arbitrary so units have no relevance

saying time is not the same as space is like saying up is not the same as sideways

(or whatever; two perpendicular axes. it is all relative)

yes, space and time are the same thing and time is said to be a fourth dimension in addition to three spacial ones

i won't go so far as to say gravity is another dimension but this has been hypothesized

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I'm not sure where you checked.




i've been reading about this stuff for decades... :rolleyes:

Quote:

According to wikipedia the radius of the observable universe is about 50 billion light years.  At only 14 billion years old that makes the expansion of space faster than the speed of light.  This makes sense because when space itself expands the speed of that expansion is proportional to the distance between two points.  Two points near each other expand slowly, two point apart from each other expand quickly.  Two points on opposite ends of the universe expand away from each other very quickly.




right after the big bang, the universe was expanding at a much faster pace

it is thought to have slowed down significantly but some physicists think it is speeding up

regardless, notice that refers to the *observable universe*

radius doesn't even make sense since the universe isn't a sphere; it's a torus

still, you can't look at the average by dividing distance by the years

waaaay too much happened in the first couple minutes, let alone right after that


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheMaster
PATIENCE


Registered: 07/13/13
Posts: 705
Loc: Earth
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22447429 - 10/29/15 12:24 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Most of cosmology is an educated guess. Its very basis assumes that the universe is homogeneous and our location within it is random. Every single observation we have is old news due to observed distances light must have traveled prior to reaching us. Without more observation points we are just speculating when it comes to the universe's dimensions.

For all we know the universe has already begun decelerating towards a big crunch, or we could just happen to be in a special location. Our current observations can easily be explained with an alternate theory. We could also be in the center of an expanding region of spacetime. This notion breaks the first assumption though, so it isn't a popular topic.

To address the OP...
Put simply, the main reason a massive star does not just form a black hole is that the outward pressure created by fusion at the core is balanced by the inward pressure due to gravity.

The inherent stability of matter, stars, and neutron stars, are explained by the Pauli exclusion principle. Pauli's principle explains a great deal of our physical realm's properties actually.
What actually takes place beyond the event horizon is speculation. The singularity is an artifact of equations that we know break down in the quantum realm. Why should we assume that a singularity truely exists? An exotic degenerate matter, denser than neutronium, intuitively makes more sense to me.

Quoted (shamelessly) from wikipedia in regards to astrophysical application of the Pauli principle.

"Dyson and Lenard did not consider the extreme magnetic or gravitational forces which occur in some astronomical objects. In 1995 Elliott Lieb and coworkers showed that the Pauli principle still leads to stability in intense magnetic fields such as in neutron stars, although at a much higher density than in ordinary matter.[14] It is a consequence of general relativity that, in sufficiently intense gravitational fields, matter collapses to form a black hole.Astronomy provides a spectacular demonstration of the effect of the Pauli principle, in the form of white dwarf and neutron stars. In both types of body, atomic structure is disrupted by large gravitational forces, leaving the constituents supported by "degeneracy pressure" alone. This exotic form of matter is known as degenerate matter. In white dwarfs atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure. In neutron stars, subject to even stronger gravitational forces, electrons have merged with protons to form neutrons. Neutrons are capable of producing an even higher degeneracy pressure, albeit over a shorter range. This can stabilize neutron stars from further collapse, but at a smaller size and higher density than a white dwarf. Neutrons are the most "rigid" objects known; their Young modulus(or more accurately, bulk modulus) is 20 orders of magnitude larger than that of diamond. However, even this enormous rigidity can be overcome by the gravitational field of a massive star or by the pressure of a supernova, leading to the formation of a black hole.[15]:286–287 "


--------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." Mahatma Gandhi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: TheMaster] * 1
    #22447600 - 10/29/15 01:49 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

TheMaster said:
Most of cosmology is an educated guess.
...

For all we know the universe has already begun decelerating towards a big crunch, or we could just happen to be in a special location. Our current observations can easily be explained with an alternate theory. We could also be in the center of an expanding region of spacetime. This notion breaks the first assumption though, so it isn't a popular topic.




We aren't talking about reaching into the vasts depths of space to measure something like the Hubble Effect or even red/blue shift. Also, the fact that we *do* see very old light enables us to see and actually measure empirical data coming from the Early Universe. Yes, these are theories but they are certainly not "guesses." We can also clearly derive the rate of expansion by looking at average mass and energy density. Although, I definitely agree making any future predictions is speculation.

Scientists (i.e. not writers) are very good about saying when something is speculative, since they don't want to look like an idiot in front of their peers (not to mention never get taken seriously or published in any credible journal).


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheMaster
PATIENCE


Registered: 07/13/13
Posts: 705
Loc: Earth
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22447677 - 10/29/15 02:43 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

micro said:
We aren't talking about reaching into the vasts depths of space to measure something like the Hubble Effect or even red/blue shift. Also, the fact that we *do* see very old light enables us to see and actually measure empirical data coming from the Early Universe. Yes, these are theories but they are certainly not "guesses." We can also clearly derive the rate of expansion by looking at average mass and energy density. Although, I definitely agree making any future predictions is speculation.




Except you were talking about just that..
Quote:

micro said:
Space is time, and both are expanding at about the speed of light, last I checked.Space itself is expanding (however much nothing can expand) but this can be seen via red and blue shifts in visible light (indicating something is moving fast away, or toward us, respectively.) It can also be seen by the Hubble Effect.




Take off the blinders and put on a philosophy cap. The very foundation of modern cosmology requires homogeneity and isotropy. These are assumptions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

Also, as I already stated, every bit of data we collect is outdated. The only way to have a true picture of the universe is to simultaneously make observations billions of light years apart. Scientists, like myself, realize these limitations and are forced to make assumptions so everything fits in a nice tidy box.

The speed of light? Yeah, that's constant for now, and the brief amount of time it has been determined by man with precision. Except, what if we observe a change, then what? Every bit of cosmology rests on assumptions like this, so it is incredibly pompous to pretend like we have it all figured out. Extremely educated, but guesses nonetheless.


--------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." Mahatma Gandhi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: TheMaster]
    #22449694 - 10/29/15 03:36 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

I wasn't talking about future predictions.

Don't take what I write out of context and feel free to read it again.

What happened in the very early universe is speculative and making future predictions is speculative.

Saying expansion is speculation is incorrect.

We have measurable empirical PROOF that:

a.) The Milky Way galaxy is expanding
b.) The entire universe is expanding

The redshift of distant galaxies are proportional to their distance from us.

We have known this stuff since like... 1912

Unless I'm wrong in what you think is speculation.

Quote:

Also, as I already stated, every bit of data we collect is outdated.




And I already addressed this.

In something like cosmology, where you are studying the origin of the universe, outdated is a *good* thing. If we only had *new* information, well, that could be neat as far as finding intelligent life but does virtually nothing in terms of studying the history of the universe. We can see some of the most distant parts of the universe thanks to modern telescopes.

What do you study, out of curiosity?


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22450515 - 10/29/15 06:49 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

micro said:
ok, I'll try to explain this

a metric is arbitrary so units have no relevance

saying time is not the same as space is like saying up is not the same as sideways

(or whatever; two perpendicular axes. it is all relative)

yes, space and time are the same thing and time is said to be a fourth dimension in addition to three spacial ones





The space-time metric is not arbitrary...  You can formulate it different ways (with time negative or with space negative), but you can not just make up anything and expect it to work.  Space is not like time.  They are related, but distinctly different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Minkowski_metric

You say you have been studying this for "decades", but any old freshman level university physics text will clearly show the space-time interval with a different sign in front of the spatial components than the temporal component.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_intervals


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: DieCommie]
    #22450665 - 10/29/15 07:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
What is a metric?




Oh, well! I'm so glad you asked.

Let me look it up for you:

met·ric1
/ˈmetrik/

n. a system or standard of measurement.

Quote:

You say you have been studying this for "decades", but any old freshman level university physics text will clearly show the space-time interval with a different sign in front of the spatial components than the temporal component.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_intervals




Thanks for proving my point.

I wasn't referring to any *specific* metric, but I'm glad you pointed one out that was made solely for the purpose of incorporating time into spacial dimensions, since time and space coexist. Kinda like everything I was saying in the part you quoted :rolleyes:

gg.

I also think I said 'reading.'

Studying would imply something further than reading books.


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22450696 - 10/29/15 07:34 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I wasn't referring to any *specific* metric...




You didn't bring it up... I did.  I called it the space-time metric.  Its simple.

I looks like you are just being defensive in the face of being wrong.  :shrug:


All spaces have a metric tensor.  People who have studied this stuff for decades (rather than just reading about it) often just call them a "metric" for short...  Space and time are not the same, as explicitly shown by the difference of the components in the space-time metric.  If they were the same you would not get lorentz invariance and you would not get time dilation, length contraction or the relativity of simultaneity.


Edited by DieCommie (10/29/15 07:44 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: DieCommie]
    #22450910 - 10/29/15 08:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

wow, dude

all this for backpedaling

most intelligent people know what a metric is

you still need some kind of unit to measure anything, this was my point

duh

all this should really fall into the "no shit" category

sorry you didn't understand what a metric was :shrug:


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheMaster
PATIENCE


Registered: 07/13/13
Posts: 705
Loc: Earth
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22452048 - 10/30/15 02:01 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

micro said:
I wasn't talking about future predictions.

Don't take what I write out of context and feel free to read it again.




When did I imply you were? I merely pointed out that there are quite a few assumptions that all of these ideas are based on.
Quote:

micro said:
What happened in the very early universe is speculative and making future predictions is speculative.

Saying expansion is speculation is incorrect.




I never said that the expansion of the universe was based on speculation, I said, " without more observation points we are just speculating when it comes to the universe's dimensions."

Do you understand what this implies? The cosmological principle requires homogeneity and isotropy. Yes, it appears that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. That is how the universe appears to us, and we assume that it would look the same to someone on the other side of the universe. We will never know unless data is collected from multiple vantage points.
See here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lema%C3%AEtre-Robertson-Walker_metric
Syksy Räsänen has a nice powepoint linked below. I mentioned some of his ideas earlier regarding the possibilty of our location within the universe being unique.
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/lin/seminar_theory/talks/Talk_Buchert_260514.pptx
Quote:

micro said:
We have measurable empirical PROOF that:

a.) The Milky Way galaxy is expanding
b.) The entire universe is expanding





a. No, the milky way galaxy is not expanding
b. It appears that the universe is expanding and that the expansion rate is accelerating

Quote:

micro said:
The redshift of distant galaxies are proportional to their distance from us.

We have known this stuff since like... 1912




Lemaître derived the basic theory for Hubble's law from general relativity in 1922. Hubble didn't put it all together until the early 1930s.

When Hubble wanted to explain his observations, this is what he wrote to Willem de Sitter, " Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority."

You see what he did there? "'Apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation". How one interprets one's data is vital and requires assumptions be made in the process. It also requires that you choose your words carefully. It is still just one possible explanation of our observations. Even if we could travel billions of light years, make observations, and piece it all together we still would not have a complete picture of the universe. It would be a better approximation though.
Quote:

micro said:
Unless I'm wrong in what you think is speculation.




It would seem so. You said the universe is the shape of a torus. That is speculation. You can not prove the shape of the universe without making observation from hugely different vantage points.
Again, this would not really be proof either. Just a better approximation. It seems Laplace's demon just won't go away.
Quote:

micro said:
Quote:

TheMaster said: Also, as I already stated, every bit of data we collect is outdated.




And I already addressed this.

In something like cosmology, where you are studying the origin of the universe, outdated is a *good* thing. If we only had *new* information, well, that could be neat as far as finding intelligent life but does virtually nothing in terms of studying the history of the universe. We can see some of the most distant parts of the universe thanks to modern telescopes.

What do you study, out of curiosity?




I realize you have a basic understanding of this topic so I'm trying to impress on you the importance of communicating science effectively. Making overarching statements improperly only hurts those without a clue and makes you look like you haven't one either to those that do.

New information would tell us the status quo of the universe and not some ancient picture. Don't get me wrong, the ancient data is great. Except, cosmic models depend on empirical data to guide them, and we don't have current data for galaxies that are billions of light years away. We assume that these galaxies are still accelerating away from us and we assume that the speed of light is the same now as it was then. The list goes on and on. Just look at how the observed value of the Hubble constant "changes". As far as constants go, it's pretty shitty.


--------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." Mahatma Gandhi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: TheMaster]
    #22453867 - 10/30/15 02:41 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

TheMaster said:
When did I imply you were? I merely pointed out that there are quite a few assumptions that all of these ideas are based on.




oic, i misinterpreted then

Quote:

I never said that the expansion of the universe was based on speculation, I said, " without more observation points we are just speculating when it comes to the universe's dimensions."

Do you understand what this implies? The cosmological principle requires homogeneity and isotropy. Yes, it appears that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. That is how the universe appears to us, and we assume that it would look the same to someone on the other side of the universe. We will never know unless data is collected from multiple vantage points.




Homogeneity and isotropy can be found at large scales. If all of space is able to be observed from one vantage point, any region a certain distance away from us should be in the same stage of development. Since we can now observe cosmic microwave radiation in striking detail we have a good picture of the early universe. The universe does not need complete symmetry anyway due to quantum fluctuations and effects from the probable metastable state of the very early universe.

Quote:

Syksy Räsänen has a nice powepoint linked below. I mentioned some of his ideas earlier regarding the possibilty of our location within the universe being unique.
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/lin/seminar_theory/talks/Talk_Buchert_260514.pptx




Thanks! I only skimmed through it; I'm assuming it describes possible geometries of the universe that account for deviations from the model? I know I've read some stuff regarding similar topology.

Quote:

a. No, the milky way galaxy is not expanding
b. It appears that the universe is expanding and that the expansion rate is accelerating




a. Yes, you are right, that was poorly worded on my part and it's because of something I read while fact-checking. I interpreted it as "the space it occupies" but it doesn't read that way. With all the dark matter, etc. the individual bodies are not moving away from one another.

Quote:

When Hubble wanted to explain his observations, this is what he wrote to Willem de Sitter, " Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority."

You see what he did there? "'Apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation". How one interprets one's data is vital and requires assumptions be made in the process. It also requires that you choose your words carefully. It is still just one possible explanation of our observations. Even if we could travel billions of light years, make observations, and piece it all together we still would not have a complete picture of the universe. It would be a better approximation though.




Well, at the time he was the only one observing it. Once data can be replicated it's no longer under scrutiny for subjective bias.

I'm not sure where you are headed with the whole isotropy thing. Is it the possible geometry of the universe we can't differentiate? Wouldn't we need to exist in more dimensions to actually observe everything in the first place?

Quote:

It would seem so. You said the universe is the shape of a torus. That is speculation. You can not prove the shape of the universe without making observation from hugely different vantage points.




Well, okay -- a torus, cone, flat, buckyball, whatever, my point was radius didn't make sense and I don't think the universe is a sphere. I'm not going to assert any specific geometry however, aside from "not sphere."

Quote:

I realize you have a basic understanding of this topic so I'm trying to impress on you the importance of communicating science effectively. Making overarching statements improperly only hurts those without a clue and makes you look like you haven't one either to those that do.




I'm not very good walking on eggshells.

Besides, it tends to go against my style of writing.

I don't qualify my statements with every possible degree of certainty.

I tend to be objective but for certain things I can get pretty opinionated.

Quote:

New information would tell us the status quo of the universe and not some ancient picture. Don't get me wrong, the ancient data is great. Except, cosmic models depend on empirical data to guide them, and we don't have current data for galaxies that are billions of light years away. We assume that these galaxies are still accelerating away from us and we assume that the speed of light is the same now as it was then. The list goes on and on. Just look at how the observed value of the Hubble constant "changes". As far as constants go, it's pretty shitty.




As far as constants, c has probably changed over time as well. We have a good cross section: the entire sky at various distances with respect to its history. While we may need a different vantage point to agree on a geometry, we have enough data to make many assertions about space and inflation, and even what happened in the early universe. Also, I thought the Hubble constant changing was just because of a better interpretation of data we have received?

I think enough has already fallen into place to show it is substantial. There are a few things that need ironed out but that is no huge surprise; we don't even know what makes up 70% of the mass.


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTheMaster
PATIENCE


Registered: 07/13/13
Posts: 705
Loc: Earth
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: micro]
    #22454253 - 10/30/15 04:21 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Its akin to being a fish in the ocean. The fish will never know the shape of the ocean without exploring its depths and traveling to the very edge of every shore. Once there it can go no further though and has no clue what is going on somehwere else at that moment.

We are like the fish, but we do not have the luxury of traveling the ocean's (universe) expanse. We swim in our tiny corner of the cosmos and assume there's nothing special about it.  The unfortunate truth is that one would have to exist outside our universe to fully describe it.


--------------------
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." Mahatma Gandhi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemicro
bunbun has a gungun
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/09/03
Posts: 7,532
Loc: Brick City Flag
Re: If a star has the mass to become a black hole, why didn't it become a black hole in the first place? [Re: TheMaster]
    #22454345 - 10/30/15 04:43 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

That's kind of what I was getting at when I said "exist in more dimensions." In order to observe the universe outside of it we would need to exist in at least the same spacial and temporal dimensions it does, plus at least one other spacial dimension. Then again, I think if that were the case there would be a good chance it would appear nearly infinitely small...


--------------------
Any research paper or book for free
(Avatar is Maxxy, a character by Mizzyam, RIP)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* I wonder what the black stuff/space is made off. Fliquid 1,851 13 03/06/03 02:28 AM
by TheHateCamel
* Mass Media Storage? EffedS 1,386 18 08/22/03 09:00 PM
by wingnutx
* Zone Alarm vs. Black Ice
( 1 2 all )
Lana 8,001 30 02/09/03 04:48 AM
by skabbo
* Is a time machine possible?
( 1 2 all )
daba 4,607 28 12/08/03 12:43 PM
by cyrus
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,495 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* The boundary of informational compression whiterasta 1,011 5 08/19/03 11:44 PM
by monoamine
* Alien Spacecraft Unveiled Static 1,787 19 07/08/03 11:27 PM
by ExtravagantDream
* Big Bang Theory Put To Test Jackal 957 6 06/19/03 08:18 PM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
843 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.