RocketMan on 30/3/2006 at 02:34

---

For super-massive galactic black holes, the tidal forces are very weak due to the mass of the hole taking up such a large volume (meaning the dirivative of gravitational accleration over radius is small). You could survive all the way to the singularity, if you don't count getting melted in the accretion disk, getting killed by x-rays or being sheared to pieces in the ergosphere :D

descenterace on 30/3/2006 at 18:37

---

What's so disturbing about quantum theory?



I've posted this a thousand times but it evidently bears repeating:

If Time is just a property of our Universe, then it makes no sense to ask what was there before, since 'before' is a meaningless concept.
Also, since cause and effect only have meaning in the context of Time, it makes no sense to ask what caused the Universe.

If Time isn't just a property of our Universe and has some meaning 'outside', then there could have been a cause. However, it's probably wise to figure out if the question has meaning before we try to answer it.

Hence, the question 'what caused the Universe' is meaningless until such time as we know a hell of a lot more about the stuff that is within the frame of reference of the sciences.

BlackCapedManX on 30/3/2006 at 20:13

---

So pertaining back to the article, and I want to see if I can sort a couple of things.

The big bang is seemingly the expansion of the infinite amount of energy that is our univers from a single point, and in essence the rearranging of energy into mass from that point on. All "space" as we know is the interaction of energy and feilds between these objects of mass, defining the "volume" of our universe and effectively showing that there can be nothing outside of the universe.

My understanding of the big band (from a physics professor) is as such: At t=0 all energy in the universe existed in a zero dimensional spot. From there on energy expanded (as energy that isn't constricted by the aspect of time not being involved) and "cooled" by photons coliding to create elementary particles. Due to gravity these particles collected and started to form stars and stars made planets and we gots galaxies etc.

That the universe is expanding could, potentially, be explained away by the initial acceleration of all of the energy in the universe moving outward. Presumably, most of the mass of everything would be located closer to the point where the big band occured than away from it, hence defining a center. Now, an endlessly accelerating universe would imply that there is, for whatever reason, an unlimited amount of energy sitting unanimously everywhere in space, that fuels continued acceleration of the expansion (this is synonymous with zero-point energy, if my research leads me to be correct, though I very well could be wrong), if that energy is greater than the concentration of mass at the "center" of the universe, than well will continually expand outward until there is nothing left to hold elementary particles together and everything is dispersed as a fine misting of nothing. The assumes though, that there is dark energy outside of the big bang singularity, meaning there is space, essentiall, outside of space, otherwise we'd stop running into dark energy and the acceleration of expanding would cease. That screws all the "there's nothing before the big bang" theories, unless my rudamentary understanding of physics is wrong here (or if like, the expansion of "space" spontaneously creates dark energy as space becomes defined.) If there isn't space outside of space, then presumably our expansion would cease, and we'd fall back toward the center, eventually residing inside the event horizon of a black hole (as mass recollected in a great enough quantity) at the "center of the universe" and then recombining into the big bang singularity and doing it all over again. Or in the ultimate cosmic balancing act, we'd stop accelerating (in either direction) and space would remain and be stable for ever and ever amen (good job God!)

Now as for the interesting point that the article made here: "for a star as big as our universe the calculated vacuum energy inside its shell matches the value of dark energy seen in the universe today." What if, instead of creating a haphazard expansion of energy, the big band some how created that shell they talk about, perhaps due to lower concentrations of expanding energy further away from the "center" condensing into mass earlier than the rest of the energy inside, and the energy pushing this shell outward somehow becomes "vacuum energy" which defines space, and all of the radiomagnetic energy continues on the path we would normally see in the creation of the universe scene of the big bang, only inside a shell full of dark energy, causing an expansion of "space". Presumably then at some point the density of this dark energy would drop to a low enough value that it wouldn't continue to expand and would either stabilize or fall back toward a concentration of mass in the center.

Now all of you out there who are much more intelligent about physics than me: Correct me and pound my thoughts into nothingness!

Scots Taffer on 31/3/2006 at 05:23

---

Agent Monkeysee, you seem knowledgable, answer me this one, who is God and why is he important, I could never quite grasp it, lets say for shits and giggles, that God is some dude who made everthing, ok, so not to be really crazy, let say he's a guy with a big white beard who has a chatlog of everything you've ever done and is comparing it to some checklist what the hell is that all about anyway? Please to be getting your soon answer.

Scots Taffer on 31/3/2006 at 05:29

---

but you have no crown