I was watching a movie title "Sphere" last night for the second time, and a charater describing to his crewmates what a blackhole was, described it as we understand it to be that is matter gets sucked down not even light can escape everything comes to a stop then he said the word time. As hard as it is to believe even to myself I have never questioned what happens to time in a blackhole, I wonder why that is? This is no small thing, what happens to time in a blackhole?

More importantly if time is slowed down or stoped all together, what happens to our ideals of what we think gravity is?
Gravity is propagated through an eletromagnetic state, eletromagnetic emmissions that are fundamental to also light require matter or the atomic structure to be active an in motion, otherwise if you freeze an atom or matter in space it emits nothing, no light no gravity info nothing if thats even possible. That is my modern ideal of gravity, that is its electromagnetic in source but now in this senerio we are going against the grain and the only thing that would make sense is that old fabric of space model. We dont neccessarily need electromagnetic energy to be sent out from the atomic structure, we just take gravity in the simplest form, condensed matter and the dent caused by it. {see below}

Are we on the other hand saying then that light is generated things are moving but it cant escape because of gravity? If things are moving and time is forward, first of all to what degree how fast is time going? Second if light is generated how far does it go out before being pulled back in? 10 feet, 10 inches, 10 millimeters? No it does not even cross the start line, for all pratical purposes light cannot be generated if light cannot escape. If light electromagnetic energy cannot be generated then forget gravity being generated. Gravity in the sense that from atom to atom it needs to communicate and connect, if not then you have nothing to go on, no accumulation of matter thus no total mass and gravity assumed. Typically we think of individual electromagnetic atomic waves coming together, working together and in the process pass info along to the next, also we get a combined wave to strenghten the wave passed on, perhaps condense it, and with that we get a more massive object says the info passed out.

What happens to matter going into a blackhole? It is disintegrated or becomes plasma, that being the 4th state of matter and is logical to assume that the friction generates immense heat basically turning all matter into gas then plasma. Does all matter stay matter or does some or all turn into energy and if so where does this energy go is a possible question.

One thing I am fairly certain of is this, no time, no gravity.

Perhaps we should revisit my Hurricane galaxy afterall, no Im kidding /reads anyway

Gravity and Wavelengths

Just as we can focus a laser to smaller and smaller wavelengths by reflecting the beam, does something similar happen in nature?

For instance, lets single out one atom and record its wavelength. Now surround that atom by hundreds of other atoms. Now record the total wavelength output. It should be a smaller condensed wavelength. What if mass could be calculated by wavelength? Eg. The more dense an object the smaller the wavelengths that are emitted due to the collision and reflection of them. We already know the shorter the radiation's wavelength, the higher its energy. Suppose then if gravity could be measured by wavelength, then the smaller the wavelengths the more massive the object. To add to that, spectrum of light which is also carried with gravity info should clue us in on how massive an object is. Gamma rays are currently what we know as super energetic short wavelength emissions, knowing that perhaps we can say whatever is emitting them is or was super massive and I think that is the case.

Also, an atoms weight and gravity info passed on is not independent of its neighbors or the whole. With that known, we can go back to this statement "We dont neccessarily need electromagnetic energy to be sent out from the atomic structure, we just take gravity in the simplest form, condensed matter and the dent caused by it. " and ignore it because it is no longer logical.

In order to calculate correct additional weight and gravity beyond a single atom you need interaction between atoms. 10 atoms would output info of 10 X W instead of 1 X TW = 10 which is two very different things. The later example is how it should work.

I wasnt going to share this and I never got a reply only that it was forwarded to the authors, but here is an email I sent quite some time back to the history of events in nobel prize in physics..

Regarding the Structure of Matter Article
http://www.nobel.se/physics/educational/matter/1.html
mailto:comments@www.nobel.se

Structure of Matter 13:22

[Quote]

"Since the quarks in a proton or neutron have plenty of available kinetic energy, how are they bound? How come they cannot escape the proton? Since the strong force (unlike gravity) remains constant as a quark leaves a proton, more and more work must be done (work = force times distance). Thus, a quark can never get free."

Should maybe say "as a quark begins to leave a proton" if this is true

Yet on page 12:22 you show a diagram of a quark splitting.

What this is saying is that quarks can split into smaller quarks, those smaller quarks cant escape the proton either? So what this suggests is you can have an numerous number of splits to create smaller and smaller quarks.. This contradicts the previous explaination of Hadrons(Baryon, Meson) as made up of only 3 quarks.

Side question - Is a Hadron a Proton or not?

"When there is enough energy in the field, the energy will be converted into a new quark/antiquark pair." Thats not the official name is it? They give a new name to everything else why not this? And with that in mind, what that forms is not really a quark is it? The quark ceases to be classified and is now known as 2 other particles. With that understanding, can we still say that these cannot escape a proton either? After splitting the proton isnt really made of 3 quarks. Also if we are to further split them, what are they known as now?

What value of Strong Force do these split quarks have?

Once split/formed into new groups do those groups obey the original Strong Force? Does the Strong Force remain constant of the original quarks? Or does the Strong Force multiply or divide with splitting of the quarks?

How did they manage to stretch quarks apart anyway? Isnt what they really did is collide them? There would be a difference.

The exsistence of a Strong Force is illogical at best, that is a constant force regardless of distance.

Could it not be possible for [quark groups] to follow the rule of attraction, that is one is negative charge while the other is positive charge and that this is your strong force?

How can a quark be fundamental when they are capable of being split? Is it possible that there is no fundamental particle that a metamorphous analagy exsists?

Once split, can they combine to form a quark?

One thing about the known interactions of matter and antimatter, when they come together they annihilate each other. Yet in the atomic model world this does not apply? Quote "Thus, quarks cannot exist individually." "quark/antiquark pair." is used extensively. Perhaps that antiquark has nothing to do with antimatter but why confuse the two? Or is it saying that, the pair never actually comes together, close but not together. No way for us to know what the author means.

Other question - If a proton is made up of 3 quarks, is that not exactly what it is, 3 quarks and nothing else? No ~shell, no cloud, no mysterious matter inbetween ect. Really there is no such thing as a proton, its a term we use to describe an organization and or observed behavior of more fundemental particles. True of everything we label, and its an understandable necessity of language and learning so dont answer that I already get it.

Lastly The ultimate question really is as stated on the last page, "are quarks fundamental?" If not we may have a new starting point, as it is now the atom is the starting point for most learning materials, the further we explain its properties the more confusing we get. Lets hope that it is fundamental otherwise it will take a true genius from the starting point of the atom to add up and figure out what we know. I already find it difficult to keep track of all the known particle groupings under different names let alone realize most are the same but with different properties and behaviors.

Great article and I learned some history. I was surprise to see what I thought to be recent discoveries to had taken place well before that, and in that sense other people taking credit for them. I didnt see an explaination of a few terms like Ive was able to find on this site http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fermion.html but Its hard to tell if thats on purpose or not or even if those are applicable to explaination.

Regards,
TDuncan

Much to my surprise, an interesting thing NASA did with thier space program, they launched a new infrared telescope SIRTF and put it into an orbit in which I described previously in length "Theory_ext5.txt" They did it for different reasons though other than for exposure, mainly to get away from Earths radiation.

For my own reminder and I think Ive stated this before but its important to remember, The speed of EMR is dictated by the medium through which it travels (Update: Also refered to as "Ether"). Quite often realized or recorded in our realm and time as the speed of light, yet again know that the speed of EMR is governed by the allowable transfer rate of the medium through which it travels. Do a search of the term fiber optics for an analagy.

Sept 21 2003

Rarely do I come across new theories that are both well concieved, explained and given proper consquences ( disproval methods ) at the same time. If it isnt clear by now, understanding gravity is perhaps in my mind the most important discovery in astrophysics yet to be made. Here is an intriging theory on the subject authored by J Harms. http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation.htm

It takes some dedication and persistance to fully understand what his model is but it is to my knowledge a logical theory, if anything else its well written without being full of bias which is quite rare. You can tell the author is sincere in his conclusions. There are a few concepts that my not be agreeable to me such as, the shorter distance from a star the greater the local gravity. At first it seems like an new interesting possibility but the author may have forgotten to realize that centripical force is increased and a second underlieing cause of G is assumed through classical mechanics. That is always the tricky part in physics, there can be 2 or more source causes of a percieved effect. 2 totally different things, yet they both work towards creating the same effect to a different degree as described by us. There's gravity of an energy nature and also a purely mechanical nature, both interwoven together each with multiple personalities and often confused. Many many dualities in nature. Probably one of the best examples is that of describing the nature and properites of "electricity" http://www.amasci.com/ele-edu.html

"Mrs. McCave was invented by Dr. Seuss. She had twenty three sons. She named them all "Dave."

Whenever we ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY," that's just like asking Mrs. McCave "WHO IS DAVE?" How can she describe her son? There can be no answer since the question itself is wrong. It's wrong to ask "who is Dave?" because we are assuming that there is only one Dave, when actually there are many separate Daves. Who is Dave? Mrs. McCave cannot answer us until she first corrects our misunderstanding.

For the same reason, we will never find a simple answer to "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. First we must realize that "electricity" does not exist. We must learn that many different things exist in wires, but that people wrongly call all of them by a single name."

Big Band Gravity Escape

There is a known problem with the idea that it would take a seemingly impossible amount of energy to create an explosion to spread all the matter in the visible universe if it had all been centralized at one single point in space enough to overcome the force of gravity pulling it all back into a big crunch again. This following and later will attempt to come up with anything probable no matter how far fetched it may seem, there must be a logical possibility.

The below depending on the idealism that gravity is caused by atomic exchange eg radiation. It works much like how liquid nitrogen will shatter an object into thousands of fragments.

Colder mass = tighter atomic orbit = supercondensed matter = unable to move = absolute zero frozen matter = relative time stoped as time = matter in motion

Frozen matter and relative time = no atomic exchange = zero radiation emitted = no gravity = no relative mass = potential E, M, G

Center mass explosion = heat introduced = center mass in motion = begining of central relative time = G only realized and exerted on local heated matter

Center mass explosion = separation and expansion of still frozen potential E, M, G = gradual heating of expanding outter frozen E, M from center mass radiation = Universe as we know it

One of the obvious questions is, what if the above is even true, what was that frozen suspended in animation matter made of?
How big was it as in volume of space, perhaps how condensed was it and what set it off?

Maybe it was the 4th state of matter, Plasma. Plasma is interesting because it can be classified as such at opposite extremes of temperature. Usually you think of superheated matter that after gas turns to plasma, yet plasma can be cold too.

You did hear the theory of the universe being made of some greater than 80% plasma didnt you? Supposedly thats dark matter and the missing mass. I'll leave that and those other questions alone for now.

Now a second earlier spontaneous thought of mine. If we put all the matter in the visible universe or a substantial amount of it in one localized place, how instead of an explosion or "big bang" would we spread out matter? The answer might be that in fact the laws of physics were not the same as they are today even though youve heard that before, but did you ever hear a theory to back it up? Say we reverse the atomic spin, no lets wind it up instead. Wind it up like you would a rubber band attached to a toy glider plane. Let it go and it rapidly spins sending the plane flying. Enough with the toy plane, what would happen if you reversed the atomic spin and let go? Would "gravity" reverse and thus matter repeals matter?? Its hard to say but that would evenly spread out all matter, quite quickly too. When its done unwinding, it will start to go forward due to momentum right? You get the idea..

There are other ideas such as the decompression of a supercompacted singularity, where geometry helps to expand the universe.

A release of pressure, a negative presure, vaccum ect some key words for other ideas. Truth is we may never know.

[Added later, a must read]

Senerio 2

To understand this next concept you need to know what E=MC^2 means. That basically says that energy can be converted into mass. The matter that exists in our visible Universe did not exist prior to or even shortly thereafter the Big Bang.

A truely massive release or explosion of energy was the Big Bang, that in itself has no mass per say. It's only when it expands and cools does it become matter as we know it. As you may know the 2nd state of matter is solids, the 3rd is gas and the 4th is plasma. Beyond that, the "5th state of matter" is not matter at all, it's energy. I'm not too familiar with tests being done that heats matter beyond plasma, I'm not even sure it's technically doable in laboratories, so to say that beyond plasma we get pure energy or a "massless mass" is theory. What it would be though I know this much, is matter stripped down to it's fundemental componets, not matter but the building blocks of matter or for purposes here we'll call it energy.

OK, so over the course of millions of years this 5th state of matter cools and condenses into plasmas, then into gases, then into solids. At about the time it cools into plasmas, the atom is formed. It's a very simple and elegant concept and I'm pretty comforatable with it -- it's the best one I have. It solves most if not all the questions related to the Big Bang 1) not collapsing into itself 2) expansion 3) uniform structure of Universe

Aside from that I often I wonder though as I'm sure other do as well, what exactly was there prior to the Big Bang as far as space ether or otherwise goes? I would honestly not know what could possibly be space other than what space is right now -- atoms, but heres the catch... undisturbed or unshaken -- a perfectly calm and uniform layer of atoms. When you introduce a explosion you put space into motion, you create the mechanism by which matter clumps together to form larger objects. And to tell you the truth the explosion doesn't have to be great at all, any disturbence will do -- except given the observable Universe you can only conclude it was indeed a massive release of energy. Had it not been so huge, the Universe would have eventually collapsed into itself I might add.

The existence of a space ether or atoms prior to the Big Bang kinda confuses the idea, because now you have no need for E=MC^2 in the sense that it created space. All you need is space to be disturbed. It could though turn out they do go hand in hand. You might wonder though if such a space ether existed the Big Bang would have supercompacted it in a very short frame of time. Ah but heres the catch on that, while you may think that is the case, consider now just how how much heat that ether of space is exposed to -- instantly vaporizing it. Any ether that is superheated into the 5th state would look like it was the source by coincidence. Over a remarkable distance the effect of the superheating is nullified, not before it plasmarizes also a good deal of ether though some distance out. Imagine a nuclear bomb's effects on surrounding matter if you need to. Since energy is not mass, no atomic structure as we know it, gravity is non-existent. Gravity is one only of the few phenomenons that occur as a result of fundemental matter forming.

Question: Is it possible that the Big Bang's effects eg. Solar Winds, are still being realized to this day? That's ultimatly a question of time and relativity but it's apparently so we can see the cosmic background radiation right around us to this day from the Big Bang, the afterglow, which is just either unbelieveable or remarkable. If that is the case then we might as well say some part of the Universe is being pushed by the Big Bangs Solar Winds. Why would the afterglow exist and not the winds? If the afterglow is long gone then the winds would probably be yes. Solar winds on a macro scale relating to galaxies as a whole would be a substantial force and possibly what we describe now as Dark Energy. Yet again I go way back to my crackpot Hurricane Galaxy theory and I say to myself I may have had something. Solar winds can be created by a number of things I should mention, supernova, CME eg Sun Flares ect. But by far the most influencial and magnificent Solar winds were created by the Big Bang, the question again does remenants of that still exist and possibly the driving force of continued expansion in whole or part.

Like I say, who needs Dark Matter when we have Solar Winds? There's certainly no substantial friction to speak of in space, I dont know Why we need Dark Matter. Should Solar Winds not exist in quantity, I'm not sure how you go about proving that but, to explain expansion is something I will always keep in mind. With that said I'm sure I will come up with alternate theories of DM, DE and expansion later on. Like I say, you can't always prove something, "you best just suggest."

[Added later]

The ether of space prior to the Big Bang was analagious to Bose-Einstein condensent. The zero state of matter if you will. Absolute zero. You may come accross a reference to BEC as being a 5th state of matter but if anything it's the 0th state. While BEC comes close to absolute zero, something like a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero nothing hints at us being able to duplicate conditions as seen prior to the Big Bang. Time relative to that ether is stopped all together I might add. The quantum energy state of atomic particles falls to the lowest possible level. With that in mind, those atoms are completely identical.

Here is a very easy to understand summary of BEC (multiple pages)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/temperature.html

A search for the "5th state of matter" on google does indeed turn up something but only 2 related results. I see reference to the 5th state as being a filament and possibly our Sun's corona is the 5th state. I won't comment on that but I do agree that a 5th state of matter may solve a few problems as suggested by Dr. László Körtvélyessy on his website http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/ -- The author obviously has the solar magnetic fields in mind when describing the 5th state as filaments. He says that the 5th state would not be thermal, also the corona is not hot nor cold. I might disagree as I've been lead to believe the corona is in fact several million degrees C and in a plasma state. What I might suggest is that the Sun's "magnetic field ion filaments" are just that, ions not actually a new state of matter as I would describe it. States of matter in my opinion would be classified by degree of thermal or quantum energy state and motion. Atomic level and activity slows down the colder you get and the opposite when you heat it up. Simple, every other state of matter is explicitly described by this principle, it is therefore according to logic and order that to claim something as a new state of matter it needs to take this into account. BEC is a good example of this, that is why I might agree that it (close enough to zero) should be considered the zero state of matter.

I don't know that we have observed the 5th state of matter or that it is a common form whatsoever in the Universe. A supernova may perhaps underlieing produce such a state yet again it would almost be undetected to us, unless a special case exists where a special particle is created or released by the transformation of plasma briefly into the 5th state and that particle would behave in a photonic nature eg. meaning able to travel the Universe without or little decay. Which by the way is entirely possible such a unique particle exists.