Does reality comprise only 5% of the Universe?

[Hans Blaster]

All of those things are detectable, are they not?
Dark matter and dark energy not so much.

They are detectable, that's how we know they exist.

I'm sitting here wondering how a person would detect dark matter and dark energy in the realm of "ordinary matter" as @sjastro described in post 86?
"Ordinary matter can be explained with a non phenomenological theory which describes the nature of matter through the standard model of particle physics and is based on quantum field theories.
This is supported by particle accelerator experiments."

There are numerous experiments to detect particle dark matter. Most involve looking for rare interactions in very "quiet" environments. (For reference, background neutrinos are an important and often limiting background signal in many DM experiments.

 

[timewerx]

If anyone hasn’t been paying attention to the point of outright ignoring it would be you.
Your model doesn’t work for three reasons specified in my previous post.
(1) Inside the EH to move outwards would require to travel backwards in time which is impossible.
(2) Accretion disks are required as “fuel” for objects which have supermassive black holes at their centres such as quasars and AGNs.
(3) The jets travelling in space-time cannot exceed the speed of light.

This is only scratching the surface, the size of a black hole is the radius of the EH with a point mass singularity at the centre.
Taking the mass of the universe ≈10⁶⁰ kg at the singularity and a 1 kg point mass 14 billion light years away which is the EH for a flat non expanding universe, the gravitation force on the mass is only of the magnitude of 10⁻³ using the inverse square law.
This is not incredibly high by any stretch of the imagination.

While quasars and AGNs propel charged particles as jets, you haven’t explained the mechanism how large objects such as galaxies are ejected in the first place let alone how they are formed inside the EH.
Can you explain the cosmic radiation background or how atoms, elements and stars are formed using your model?
What is the observational evidence supporting your model?

There are no solid theories on the subject. Some theories don't have a singularity inside the EH, some even have giant 'quark star' inside.

Here's one thing I can agree with you though - without accretion disk as "fuel" to accelerate material from a universe-scale black hole, then we're possibly witnessing a worst case scenario.

That our "Universe" or more accurately, our "Local Region of Space" is being sucked into a very large black hole.

The same "expansion illusion" applies here caused by linear frame dragging and EM Doppler effect to make objects in the Universe looks like they're all accelerating away from us. The fact we are seeing these things is that our own Solar System itself is already moving towards this black hole close to the speed of light.

Galaxies that has accelerated beyond all possible means of observation has likely crossed the EH of this giant black hole already.

It's possibly not the effects of dark energy, we're seeing but the beautiful tapestry of our impending doom, billions of years from now and perhaps even tomorrow. No one can tell.

 

[Kylie]

Everything gets clear once you accept we're just living along the fringes of space that is actually inside a very large black hole.

It's plainly obvious the entire mass in the known Universe is enough to make a Schwarzchild Radius within the bounds of our known Universe.

What most people are not familiar about black holes is that most of the matter that falls into it is ejected out the poles. This movement of material at the poles which is incredible in terms of mass and speed (close to the speed of light) is sufficient to 'warp and drag' space time along with it that some of the matter stream could be moving faster-than-light! - a phenomenon called "Linear Frame Dragging" which is the basis of some warp drive concepts (I personally believe can be turned into practical working device using BEC and lasers, using light/photons to warp space).

Astrophysicists have predicted that some of the galaxies moving away from us, especially the ones that are no longer visible (gone beyond all detectable forms of EM radiation) are already moving away from us at faster-than-light speeds!

It could easily explain why the universe's "expansion" is accelerating. Galaxies that are being ejected away at incredible speeds is also dragging space with it that is sufficient to overcome gravity. Expansion is accelerating because our region of space is probably about to be ejected as well.

Space can be so distorted at this region being close to the "Event Horizon, and combined linear frame dragging caused by mass ejection of galaxies that everywhere we look, we see the the "ejection point" thinking, everything is moving away from us but in reality, everything in our region of space is simply moving in one direction. Like entering a house with many windows and all showing the same view! Many of the hypothetical shape of our Universe involves a tunnel. May it be a donut or something like a worm, the immediate region is a tunnel. It's something I agree with fits well with the idea we're inside a black hole and about to be ejected off of it.

You seem to be mistaken in your views of black holes. Once matter has fallen beyond the event horizon, it is NOT then ejected out from the poles. The streams of matter that jet out of the poles are made of material that never fell beyond the event horizon in the first place.

And "frame dragging" is a result of the singularity dragging space as it spins. It is not a phenomenon caused by the jets of matter that come out from the poles.

Since you have made these fundamental errors about blackholes, I don't see any reason to accept anything you say about black holes, since you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

I've not said that they are not real. Can you point towards how we in our everyday lives interact with dark energy and dark matter? I sure can't.

Rubbish. You literally said, "By the answer I received (which I included below) it sure seems to me that "reality", the one we live in, amounts to only 5% of the Universe." It was literally your opening post. You clearly showed that you were talking about what is real and what is not, and you clearly said that dark matter and dark energy were not a part of the 5% of the universe you took to be "reality."

And reality is not determined by what we can interact with in our everyday lives. As I said, by this logic there was once a time when electrons were not real.

 

[sjastro]

There are no solid theories on the subject. Some theories don't have a singularity inside the EH, some even have giant 'quark star' inside.

Here's one thing I can agree with you though - without accretion disk as "fuel" to accelerate material from a universe-scale black hole, then we're possibly witnessing a worst case scenario.

That our "Universe" or more accurately, our "Local Region of Space" is being sucked into a very large black hole.

The same "expansion illusion" applies here caused by linear frame dragging and EM Doppler effect to make objects in the Universe looks like they're all accelerating away from us. The fact we are seeing these things is that our own Solar System itself is already moving towards this black hole close to the speed of light.

Galaxies that has accelerated beyond all possible means of observation has likely crossed the EH of this giant black hole already.

It's possibly not the effects of dark energy, we're seeing but the beautiful tapestry of our impending doom, billions of years from now and perhaps even tomorrow. No one can tell.

This is confusing.
In previous posts you told us objects such as galaxies are ejected away from a black hole the size of the universe while still inside EH; now our local region of space and galaxies are outside the EH and being sucked into a very large black hole.
You can’t have it both ways and this latest about face fails miserably as well.

The solar system is not moving close to the speed of light and exhibits two types of motion.
Firstly it is moving towards a point in the constellation Hercules due to the rotation of the Sun and solar system relative to our Milky Way galaxy at a speed of around 225 km/s.
Secondly the CMB (cosmic microwave background) exhibits a temperature dipole due to Doppler blueshift as the Local Cluster which contains the Milky Way is moving towards it at a velocity of 600 km/s.
Both velocities are well short of the speed of light which is 300,000 km/s.

You clearly have no idea what linear frame dragging is.
A prediction from general relativity is space-time behaves like a “fluid” where a rotating body drags along space-time in its vicinity in a circular motion.
This is purely a local effect and frame dragging measured, caused by the Earth’s rotation, is extremely small but was possible using the Gravity Probe B.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everything gets clear once you accept we're just living along the fringes of space that is actually inside a very large black hole.

Except... The Universe is essentially the same in every direction all the way the to CMB at redshift z ~ 1100. If we are near the fringes of space then the "edge" is at least 10 Gpc away in a direction we cannot detect.

It's plainly obvious the entire mass in the known Universe is enough to make a Schwarzchild Radius within the bounds of our known Universe.

What most people are not familiar about black holes is that most of the matter that falls into it is ejected out the poles.

It is not. Other than theoretical estimates of particle emission by "Hawking radiation", no matter is known to eject from BHs. What does happen is that the accretion disks (see illustrations in post #154) have radiatively accelerated winds focused by strong magnetic fields wound up by the accretion process. All of this happens outside the BH itself. Accretion disks around protostars *also* emit winds in jets. It's a common phenomenon with accretion disks.

This movement of material at the poles which is incredible in terms of mass and speed (close to the speed of light) is sufficient to 'warp and drag' space time along with it that some of the matter stream could be moving faster-than-light! - a phenomenon called "Linear Frame Dragging" which is the basis of some warp drive concepts

No. See above.

(I personally believe can be turned into practical working device using BEC and lasers, using light/photons to warp space).

Let me guess, you have no training in physics.

Astrophysicists have predicted that some of the galaxies moving away from us, especially the ones that are no longer visible (gone beyond all detectable forms of EM radiation) are already moving away from us at faster-than-light speeds!

In fact it has been measured to be so. The recession rates for distant galaxies indicate that the space they are tied to is moving away from us via expansion at relative speeds exceeding light speed.

It could easily explain why the universe's "expansion" is accelerating.

The "Universe is a BH" theory. I don't think so.

Galaxies that are being ejected away at incredible speeds is also dragging space with it that is sufficient to overcome gravity.

Ejected by what? You've got nothing here. There is nothing about being inside a big black hole that would suggest such a thing.

Expansion is accelerating because our region of space is probably about to be ejected as well.

Rank speculation based on things that aren't known to happen.

Space can be so distorted at this region being close to the "Event Horizon, and combined linear frame dragging caused by mass ejection of galaxies that everywhere we look, we see the the "ejection point" thinking, everything is moving away from us but in reality, everything in our region of space is simply moving in one direction.

Everything in the *Universe* is "moving" in one direction -- away from us. That's the only way this statement even makes a bit of sense. (And all points in an expanding universe see the rest of the universe moving away from *them* too.)

Like entering a house with many windows and all showing the same view! Many of the hypothetical shape of our Universe involves a tunnel.

It is measure to be flat. No net curvature on large scales. That is the *MEASURED* shape of the Universe.

May it be a donut or something like a worm, the immediate region is a tunnel. It's something I agree with fits well with the idea we're inside a black hole and about to be ejected off of it.

Ideas like these (at least on the shape) were hypothesized in the past, but the do not match the data.

 

[timewerx]

The solar system is not moving close to the speed of light and exhibits two types of motion.
Firstly it is moving towards a point in the constellation Hercules due to the rotation of the Sun and solar system relative to our Milky Way galaxy at a speed of around 225 km/s.
Secondly the CMB (cosmic microwave background) exhibits a temperature dipole due to Doppler blueshift as the Local Cluster which contains the Milky Way is moving towards it at a velocity of 600 km/s.
Both velocities are well short of the speed of light which is 300,000 km/s.

The point of reference I'm using is well outside our Universe, not our own galaxy.

You clearly have no idea what linear frame dragging is.
A prediction from general relativity is space-time behaves like a “fluid” where a rotating body drags along space-time in its vicinity in a circular motion.
This is purely a local effect and frame dragging measured, caused by the Earth’s rotation, is extremely small but was possible using the Gravity Probe B.

I'm talking about frame dragging effect around galaxies, around the collective gravitational effect of many galaxies moving away close to the speed of light, not just one planet that is moving slowly in space.

I'm pretty sure the effect is going to be huge, it will account to a significant degree on the Universe's "expansion".

This is confusing.
In previous posts you told us objects such as galaxies are ejected away from a black hole the size of the universe while still inside EH; now our local region of space and galaxies are outside the EH and being sucked into a very large black hole.
You can’t have it both ways and this latest about face fails miserably as well.

I'm simply keeping an open mind.

You told about how accretion disc is powering ejection of matter so I have to revise my theory since universe-sized black holes is far too big to be able to generate accretion discs. It just couldn't generate compression and tidal forces strong enough to even distort objects light years across fast enough to make them radiate strong enough EM radiation to eject matter away.

 

[sjastro]

The point of reference I'm using is well outside our Universe, not our own galaxy.

There nothing outside our (observable) universe which is reachable.
A major reason why the entropy of the universe is increasing as discussed previously in this thread is because it is an isolated system.
Anything outside our observable universe is not causally connected and nothing including information can flow between the two.
It doesn’t make any sense to refer to a point of reference outside our universe as it is non-accessible and unknown.

The universe is surrounded by a particle horizon which is the boundary for the observable universe.
The universe is undergoing accelerated expansion and a galaxy on the boundary will eventually disappear as it crosses the particle horizon since the difference between the galaxy’s increasing recession velocity and a photon emitted back to the observer will exceed the speed of light.
As a result photons will never reach the observer.
This has nothing to do with crossing the EH of a black hole.

I'm talking about frame dragging effect around galaxies, around the collective gravitational effect of many galaxies moving away close to the speed of light, not just one planet that is moving slowly in space.

I'm pretty sure the effect is going to be huge, it will account to a significant degree on the Universe's "expansion".

This is not how frame dragging works; isolated galaxies free from gravitational interactions rotate about their individual axes, but the galaxies do not move in space-time even though they are carried by the Hubble flow due to expansion.
The effects of frame dragging by rotating galaxies are on the velocity of background photons passing through the rotating space-time as illustrated in the diagram.

​

I'm simply keeping an open mind.

You told about how accretion disc is powering ejection of matter so I have to revise my theory since universe-sized black holes is far too big to be able to generate accretion discs. It just couldn't generate compression and tidal forces strong enough to even distort objects light years across fast enough to make them radiate strong enough EM radiation to eject matter away.

Keeping an open mind also requires an understanding of the science and the possibility you might be wrong if it disagrees with the science.
Here is an image of the supermassive black hole in the galaxy M87.

The image turned out basically as the theory predicted.
The circular like shape is due to photon orbits beyond the EH as predicted by general relativity.
The black interior where the EH sits clearly illustrates no photons are emitted from inside the EH as explained in the thread.

The image can be used to show your model is clearly wrong.
Since you allow matter including photons to cross the EH from the inside there should be no black interior but a featureless bright blob of light.

 

[sjastro]

As I was responding to @timewerx in post #168 I recalled images of M87 show the jet indicating the supermassive black hole is active yet in the black hole image there is no sign of the jet or the accretion disc???

I sent an E-mail to the astrophysicist Brian Koberlein who set the record straight with an image I have never seen before.

It does, it’s just that the famous image of the BH shadow is zoomed in so much it’s out of the frame. ALMA has since captured black hole and jet in the same image:

It's good to have an expert on tap to sort things out.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Greek philosophers such as Thales came to the conclusion in order to understand the world one needs to dispense with relying on the supernatural and use physical evidence.

You need both

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are some home truths by the 6th century BC Greek philosophers such as Thales came to the conclusion in order to understand the world one needs to dispense with relying on the supernatural and use physical evidence.

Ya.

That's why these philosophers talk like they know what they're talking about.

They don't know anything, but they phrase it in such a way as you can't tell.

As the joke goes:

What do you get if you cross a philosopher with a godfather? An offer you can’t understand.

 

[sjastro]

You need both

If you have evidence of the supernatural then it can't be supernatural since it falls within the definitions of naturalism.

Naturalism is a worldview grounded in a scientific, evidence-based understanding of the universe and our place in it.

Heliocentrism was once considered supernatural due to the observation a spinning wheel threw objects off its surface.
A spinning Earth was therefore considered an absurd proposition until Newton came up with gravity and the evidence was supplied by Cavendish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Divide, what is that icon you're using?

They look like chess pieces to me.

 

[Divide]

Divide, what is that icon you're using?

The look like chess pieces to me.

Those are homemade cast lead bullets. The red part is the lube for the barrel. It's quite easy to cast them and sure saves a mucho money at the store! They have no copper jacket but they also dont leave lead in the barrel. (That's an old wives tale from people who havent learned how to cast properly, lol!) It's not about the velocity which is what they always say. It's more about size. If you shoot lead bullets and it leads up your gun then you was shooting under-sized bullets, period. Do you know how many bullets I can cast for the price of a comparable ammo in the store?! Lots. Lots and lots!

It's all about cost for me and always has been. But I don't have half hour target range sessions, I speand the afternoon cuz I dont run out of ammo. That is the bestthing. I get to shoot more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Divide, what is that icon you're using?

They look like chess pieces to me.

Those are homemade cast lead bullets. The red part is the lube for the barrel. It's quite easy to cast them and sure saves a mucho money at the store! They have no copper jacket but they also dont leave lead in the barrel. (That's an old wives tale from people who havent learned how to cast properly, lol!) It's not about the velocity which is what they always say. It's more about size. If you shoot lead bullets and it leads up your gun then you was shooting under-sized bullets, period. Do you know how many bullets I can cast for the price of a comparable ammo in the store?! Lots. Lots and lots!

It's all about cost for me and always has been. But I don't have half hour target range sessions, I speand the afternoon cuz I dont run out of ammo. That is the bestthing. I get to shoot more.

Okay.

Thanks for the info.

Chess pieces -- man, I was way off!

LOL.

 

[JohnEmmett]

If you have evidence of the supernatural then it can't be supernatural

You need Faith

 

[AV1611VET]

You need Faith

There's plenty of cause-and-effect evidence, but academia tells science to take a hike from time to time, so they don't have to contend with it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

There's plenty of cause-and-effect evidence, but

You still need Faith

 

[AV1611VET]

You still need Faith

Agreed.

 

[JohnEmmett]

there is no experiment or observation which can confirm God’s existence.

It’s confirmed in other ways