2012 End-of-the-World Countdown Based On Mayan Calendar Starts Today

ABC News via Yahoo ^ | 21 Dec 2011 | Suzan Clarke

[Mr. K]

You are missing the point.

What happens when you put a magnet close to your compass? It changes direction.

The arm inside the compass is a small magnet, and it lines up with the most powerful magnetic forces it feels.

The earth is like that arm- when we change position with respect to the huge magnetic field of the galaxy we will certain experience something.

[null and void]

In this case, the magnet is at the galactic core which is about 8.33 kilo-parsecs or 27,000 light-years or 1,590,000,000,000 miles away.

That isn’t close. No cigar.

The galaxy’s magnetic field is about 0.000 000 002 Tesla at the core, and about 0.000 000 001 Tesla way out here.

The earth’s magnetic field is about 0.000 065 Tesla.

Knock off all the zeros, and you’ll find the earth’s field is about 32 THOUSAND TIMES STRONGER that the “huge magnetic field of the galaxy”.

Like the earth’s field, there is no change in direction, and no measurable change in the strength of the galactic magnetic field should you walk across the magnetic equator.

[null and void]

We do not circle the galaxy on a perfect line through the center- we bob up and down through the top and bottom half every 26,000 years

Yup. In much the same way we would sometimes bob up and sometimes bob down past the equator if we were walking across Africa from Gabon to southern Somalia.

What exactly would you expect your compass to do each time you wandered across the equator?

[Mr. K]

well that’s not what I heard

:P

[null and void]

Yeah! To hear the hype one would think we’re plunging through the black hole at the galactic center!

[UCANSEE2]

If.... there is a black hole at the galactic center, as scientists predict, then shouldn’t the mass of our galaxy be diminishing ?

[null and void]

No.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Sheldon? Leonard? Howard? Raj?

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Sheldon? Leonard? Howard? Raj?

[Melas]

Uh...no. Why do black holes suck everything in? Answer: They have mass, and lots of it. In order for the mass of the galaxy to diminish, that mass would have to leave the galaxy. Falling into the black hole at the center of the galaxy just moves the mass a little, but would leave the mass the same.

[Melas]

Uh...no. Why do black holes suck everything in? Answer: They have mass, and lots of it. In order for the mass of the galaxy to diminish, that mass would have to leave the galaxy. Falling into the black hole at the center of the galaxy just moves the mass a little, but would leave the mass the same.

[Eye of Unk]

I bet a lot of suicide cults will pop up all around.

Credit cards will suddenly be maxed out.

Talking heads will say its going to be a Yellowstone Super volcano eruption, others will say the magnetic poles will reverse and UFO followers will say mankind will be captured and processed much as in the stupidest film I have ever seen “Skyline”.

[UCANSEE2]

Why do black holes suck everything in? Answer: They have mass, and lots of it.

Really? Have you ever considered that the reason they 'suck' things in is that black holes (if they truly exist) have no 'mass' at all ?

If a 'black hole' is truly a 'hole' in the fabric of space, then it would not consist of mass, or it would not be a 'hole'.

[null and void]

Really? Have you ever considered that the reason they 'suck' things in is that black holes (if they truly exist) have no 'mass' at all ?

They have "mass" mass being defined as that property of matter that distorts space.

Your question is actually very deep on a fundamental level.

The "matter" that created the black hole, is by definition, no longer a part of our universe.

The big question is does the fabric continue to stretch? This is the classic black hole model.

But suppose, just suppose, the stretching accelerates with absorbed matter. The total gravity the universe experiences increases.

Alternatively suppose the fabric stiffens with stretch, then the net gravity the universe experiences decreases with time explaining the increased expansion rate of the universe over time.

Roll the clock way back, there is a sudden unexplained expansion event back near the very beginning. This might be coincident with a sufficient stretch gradient in a primordial hyper black hole to 'tear the bottom out' and have the remaining fabric 'snap back'...

[UCANSEE2]

First, Thank you both for your responses. I am not trying to 'win' an argument, rather I am trying to expand my knowledge.

The "matter" that created the black hole, is by definition, no longer a part of our universe.

That would appear to contradict your earlier statement that 'mass' entering a black 'hole' does not contribute to a loss of mass in our 'universe'. As a side note, the use of 'our universe' would imply that there is more than one 'universe', which does rather violate the meaning of the word universe. The major reasoning, it seems, for other 'universes' is to explain things that we just don't understand yet about 'the universe' (imho).

The big question is does the fabric continue to stretch? This is the classic black hole model.

'fabric', and 'stretch', as well as 'hole', imply a two dimensional model, which, unfortunately, is all we are capable of understanding, or using for abstract reasoning, at this time. For instance, given the description of a 'black hole', what would one 'see' if one approached it from the 'opposite' side ? Would it not have to be a hole open on 'all sides'? How could it then have a visible 'radius', or would that just be a manifestation of our limited vision?

But suppose, just suppose, the stretching accelerates with absorbed matter. The total gravity the universe experiences increases.

Then, one would assume that the universe must be in a constant state of collapse, and that the collapse is ever 'increasing'. Scientists used to claim the universe was collapsing, now they say it is expanding. IMHO it is only their awareness of the universe that is expanding. We claim to know the 'size' of the universe, yet our instruments will never be able to catch up with the 'expansion' of the universe (if it is truly expanding). I have yet to find a 'motionless' spot in the universe to stand on to even measure the 'speed' of any object in our universe, so I find these measurements to be speculative at best.

Alternatively suppose the fabric stiffens with stretch, then the net gravity the universe experiences decreases with time explaining the increased expansion rate of the universe over time.

Then, one might assume that a black hole would eventually become 'full'. We know not yet whether this is true or not, and as I said before, we cannot know for sure if the universe is expanding as we have not (and likely never will) find the 'edge' or 'extent' of it. Given the assumed 'length' of time that we believe the universe has existed , and given the speed of light, we will never be able to 'catch up' to the alleged 'edge' even if we peer into the skies for a billion years.

Roll the clock way back, there is a sudden unexplained expansion event back near the very beginning. This might be coincident with a sufficient stretch gradient in a primordial hyper black hole to 'tear the bottom out' and have the remaining fabric 'snap back'...

Some things, we may never understand. But I do like, and appreciate your theories, and the excellent conversation.

I am not sure we have the capability to understand the 'entire universe', but you sure give it a good shot.

[null and void]

First, Thank you both for your responses.

You're very welcome!

I am not trying to 'win' an argument, rather I am trying to expand my knowledge.

Me neither, and I've found your questions to be quite mind expanding.

That would appear to contradict your earlier statement that 'mass' entering a black 'hole' does not contribute to a loss of mass in our 'universe'.

I was attempting to draw a distinction between the cause, matter, and it's effect, gravity. I didn't explain it very well and I'm probably wrong anyway...

As a side note, the use of 'our universe' would imply that there is more than one 'universe', which does rather violate the meaning of the word universe. The major reasoning, it seems, for other 'universes' is to explain things that we just don't understand yet about 'the universe' (imho).

Modern physics has resorted to multiple universes and dimensions to explain observable reality. The language gets a little strained in the process. 'Our' universe is part of the polyverse which really is universal, or something like that. Anyway, multiplying universes in an attempt to splict the inexplicable smells like violating Occam's razor to me.

'fabric', and 'stretch', as well as 'hole', imply a two dimensional model, which, unfortunately, is all we are capable of understanding, or using for abstract reasoning, at this time. For instance, given the description of a 'black hole', what would one 'see' if one approached it from the 'opposite' side ? Would it not have to be a hole open on 'all sides'?

Yes. My head hurts.

How could it then have a visible 'radius', or would that just be a manifestation of our limited vision?

Yes, exactly! Much the same way the visible size of the earth is only 6 miles in diameter to a guy standing on a raft in the middle of the ocean.

Then, one would assume that the universe must be in a constant state of collapse, and that the collapse is ever 'increasing'. Scientists used to claim the universe was collapsing, now they say it is expanding.

Yes.

IMHO it is only their awareness of the universe that is expanding.

We know from how much of red shift light has the relative velocity of the source related to us.

We know the further away a light source is, the higher the apparent velocity and the older the light is when it finally gets here.

What we didn't know was the distance to speed ratio. We knew the universe's expansion was slowing down under its own mutual gravitational attraction. We assumed this would be enough to eventually slow and ultimately stop the expansion, at which point everything would start falling back to the original point. Pesky gravity.

We now know the universal expansion is indeed slowing down, but not fast enough to ever fully stop it.

We claim to know the 'size' of the universe, yet our instruments will never be able to catch up with the 'expansion' of the universe (if it is truly expanding).

ASSUMING the speed of light in a vacuum really is constant, and it is one of the few fundamental constants underpinning everything we know about physics and knowing the age of the universe as calculated from observable conditions we know just how big the 'observable' universe is, some 26 billion light years across. That's our "six mile" horizon. We know there's more out there and we know we'll never see it.

Then, one might assume that a black hole would eventually become 'full'.

Only if the fabric reaches the limit of its stretch, and doesn't break. I'm with you, I would assume yes, it fills up.

If 'the bough breaks' the sight of space and matter above the break snapping back would be impressive to say the least!

We have evidence that this has happened, a cosmic inflation event that occurred within a few moments of the Big Bang itself.

If our little speculations here have any validity there's a Nobel prize awaiting someone with a better grasp of physics and math than I'll ever have! No only would it provide a physical explanation of that troublesome faster than light expansion, it would also tell us just how much strain the universe can take, a handy thing to know if one ever hopes to rip a hole or two in it to enable FTL travel...

I am not sure we have the capability to understand the 'entire universe',

I'm pretty sure we don't. Bits of it, sure, lots of it, maybe, but all? nahhh.

but you sure give it a good shot.

Couldn't have done it without you asking a deceptively simple question, while allowing me to explore and by providing wise critique.

Thanks

[UCANSEE2]

I was attempting to draw a distinction between the cause, matter, and it's effect, gravity. I didn't explain it very well and I'm probably wrong anyway...

In an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities.

Anyway, multiplying universes in an attempt to splict the inexplicable smells like violating Occam's razor to me.

I would agree.

Yes, exactly! Much the same way the visible size of the earth is only 6 miles in diameter to a guy standing on a raft in the middle of the ocean.

Or that what we 'see' is not necessarily how things really look.

... and the older the light is when it finally gets here.

Only in a 'relative' way.

We now know the universal expansion is indeed slowing down, but not fast enough to ever fully stop it.

Well, if 'they' are going to pick one answer, then that one was the 'safest'. : )

we know just how big the 'observable' universe is, some 26 billion light years across. That's our "six mile" horizon. We know there's more out there and we know we'll never see it.

Best summation of our current knowledge in layman's terms I have yet to see.

Only if the fabric reaches the limit of its stretch, and doesn't break. I'm with you, I would assume yes, it fills up. If 'the bough breaks' the sight of space and matter above the break snapping back would be impressive to say the least! We have evidence that this has happened, a cosmic inflation event that occurred within a few moments of the Big Bang itself.

We may be just a pimple on God's rear that popped.

If our little speculations here have any validity there's a Nobel prize awaiting someone with a better grasp of physics and math than I'll ever have! No only would it provide a physical explanation of that troublesome faster than light expansion, it would also tell us just how much strain the universe can take, a handy thing to know if one ever hopes to rip a hole or two in it to enable FTL travel...

OK, now my head hurts.

Couldn't have done it without you asking a deceptively simple question,

I'm a pretty simple guy.

[UCANSEE2]

Happy Holidays to you and your family .

[null and void]

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

[null and void]

I'm a pretty simple guy.

Perhaps. But even so, you are a stellar student.