Science & Space :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I am saying that the space was filled with different wavelengths of photons. These photons would have been emitted by hot objects, and in the time since, the expansion of space has redshifted these photons to microwave wavelengths, which is the cosmic microwave background (which was one of the original predictions of a hot big bang universe, before it was discovered). So heat has not filled up the stretch as you put it. Photons filled space, and it is the wavelengths of the photons that have been stretched.

Many cosmologists have issues with a singularity of space and time (maybe you will be surprised by this). Indeed the singularity comes about by "running the expansion backwards" based solely on gravity. The fact is that we do not have a working theory of quantum gravity to describe what happens for very dense regions of space. There are some theories out there that do not require a singularity of in space time, such as inflation, or where a universe is born from a quantum transition of "vacuum energy" to a lower energy state via quantum mechanical tunnelling. In this hypothesis, space-time could already exist within another universe, when a point (not necessarily a singularity but could be a volume of very small size) undergoes a quantum transition to a lower vacuum energy. Indeed the equations for inflation look very similar to that describing black and white holes, so it may well be that the formation of black holes are the births of other universes.

Even string theory has something to say about singularities. For example, there is a duality in the theory that shows that the physics of a universe with scale dimension R, is identical to that of a universe with scale dimension 1/R (where R is in units of planck length). This effectively means that as R tends to 1 (that is the planck length), the scale lengths of both universes become the same. If you tried to shrink the scale below R < 1, the universe is replaced by a an expanding universe of R > 1, which is identical to the original. In otherwords, a singularity cannot form since the smallest length possible is the Planck length, meaning that densities will be finite. Of course, String theory is a nice theory, but has yet to be even remotely tested in any way shape or form, so I am not saying this is the answer.

As for the granularity of light, I presume you are meaning the particle nature of light. The particle nature of light would not affect the measurements of the study. Indeed the study is possible because of the particle nature of light, since atomic spectra are a quantum mechanical phenomena.

A mass circulating a black hole very quickly would have certain effects, but it would depend upon the mass of the black hole, and the distance that the object is from it. Light emitted from an object close to a black hole would experience a further redhifting as it climbs from the gravity well. This would not alter the measurement much (it would broaden the spectral lines for example), but the signal would most likely be swamped by the greater abundance of emitting species outside the gravity well. there may be some blueshifting and redshifting of light if the plane of orbit was edge on to our line of sight, again resulting in broadening of spectral lines. Overall though, these effects would be higher order effects (if detectable at all.

As for the temperature of a black hole. This is an interesting question, and one that a lot of researchers are working on. One would think that indeed, but I dont know the answer myself. What I do think is that even if it were to get hotter, we wouldn't see it radiate, since any thermal radiation (or indeed any radiation) emitted from below the event horizon, would be infinitely redshifted, meaning that it cannot escape to allow us to measure its temperature. I have discussed the reasoning behind this here <[www.grahamhancock.com];.

Jonny




This post was created using 100% recycled electrons

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Most Distant Quasar in Universe Discovered 189 Dr. Troglodyte 29-Jun-11 23:48
Re: Most Distant Quasar in Universe Discovered 133 Bobajot 30-Jun-11 00:51
Re: Most Distant Quasar in Universe Discovered 105 laughin 30-Jun-11 00:59
How? 146 RichardC 30-Jun-11 22:15
Re: How? 126 Dr. Troglodyte 30-Jun-11 22:49
Re: How? 124 JonnyMcA 30-Jun-11 22:58
Re: How? 159 Dr. Troglodyte 01-Jul-11 00:38
Re: How? 138 RichardC 01-Jul-11 17:39
Re: How? 120 JonnyMcA 30-Jun-11 22:57
Re: How? 128 RichardC 01-Jul-11 17:29
Re: How? 101 JonnyMcA 01-Jul-11 19:22
Re: How? 157 RichardC 01-Jul-11 21:25
Re: How? 111 JonnyMcA 01-Jul-11 22:07
Re: How? 147 Bobajot 02-Jul-11 00:29
Re: How? 124 JonnyMcA 02-Jul-11 08:11
Re: How? 134 Bobajot 03-Jul-11 01:04
Re: How? 222 JonnyMcA 03-Jul-11 15:08
Re: How? 128 Bobajot 03-Jul-11 23:27
Re: How? 124 JonnyMcA 04-Jul-11 07:28
Re: How? 134 Bobajot 04-Jul-11 13:10
Re: How? 121 JonnyMcA 04-Jul-11 14:00
Re: How? 122 laughin 04-Jul-11 13:58
Re: How? 118 JonnyMcA 04-Jul-11 14:18
Re: How? 135 laughin 04-Jul-11 14:09
Re: How? 132 JonnyMcA 04-Jul-11 14:33
Re: How? 136 laughin 04-Jul-11 19:22
Re: How? 108 JonnyMcA 04-Jul-11 20:02
Re: How? 132 laughin 05-Jul-11 20:48
Re: How? 155 JonnyMcA 07-Jul-11 16:28
Re: How much? 109 laughin 07-Jul-11 19:09
Re: How? 123 laughin 02-Jul-11 14:32
Re: How? 135 JonnyMcA 02-Jul-11 15:00
Re: How? 125 laughin 03-Jul-11 16:46
Re: How? 114 JonnyMcA 03-Jul-11 21:42
Data confirming Hubbles law. 146 JonnyMcA 02-Jul-11 15:18
Erratum 116 JonnyMcA 02-Jul-11 15:03
Re: Most Distant Quasar in Universe Discovered 108 Sirfiroth 03-Jul-11 23:27
Re: Most Distant Quasar in Universe Discovered 120 Dr. Troglodyte 03-Jul-11 23:54


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.