PDA

View Full Version : Black Holes / Big Bang


Float
26th-July-2013, 11:18 PM
I am not too familiar with astronomy, but this image made me think.
If time was reversed, would Black Holes work like the Big Bang? Why not?

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/11/focus-italy_singularity-outtake1.jpg

SpaceYeti
27th-July-2013, 12:22 AM
Because they wouldn't create a universe, they'd just... spray energy and matter in all directions.

TheHabitatDoctor
27th-July-2013, 01:10 AM
The answer depends on the shape of the universe and what a black hole actually is.

If the universe is in some way cyclical, then the answer might be yes.

Quoting NASA from this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe): "The universe is flat"

Never heard that one before, eh? :D

Your picture highlights something iffy about the conventional understanding of the Big Bang. Red shift is frequently used as evidence to demonstrate that the universe is constantly expanding (and hence justification for the Big Bang), when in reality all red shift means is that the universe shares a single origin of expansion. Your image is half of one of these (Cheerio):
http://www.harismind.com/eunive3.jpg

From any 1 of the 360 degrees of the Cheerio, as long as anything is moving away from the origin, it will reflect red shift. However the existence of the opposite hemisphere of the Cheerio (where everything would instead show blue shift at any position in that hemisphere) can't be excluded. The equator between the two hemispheres would be invisible, as neither red nor blue shift would be reflected. Similarly, any two things moving along the exact same axis at the exact same speed would be invisible to each other (dark matter/energy).

In the Cheerio model, the universe isn't expanding at all, just moving.


This whole mess actually highlights an important question: What if all black holes are actually the same black hole?

redbaron
27th-July-2013, 01:39 AM
Read, 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence M. Krauss.

I can't really answer for if time was 'reversed'...I'm not sure what that entails. It's kind of like asking what the universe would look like if you reversed electromagnetism. There's a lot of things to consider..

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 01:55 AM
The universe came from a singularity and a black hole is a singularity. The twin beams are matter before the event horizon. Matter (even light) once through event horizon never escapes.

There's no difference between two singularities.

It's like to say there's two infinities.

So probably the "other side" of black holes there's a whole universe (perhaps with very different physical laws).

Universes can be "white holes".

Dreams inside dreams ad infinitum.

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 02:00 AM
It can "only" links to other parts of this universe. Like a shortcut to another region in space and/or time in our universe.

Thurlor
27th-July-2013, 02:23 AM
If a black-hole 'births' a 'daughter universe' is that universe contained within the black hole or does the black-hole merely lead to it?

By my understaning black-holes have mass, which would imply the former scenario.

Regarding 'time's arrow'. I thought I had read somewhere that theoretically time works just as well in either direction.

Duxwing
27th-July-2013, 03:12 AM
I'm not a physics expert, but:

Black holes are matter that has collapsed under its own gravity against the resistance of the other three fundamental forces; in a black hole, no force resists gravity, compressing the matter thereof into an infinitely small point. The density of matter therein causes gravity to be extreme near the black hole, irresistibly attracting any matter passing by and causing an even stronger gravitational pull.

Calm down, people.

-Duxwing

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 01:27 PM
I'm not a physics expert, but:

Black holes are matter that has collapsed under its own gravity against the resistance of the other three fundamental forces;

-Duxwing

That's not what a black hole is, that's the cause of a BH.

BH's are singularities that tear down the very fabric of spacetime.

SpaceYeti
27th-July-2013, 01:52 PM
The answer depends on the shape of the universe and what a black hole actually is.

If the universe is in some way cyclical, then the answer might be yes.

Quoting NASA from this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe): "The universe is flat"

Never heard that one before, eh? :D

Your picture highlights something iffy about the conventional understanding of the Big Bang. Red shift is frequently used as evidence to demonstrate that the universe is constantly expanding (and hence justification for the Big Bang), when in reality all red shift means is that the universe shares a single origin of expansion. Your image is half of one of these (Cheerio):
http://www.harismind.com/eunive3.jpg

From any 1 of the 360 degrees of the Cheerio, as long as anything is moving away from the origin, it will reflect red shift. However the existence of the opposite hemisphere of the Cheerio (where everything would instead show blue shift at any position in that hemisphere) can't be excluded. The equator between the two hemispheres would be invisible, as neither red nor blue shift would be reflected. Similarly, any two things moving along the exact same axis at the exact same speed would be invisible to each other (dark matter/energy).

In the Cheerio model, the universe isn't expanding at all, just moving.


This whole mess actually highlights an important question: What if all black holes are actually the same black hole?
... You didn't just make that up, did you? Is there people on the internet saying this makes sense for real?

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 02:16 PM
{What if all black holes are actually the same black hole?}

Well, I think that's a good point. It's like you can mathematically "reach" the infinity in every direction in space dimension (X,Y,Z). I think no matter direction you take you always goes to the only infinity. Same thing to singularities... I think.

Montresor
27th-July-2013, 03:18 PM
Maybe the southern hemisphere of the cheerio is experiencing time backwards as we know it.

Spacetime is like a soft piece of cloth that gets pulled through the middle of the cheerio in one direction (i.e. event horizon / convergent) and emerges through the other side (i.e. big bang) in a divergent fashion.

Duxwing
27th-July-2013, 03:33 PM
Where did you read that black holes tear holes in the fabric of space and time? They are clumps of matter that have become infinitely dense because their gravity has overcome any resistance. Are they nevertheless fascinating things to wonder about with implications for how we see the cosmos? Absolutely.

-Duxwing

Montresor
27th-July-2013, 03:37 PM
A singularity is a mysterious concept that can only be understood, not explained........

[0 0 0]

Pizzabeak
27th-July-2013, 05:25 PM
If time reversed? As in regression? If so, wouldn't we just see the black hole turn back into the type of star it was in the first place, and dust even before that. It depends on the properties of this 'reverse time' that you propose. Again, is it just as if time just started to regress (and we could see ourself getting younger, galaxies have more of a blue shift than a red shift), or is this some weird anti-time thing. If we replaced "time" with "reverse time" what would happen? The only way I can see a black hole behaving like a big bang is if it just exploded for some reason and all the stuff was released, then it would be like a birth of a universe within our universe.
But there are probably some unknown properties of black holes, or rather infinitely dense points in the fabric of space time that any idea would probably have to be contingent on.

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 06:26 PM
Why black holes are considered as a tear in the fabric of space and time?

Well for same reason it's called a black hole not a black point (of dense matter).

If you can rip apart the fabric of space and time with a laser, it must be easier with a black hole:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7131/full/446016a.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/

Duxwing
27th-July-2013, 06:30 PM
Why black holes are considered as a tear in the fabric of space and time?

Well for same reason it's called a black hole not a black point (of dense matter).

If you can rip apart the fabric of space and time with a laser, it must be easier with a black hole:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7131/full/446016a.html

Black holes are called because they look like black holes; they look like black holes because light gets sucked into them. The singularity in the middle is actually incredibly bright because of all the radiation that the black hole catches.

That article doesn't look particularly credible, and lasers and gravity are phenomena of two different fundamental forces. Effects of one would therefore be unlikely to be effects of the other.

-Duxwing

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 06:51 PM
Black holes are called because they look like black holes; they look like black holes because light gets sucked into them. The singularity in the middle is actually incredibly bright because of all the radiation that the black hole catches.

That article doesn't look particularly credible, and lasers and gravity are phenomena of two different fundamental forces. Effects of one would therefore be unlikely to be effects of the other.

-Duxwing

You asked me where I read about a black hole being a singularity and a singularity being a tear in the fabric of space and time. I just posted links of universities and scientific journals (but Nature doesn't look particularly credible?!) where they call word by word: "tear in the fabric of space time". If you have credible links saying the opposite, I want to read them. Here are more links:

http://www.tcnj.edu/~hofmann/wormholes.htm

http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6-001/Cosmology/general_relativity.htm

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureXIV/LectureXIV.html

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/fuhrhop/project.html

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring04/wheeler/book/chapter12.html

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/research/main/theoreticalphysics/research.html

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~hanson/ASTRO/LECTURENOTES/W02/Lec10/Page2.html

http://plaza.ufl.edu/gospelsf/Papers/AST1006.htm

TheHabitatDoctor
27th-July-2013, 09:35 PM
... You didn't just make that up, did you?
Totally.
I did come up with it independently, during a previous discussion with... you, ironically; but yeah, I'm certainly not the first. Infinite regress much?
http://coastlinejournal.org/2009/04/06/the-shape-of-the-universe/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2007/07/001;jsessionid=D90ED580649CFC1B83D4722E4E7FE6CF.c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbruPR3o0Zc
Though my initial thought was an obese Cheerio instead of an orange.

John_Mann
27th-July-2013, 09:52 PM
Totally.
I did come up with it independently, during a previous discussion with... you, ironically; but yeah, I'm certainly not the first. Infinite regress much?
http://coastlinejournal.org/2009/04/06/the-shape-of-the-universe/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2007/07/001;jsessionid=D90ED580649CFC1B83D4722E4E7FE6CF.c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbruPR3o0Zc
Though my initial thought was an obese Cheerio instead of an orange.

That's reminds me the Quasi-steady state cosmology (QSS).

SpaceYeti
27th-July-2013, 11:24 PM
Totally.
I did come up with it independently, during a previous discussion with... you, ironically; but yeah, I'm certainly not the first. Infinite regress much?
http://coastlinejournal.org/2009/04/06/the-shape-of-the-universe/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2007/07/001;jsessionid=D90ED580649CFC1B83D4722E4E7FE6CF.c2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbruPR3o0Zc
Though my initial thought was an obese Cheerio instead of an orange.

The space of that cheerio universe is not flat. The space of our universe is flat. Triangles, yo.

And just one more problem, why are all galaxies red-shifted at a proportion exactly equal to their distance, instead of the ones closer to the cheerio hole being less so, and the ones farther from being more so?

Also, how long has this been going on, and how does the universe retain the energy such that each layer stays that layer instead of going less far each time?

redbaron
27th-July-2013, 11:32 PM
The space of that cheerio universe is not flat. The space of our universe is flat. Triangles, yo.

We still don't have enough data to claim the universe is flat with this sort of finality.

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 12:14 AM
We still don't have enough data to claim the universe is flat with this sort of finality.
What does count as enough data? How do you figure out if the universe is flat or not that would be more accurate than what has already been done and which we can do? Measuring triangles from Earth to the farthest observable points in space isn't good enough for you? Also, why didn't you answer my question? If this cheerio is the shape of our universe, then the galaxies nearer to the singularity part of the cycle would be less relatively red-shifted, and those farther would be more red-shifted, and we could tell which side of the sky is going outward. Why does this not happen?

John_Mann
28th-July-2013, 12:27 AM
What does count as enough data?

Some days ago I learnt there's no raw data in the universe and perception it's equal to judgement. MBTI must have 3 letters instead 4. Ah and feeling it's equal to thinking too.

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 12:41 AM
Some days ago I learnt there's no raw data in the universe and perception it's equal to judgement. MBTI must have 3 letters instead 4. Ah and feeling it's equal to thinking too.
Okay, say that again, but this time communicate an understandable concept.

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 12:46 AM
The space of that cheerio universe is not flat. The space of our universe is flat. Triangles, yo.
Uhm... duh?

A curved surface can appear flat if the surface is very large in comparison to the observer; and light itself may indeed be moving in a curved manner that is perceived to be straight.
And just one more problem, why are all galaxies red-shifted at a proportion exactly equal to their distance, instead of the ones closer to the cheerio hole being less so, and the ones farther from being more so?
Multidimensional observer positioning bias. See the spiraling in the YouTube video. Shift is unidimensional.
Also, how long has this been going on, and how does the universe retain the energy such that each layer stays that layer instead of going less far each time?
How long is infinity? How long does a continuous cycle last? A closed system is by definition closed, and thus immune to external influence, but stable states exist within closed systems.
We still don't have enough data to claim the universe is flat with this sort of finality.
Woot.
Measuring triangles from Earth to the farthest observable points in space isn't good enough for you?
Measuring triangles does not triangulation make.
Some days ago I learnt there's no raw data in the universe and perception it's equal to judgement. MBTI must have 3 letters instead 4. Ah and feeling it's equal to thinking too.
:cat:

Cherry Cola
28th-July-2013, 12:47 AM
Some days ago I learnt there's no raw data in the universe and perception it's equal to judgement. MBTI must have 3 letters instead 4. Ah and feeling it's equal to thinking too.

Russels paradox therefore 3 letters? Because every theoretical construct has to pertain to be a theory about everything! That has worked sooooo well in the past indeed!

John_Mann
28th-July-2013, 12:59 AM
Okay, say that again, but this time communicate an understandable concept.

1- There's no raw data in the universe, everything is data already processed (information).

2- Perception = Judgement

3- Feeling = Thinking = Logic

You mentioned data and I'm using my new knowledge from these threads:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17189&highlight=raw+data

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11168&highlight=raw+data

redbaron
28th-July-2013, 09:36 AM
What does count as enough data? How do you figure out if the universe is flat or not that would be more accurate than what has already been done and which we can do? Measuring triangles from Earth to the farthest observable points in space isn't good enough for you?

THD already explained one part of this:

A curved surface can appear flat if the surface is very large in comparison to the observer; and light itself may indeed be moving in a curved manner that is perceived to be straight.

I feel like a broken record but - this concept is actually explored in the book, 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss - it's also not a new concept, and has generally been noted on studies of the nature of the properties of space being flat/curved: that by all rights the universe gives the appearance of being incredibly close to flat, but that there are certain anomalies which still need to be accounted for.

There's also the issue that if the universe is indeed flat - the mass of the universe should be much higher than is (even taking into account dark matter) because it essentially has no boundary, and if even the void of empty space contains mass and the universe is flat, then by rights the universe should contain more mass.

Again explored in AUFN by Krauss...

This is what is currently being purported in recent theoretical physics material. This isn't just, 'people on the internet' - although I'm sure many theoretical physicists have access to the internet :)

Also, why didn't you answer my question?

Probably because it was part of an edit to your original post.

Though admittedly I wouldn't have answered anyway because even if I can come up with a relevant answer you're still going to want more validation. I'm not a physicist and I really can't come up with defensible arguments on matters like this on a whim: my understanding comes from hundreds of hours spent reading, fact-checking and investigating the veracity of hundreds of books, articles, videos and peer-reviewed studies.

So while I could probably hazard a guess, it'd still be that: guessing - because I'm not schooled in physics beyond a point that just about anyone could school themselves to with resources available to the public.

There's nothing to really be gained from this debate, as all you're really going to do is say, 'clarify this and this...and this...and that...now this...' ad infinitum. I really can't be bothered conversing on that level - nothing but a waste of time for both of us - you could be reading the works of actual physicists, and I could be doing...anything but talk to you.

In the end you'll end up, 'catching me out' or something redundant and then purport it to be proof that what I'm saying is wrong, when all you've done is demonstrate my own limited understanding of the concept...not a flaw in the actual concept itself.

Which is why I refer people towards reading materials in discussions like this, and while I'm happy to make detached speculations on things, I'm not going to get involved in debates about certain things for the above mentioned reasons.

Of course there's also the issue that conversing with you is pretty much like speaking to the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 11:11 AM
A curved surface can appear flat if the surface is very large in comparison to the observer; and light itself may indeed be moving in a curved manner that is perceived to be straight.

Sure, but the crux of the matter is that there is no extra acceleration on the bulging side or reduced acceleration from the expanding side. Also, if we say "Maybe the universe is this even though it doesn't look that way..." then we can imagine the universe basically however we want to. How do we determine what the case actually is?

Multidimensional observer positioning bias. See the spiraling in the YouTube video. Shift is unidimensional.Still doesn't explain it. The galaxies closer to the more condensed region of space would uniformly, relative to their position along the turning axis, be accelerating away from us more slowly than the ones on the other side of the sky because they're not traveling as directly away from us. Their red shift would be relatively lower than other stars the same distance from us on the other side of the sky. The red-shift slowly changes (all the way to an equal blue shift on the bottom) along the entire surface of the cheerio, and, as you pointed out, only on one dimension. We would notice the shift being different if we looked at each side of the sky. Even at the top-most place, we'd notice a reduction in red shift the farther you look along that one axis, which doesn't happen on other axes.

How long is infinity? How long does a continuous cycle last? A closed system is by definition closed, and thus immune to external influence, but stable states exist within closed systemsSure, but the total entropy still increases the entire time.

Measuring triangles does not triangulation make.Measuring the angles of triangles does help figure out if the surface the triangles rest on is flat, convex, or concave, though. The axis where the triangles' corners are greater than 180 degrees when added together would be the same axis we'd notice the anomalous shifting along. Granted, if we assumed the universe is so big that we cannot detect the curvature, we wouldn't detect the decreased shift either, but then we have no reason to presume this is the case. It's just a neat idea, for now.

Montresor
28th-July-2013, 01:16 PM
Measuring the angles of triangles does help figure out if the surface the triangles rest on is flat, convex, or concave, though. The axis where the triangles' corners are greater than 180 degrees when added together would be the same axis we'd notice the anomalous shifting along.

Is there any way one can "intuit" another possibility?

What I'm saying is you might be describing a small part in a big picture and perhaps though your conceptual abilities are sound, you just need to "think bigger".

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 01:49 PM
Is there any way one can "intuit" another possibility?

What I'm saying is you might be describing a small part in a big picture and perhaps though your conceptual abilities are sound, you just need to "think bigger".
I can imagine up as many possibilities as I want. I'm trying to draw a conclusion based on the information we actually have though.

Montresor
28th-July-2013, 01:50 PM
I can imagine up as many possibilities as I want. I'm trying to draw a conclusion based on the information we actually have though.


yeah but ... why?

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 02:17 PM
yeah but ... why?
Figuring out what's actually true is actual knowledge. Imagining up what could possibly be true is... I dunno... too easy? I mean, anyone can imagine anything they want to. That's how kids invent games, and it's how I play pen and paper role playing games. My imagination is fun, but it's not a source of information about reality.

The original question, by the way, is nonsense. If time flowed backwards, we'd still perceive it as going forward, because cause and effect get reversed, and we would lose the information we start with at death, because we remember having lived life to gain it. It would be no different through our eyes, but that's more an ignorance about what's happening.

It's more like asking if water flowed up. Down or up, it's going forward either way. Water can't flow backwards, it can just flow in a new direction. Time cannot go backwards, it just goes a different direction. There's no such thing as backwards, objectively speaking. Time is the progress of one moment to the next. It doesn't matter what series of causes does what, this moment before that moment is going just as forward as that moment before this.

Time doesn't have a front, like humans. It's going forward regardless what direction it's traveling in. We're the egocentric jerks who need to turn around if we want to change our direction of travel while continuing to go forward.

Montresor
28th-July-2013, 02:40 PM
Figuring out what's actually true is actual knowledge. Imagining up what could possibly be true is... I dunno... too easy? I mean, anyone can imagine anything they want to. That's how kids invent games, and it's how I play pen and paper role playing games. My imagination is fun, but it's not a source of information about reality.


That's all fine and well, but I think you are fighting a big fight with a little sword. I just think there's more ways than 1 to stretch the geometry around in your head without ruling it out as childish and whimsical.

John_Mann
28th-July-2013, 03:09 PM
The original question, by the way, is nonsense. If time flowed backwards, we'd still perceive it as going forward, because cause and effect get reversed, and we would lose the information we start with at death, because we remember having lived life to gain it. It would be no different through our eyes, but that's more an ignorance about what's happening.

Yeah you can change the vector orientation but it's not automatically changes it's direction.

But in a universe with "backwards" time we would perceive retrocausality.

With backwards time do we still perceive a kind of free will?

Or free will it's just perceived with cause coming first?

Interesting I perceive more free will in quantum realm where effect comes first (in sense of measurement).

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 03:37 PM
Sure, but the crux of the matter is that there is no extra acceleration on the bulging side or reduced acceleration from the expanding side.
This isn't demonstrably true.
Also, if we say "Maybe the universe is this even though it doesn't look that way..." then we can imagine the universe basically however we want to. How do we determine what the case actually is?
You falsely assert that the Cheerio isn't bound by rules that contain restrictions on the applicability of ideas I pull out of my ass. Systems don't work that way.
Still doesn't explain it. The galaxies closer to the more condensed region of space would uniformly, relative to their position along the turning axis, be accelerating away from us more slowly than the ones on the other side of the sky because they're not traveling as directly away from us. Their red shift would be relatively lower than other stars the same distance from us on the other side of the sky. The red-shift slowly changes (all the way to an equal blue shift on the bottom) along the entire surface of the cheerio, and, as you pointed out, only on one dimension. We would notice the shift being different if we looked at each side of the sky. Even at the top-most place, we'd notice a reduction in red shift the farther you look along that one axis, which doesn't happen on other axes.
Shift isn't viewed in real time, and you assume observational access we don't have.
Sure, but the total entropy still increases the entire time.
No. Entropy is stable within a closed system. It's a closed system.
Measuring the angles of triangles does help figure out if the surface the triangles rest on is flat, convex, or concave, though. The axis where the triangles' corners are greater than 180 degrees when added together would be the same axis we'd notice the anomalous shifting along. Granted, if we assumed the universe is so big that we cannot detect the curvature, we wouldn't detect the decreased shift either, but then we have no reason to presume this is the case. It's just a neat idea, for now.
One data point is not sufficient to answer questions that require triangulation. Echolocation on the other hand...

Duxwing
28th-July-2013, 04:02 PM
This isn't demonstrably true.

You falsely assert that the Cheerio isn't bound by rules that contain restrictions on the applicability of ideas I pull out of my ass. Systems don't work that way.

Shift isn't viewed in real time, and you assume observational access we don't have.

No. Entropy is stable within a closed system. It's a closed system.

One data point is not sufficient to answer questions that require triangulation. Echolocation on the other hand...

The entropy of a closed system tends toward a maximum.

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 04:14 PM
The entropy of a closed system tends toward a maximum.
Which is stable. :rolleyes:

Not "increasing the entire time," "at maximum." Stable. Sum=0.

Duxwing
28th-July-2013, 04:43 PM
Which is stable. :rolleyes:

Not "increasing the entire time," "at maximum." Stable. Sum=0.

The maximum, once reached, is stable.

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 05:37 PM
The maximum, once reached, is stable.
Yes, though "once reached" implies it's not always at its maximum.

Brontosaurie
28th-July-2013, 06:32 PM
Some days ago I learnt there's no raw data in the universe and perception it's equal to judgement. MBTI must have 3 letters instead 4. Ah and feeling it's equal to thinking too.

thanks for raping and ridiculing what i tried to tell you. also thanks for making it either a dogm or a stupid joke.

think for yourself.

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 09:47 PM
This isn't demonstrably true.

Unless you look? How is it not demonstrably true? Measure the red shift of galaxies in all directions, see if some are accelerating away at a slower rate than their distance would dictate would be the norm for their distance. What we do observe is that all galaxies are accelerating away at a rate determined by their distance, with no significant variation... There is no one axis where this changes.

You falsely assert that the Cheerio isn't bound by rules that contain restrictions on the applicability of ideas I pull out of my ass. Systems don't work that way.

No, it would certainly work a certain way, you're right. You defense of the idea boils down to "Well the universe could be a cheerio, but it just looks flat!"

Sure, it could. Why would we presume that is the case, though?

Shift isn't viewed in real time, and you assume observational access we don't have.

I don't know what you mean by shift not being viewed in real time. Does the light from the crunched downier side of the observable universe move more quickly in order to make up for the slower relative expansion of the actual stars? I mean, it's not like you get to the edge of the cheerio and then, suddenly, everything starts coming back in. They slow down before they start moving closer, which means the galaxies along the vertical axis would accelerate away from us more slowly the farther they are, even at the peak of the cheerio.

If we can't observe it because the universe is too big, okay, but then we have no reason to suppose the universe is that shape to begin with. If the universe isn't too big for us to notice, though, then it would certainly be something we're capable of observing.

No. Entropy is stable within a closed system. It's a closed system.

Only after it reaches it's maximum volume, which if the universe is still doing things has not happened. The universe you propose is most certainly doing many things. It's in a pretty low state of entropy, because it keeps projecting the universal substances along the same distances after exiting the black/white hole. So long as that continues, it has certainly not reached maximum entropy.

One data point is not sufficient to answer questions that require triangulation. Echolocation on the other hand...
... That's why they use three? Triangles have three points. Echolocation? That's basically the same thing I'm talking about, via the Cosmic Background Radiation.

...

You're bull-crapping, aren't you?

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 10:22 PM
You're bull-crapping, aren't you?
No. But I am tired.

Duxwing
28th-July-2013, 10:25 PM
Yes, though "once reached" implies it's not always at its maximum.

And rightly so: systems sometimes proceed from lower to higher entropy by such spontaneous (I speak in terms of activation energy) phenomena as unstable atoms decaying or water evaporating.

-Duxwing

Cherry Cola
28th-July-2013, 10:28 PM
Yeah you can change the vector orientation but it's not automatically changes it's direction.

But in a universe with "backwards" time we would perceive retrocausality.

With backwards time do we still perceive a kind of free will?

Or free will it's just perceived with cause coming first?

Interesting I perceive more free will in quantum realm where effect comes first (in sense of measurement).

I suck at physics and even I can tell this post is as wrong as the holocaust.

How did retrocausality get into the picture at all? What does it have to do with a reversed timeflow? Seems to me you suffer from "create arbitrary connections between cool physix stuff that seem to be sort of similar for appear smart"-syndrome

What does free will have to do with anything? Did you even read Spaceyeti's post? Your asking questions that sort of require you to either not have read or not have gotten it.

"Interesting I perceive more free will in quantum realm where effect comes first (in sense of measurement)."

Uh ok? What does that even mean? Is this another case of mixing up randomness with free will? In sense of measurement? Wait why did you perceive more free will in the quantum realm again? How about back up your claims with something? Or do you presuppose that the answer to your question about whether the perceiving of free will requires cause to precede effect is not only: "No" but also "There's more free will being perceived if time flows in reverse".

protip: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm

Implies that we need to transcend the cause/effect dichotomy, that it doesn't hold up, because there is no cause of the first effect just a closed circle and that were thus practically stuck in a closed system of our own. Not whatever you got out from it.


The most pseudo-intellectual drivel I've seen since Chad's last attempt to be right about something. Then again I had to guess what I was reading a lot so perhaps I am totally wrong.

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-July-2013, 10:53 PM
And rightly so: systems sometimes proceed from lower to higher entropy by such spontaneous (I speak in terms of activation energy) phenomena as unstable atoms decaying or water evaporating.

-Duxwing
But... the universe, being everything, cannot. Things inside can shift about willy nilly, but as the all encompassing closed system, the universe itself has a delta S of 0. It's at equilibrium, which does not prohibit localized, internal, disequilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

John_Mann
28th-July-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't know what you mean by shift not being viewed in real time.

That's new to me too. Could someone provide further explanation?

SpaceYeti
28th-July-2013, 11:42 PM
But... the universe, being everything, cannot. Things inside can shift about willy nilly, but as the all encompassing closed system, the universe itself has a delta S of 0. It's at equilibrium, which does not prohibit localized, internal, disequilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)
Read the second law of thermodynamics. It applies specifically to closed systems! The universe, being a closed system, tends to gain entropy with time... Because it's a closed system!

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-July-2013, 12:12 AM
Read the second law of thermodynamics. It applies specifically to closed systems! The universe, being a closed system, tends to gain entropy with time... Because it's a closed system!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy."

The universe is at thermodynamic equilibrium. Otherwise it wouldn't be the universe. An increase can't occur beyond the maximum. :pueh:

defghi
29th-July-2013, 12:21 AM
Evolves toward equilibrium, not is at equilibrium. The universe is headed towards equilibrium, hence increasing entropy.

If we were at equilibrium, we would be experiencing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Duxwing
29th-July-2013, 12:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy."

The universe is at thermodynamic equilibrium. Otherwise it wouldn't be the universe. An increase can't occur beyond the maximum. :pueh:

Reread the sentence: the entropy of a closed system never decreases, but rather increases with time.

Well put, defghi. The very typing of this post increases entropy, an event perfectly in line with the current understanding of thermodynamics.

-Duxwing

SpaceYeti
29th-July-2013, 12:26 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy."

The universe is at thermodynamic equilibrium. Otherwise it wouldn't be the universe. An increase can't occur beyond the maximum. :pueh:
Yet the universe isn't in equilibrium, because it's doing work. So.... you're wrong.

Duxwing
29th-July-2013, 12:28 AM
THD, might you mistakenly be referring to the law of conservation of energy and matter, which states that the amount of energy and matter in a closed system never changes, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

"But... the universe, being everything, cannot. Things inside can shift about willy nilly, but as the all encompassing closed system, the universe itself has a delta S of 0. It's at equilibrium, which does not prohibit localized, internal, disequilibrium."

Provided that you are not: In a closed system, phenomena of a net dS greater than or equal to zero occur whenever their activation energy is met. Empirically, we know that some reactions have a dS > 0 where dH < 0; therefore, the global dS > 0.

-Duxwing

John_Mann
29th-July-2013, 12:30 AM
And what about the real time shift?

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-July-2013, 01:01 AM
Evolves toward equilibrium, not is at equilibrium. The universe is headed towards equilibrium, hence increasing entropy.

If we were at equilibrium, we would be experiencing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Kelvin is over-rated.
Reread the sentence: the entropy of a closed system never decreases, but rather increases with time.
Yet the universe isn't in equilibrium, because it's doing work. So.... you're wrong.
The total sum (enthalpy) of all entropy and extropy in the universe =0. How hard is it?

"Nothing creates order! Ehrmahgawd!"

But really, equilibrium depends on the model of the universe in question. Equilibrium can exist in a state of constant motion if the size of the universe is static and its contents are the size of the universe +/-1. The point of origin within the obese Cheerio would be a -1.

*EDIT: Also, see this: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17321

And consider that the plane described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry#Consequences_and_implications) is the cross-section of the Cheerio.

SpaceYeti
29th-July-2013, 06:30 AM
Kelvin is over-rated.


The total sum (enthalpy) of all entropy and extropy in the universe =0. How hard is it?

"Nothing creates order! Ehrmahgawd!"

But really, equilibrium depends on the model of the universe in question. Equilibrium can exist in a state of constant motion if the size of the universe is static and its contents are the size of the universe +/-1. The point of origin within the obese Cheerio would be a -1.

*EDIT: Also, see this: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=17321

And consider that the plane described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry#Consequences_and_implications) is the cross-section of the Cheerio.

I know for a fact that the state of the universe is not finished entropy, because stars are still burning. QED. There's not really an argument to be made against this. It's futile. The universe is not in equilibrium. We know it.

redbaron
29th-July-2013, 09:44 AM
I know for a fact that the state of the universe is not finished entropy, because stars are still burning.

:facepalm:

Sigh.

SpaceYeti
29th-July-2013, 09:57 AM
:facepalm:

Sigh.
It's true, though. If the universe were in equilibrium, no work would be getting done.

redbaron
29th-July-2013, 11:35 AM
It's true, though. If the universe were in equilibrium, no work would be getting done.

"It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence." - Walter T. Grandy, physicist, author of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers on thermodynamics/entropy

Only a wannabe quasi-scientist could be so petulant as you are about things he doesn't have the faintest idea about.

Thing is, you're just arguing from surface-level understanding.* It's clear you haven't done any in-depth reading of peer-reviewed studies, as well as some of the (lengthy) books written by actual physicists who study these things.

If you really understood the context built around these sorts of arguments, along with all of the doubts and explanations of the shortcomings of the methodologies we currently use to develop our understanding of the universe...

* Which is why I can't stand when people link to Wikipedia in debates about scientific matters. Wikipedia is a fucking stupid reference in matters like this, because it starts with the premise that its initial premise is true - providing a summation of the concept, taken as an excerpt from the original source material and devoid of the original context. Context within which we find all of the doubts and shortcomings of the study - which are readily admitted by the scientists conducting them, in the interest of clarity and to avoid these sorts of debates and misconceptions in the first place.

Stating things like this in broad terms with finality, devoid of supporting context and expression of reasonable doubt is exactly what science isn't about.

defghi
29th-July-2013, 12:24 PM
If the universe were in equilibrium, no work would be getting done.

"universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."- Walter T. Grandy, physicist, author of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers on thermodynamics/entropy

These two things seem to agree...

You are right, and I agree with your point here as well as your previous posts, but this was a semantic issue, and while none of this paints the complete picture, we can still differentiate between true statements and untrue ones. "The universe is in equilibrium" is of the untrue variety. If we can't say that is untrue, then we can't say whether anything is true or untrue, thus getting us absolutely nowhere- also a rather unscientific methodology.

SpaceYeti
29th-July-2013, 12:35 PM
"It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence." - Walter T. Grandy, physicist, author of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers on thermodynamics/entropy

Only a wannabe quasi-scientist could be so petulant as you are about things he doesn't have the faintest idea about.

Thing is, you're just arguing from surface-level understanding.* It's clear you haven't done any in-depth reading of peer-reviewed studies, as well as some of the (lengthy) books written by actual physicists who study these things.

If you really understood the context built around these sorts of arguments, along with all of the doubts and explanations of the shortcomings of the methodologies we currently use to develop our understanding of the universe...

* Which is why I can't stand when people link to Wikipedia in debates about scientific matters. Wikipedia is a fucking stupid reference in matters like this, because it starts with the premise that its initial premise is true - providing a summation of the concept, taken as an excerpt from the original source material and devoid of the original context. Context within which we find all of the doubts and shortcomings of the study - which are readily admitted by the scientists conducting them, in the interest of clarity and to avoid these sorts of debates and misconceptions in the first place.

Stating things like this in broad terms with finality, devoid of supporting context and expression of reasonable doubt is exactly what science isn't about.
So you're saying I'm incorrect? If so, could you elaborate on the point instead of making an argument from authority? If the universe is a closed system, then when would we say it has reached heat death, or maximum entropy? Would it be while stars are still around? Certainly not, granting a never ending expansion. If the universe does not collapse into itself in a big crunch, then all stars will burn out. It's inevitable.

Even in the Cheerio scenario, entropy still applies, it would simply take longer for all the stars to burn out because they keep getting recycled in the black/white hole. In this case, entropy would be the cessation of the black/white hole. Just like a bouncing ball never bounces as high as it fell from, the white end would be unable to throw the energy as far as it did on the last cycle... eventually losing it's power to push matter out the other side anymore and the whole thing either disappearing or simply becoming a super-massive black hole with no white side and all the other energy of the universe then burning out as above. The only real benefit is that this cheerio universe would be really likely to big crunch after that... if you call it a benefit.

Either way, the universe is not in equilibrium.

This is all assuming the universe is a closed system, obviously, but you haven't bothered making a case against me, so... what? I'm utterly ignorant until I'm a PhD? I'm wrong because I'm not a physicist? Maybe I'm wrong, sure. I'll admit it if you supply decent evidence counter to my understanding of physics, too. All you're doing is calling me ignorant in more words, though. If you're concerned about my lack of doubt, provide some. Put up or shut up.

Cherry Cola
29th-July-2013, 12:40 PM
Redbaron: That seems like a mere resort to scepticism. The same could be a said of a number things no?

Montresor
29th-July-2013, 01:06 PM
An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it misinterprets the actual consensus of the actual experts in the community and/or quotes them out of context...

In this case, it's hard to tell, but I think the point he is making (if you'll allow me to try, RB) is that we are presently unable to define this equilibrium thus unable to discuss it, especially as fact and truth, particularly by referencing something that is such a target for vandalism.

I formally propose that we informally adopt the fallacy of Wikipedia into our collective reasoning.

It's too easy to read a Wikipedia article, possibly misinterpret it, and feel informed on a subject.

Cherry Cola
29th-July-2013, 01:35 PM
I formally propose that we informally adopt the fallacy of Wikipedia into our collective reasoning.

It's too easy to read a Wikipedia article, possibly misinterpret it, and feel informed on a subject.

Very true, I could be guilty of this. Honestly I don't know. Just got interested in physics again and now I'm trying to soak up some layman knowledge on it so that I have something to ruminate with later.

SpaceYeti
29th-July-2013, 02:21 PM
An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it misinterprets the actual consensus of the actual experts in the community and/or quotes them out of context...

I think the fallacy applies here because it's ambiguous what the quoted text even means, what the expert is even saying such that it's applicable in the first place. I didn't feel like looking up a more appropriate fallacy, at any rate. It's a fallacious argument because he never states why I'm wrong, he goes on about how I'm not an expert. I agree I'm not an expert, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

In this case, it's hard to tell, but I think the point he is making (if you'll allow me to try, RB) is that we are presently unable to define this equilibrium thus unable to discuss it, especially as fact and truth, particularly by referencing something that is such a target for vandalism.What makes us unable to define it? It is fact and truth that, if the universe is a closed system and it does not end in a big crunch, that it will suffer a heat death where there are no more stars because all star fuel gets used up. It's not an idea of my invention, it's stuff I've read in books and online and from physicists both directly (once, anyhow) and in videos. Further, it makes damned good sense.

The difference is that the proposed universe wouldn't suffer heat death through exclusively stars running out of fuel, but also the wearing down and eventual cease of functioning of the central black/white hole. After that central hub wears down and stops, though, it's normal heat death time. Of course, because the shape of the universe brings everything back to the central point, it's far more likely to big crunch, possibly before the heat death happens. This, then, would probably be a more applicable full-entropy state; the universe collapses into a singularity. Even then, though, the universe is not a singularity, and is thus not in that end-state.

This, I believe, is the point of contention. Other people, I think, do not believe the central hole would wear down. However, entropy would not allow it to continue forever. If we imagine the hole not as a black hole/white hole singularity duo thing, then we could pretend it's simply a narrow "area" with no singularity. Relatively narrow. It'd still be large enough to let a good chunk of the rotating universe through. However, then we're left, essentially, with the universe simply spinning upwards in the center and downwards at the sides. It's essentially the same model, but no physics mumbo jumbo quantum BS can be hand-waved in as an explanation for why it could continue indefinitely.

In this case, the condensed gravity of the center would slow down the momentum of passing universal matter such that it wouldn't rotate out as far on it's next pass even if the reduction in speed is minute. It would continually slow down and, eventually, stop. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case just because we pop a black hole in there instead of a slim nexus of space. Indeed, the black hole would make the matter worse because all matter would pass through the same point and pull back with as much possible energy as the amount of mass in there at the time could, because it's so very close. In fact, it being matter, it couldn't escape the black hole... except for this silly white hole opposite which shoots everything back out, magically, which that hasn't been explained yet, but I've been accepting it for the sake of argument, so whatever.

I formally propose that we informally adopt the fallacy of Wikipedia into our collective reasoning.

It's too easy to read a Wikipedia article, possibly misinterpret it, and feel informed on a subject.

That's fine. Wikipedia physics articles are generally just stubs or go all the way and end up way over my head either way, so I don't really look at them much anyhow.

Polaris
29th-July-2013, 02:26 PM
Very true, I could be guilty of this. Honestly I don't know. Just got interested in physics again and now I'm trying to soak up some layman knowledge on it so that I have something to ruminate with later.


The best book I have ever read on the subject is The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. He explains highly complex theories in layman terms...although I would not say it is an easy read. The book is an absolute brick, but it is worth it. Just don't get exhausted by the middle of the book and put it away for a longer period of time because you'll have to re-read everything again if you want to continue reading.....:ahh04:

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-July-2013, 03:11 PM
* Which is why I can't stand when people link to Wikipedia in debates about scientific matters. Wikipedia is a fucking stupid reference in matters like this, because it starts with the premise that its initial premise is true - providing a summation of the concept, taken as an excerpt from the original source material and devoid of the original context. Context within which we find all of the doubts and shortcomings of the study - which are readily admitted by the scientists conducting them, in the interest of clarity and to avoid these sorts of debates and misconceptions in the first place.

Stating things like this in broad terms with finality, devoid of supporting context and expression of reasonable doubt is exactly what science isn't about.
I haven't bothered you much itt yet... To be fair, the purpose of a wiki link is often to provide a base conceptual overview to those actually motivated enough to investigate a phenomenon on their own; citations, further peer-reviewed searches, etc.

It's especially convenient considering one can't easily transfer a physical book online that isn't an ebook. Odum's Ecological and General Systems, for example.

Hawkeye
29th-July-2013, 04:35 PM
The OP (and perhaps others in this thread) may find this link (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html) of some interest.

Brontosaurie
29th-July-2013, 05:33 PM
i'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but: isn't there a difference between system equilibrium and total entropy?

@THD, SpaceYeti, redbaron

s0cratus
4th-August-2013, 12:08 PM
Big bang and Black Holes
Can Black Holes forbid to create the Big Bang ?
===========.

SpaceYeti
4th-August-2013, 02:46 PM
i'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but: isn't there a difference between system equilibrium and total entropy?

@THD, SpaceYeti, redbaron
Thermally speaking, no. Entropy is the equilibrium of heat energy.

just george
4th-August-2013, 04:54 PM
Thermally speaking, no. Entropy is the equilibrium of heat energy.
If the universe is toroidal in shape, centered around a black hole, then wouldn't part of the universe that is expanding be in a state of expansion and increasing entropy, while the other side of the universe doing the opposite and contracting/becoming more organized?

Personally I don't believe in the big bang theory, since no one can satisfactorily explain what was around to go bang in the first place. The only way that makes sense is that it may have felt like a bang when everything came out of one side of the black hole in the middle of the toroid.

Big Bang Theory = good tv show, crap physics theory.

Hawkeye
4th-August-2013, 09:11 PM
Big Bang Theory is a mediocre show at best.

Black holes are not holes, or black for that matter .

SpaceYeti
4th-August-2013, 11:51 PM
If the universe is toroidal in shape, centered around a black hole, then wouldn't part of the universe that is expanding be in a state of expansion and increasing entropy, while the other side of the universe doing the opposite and contracting/becoming more organized?

The far, outer edge of the universe isn't even important. It's functioning is perfectly in line with technically possible. The part of the model which is contradicted by Thermodynamics is the part where all the mass is condensed into a black hole... and then spit back out the other side! I'm not saying that can't happen. However, I am saying that condensed matter pulls on other matter such that even if this is the case, the matter which falls into one side of the black hole will never be shot out as quickly/far as it was last time, causing the universe to shrink with each cycle and eventually collapse into the singularity entirely as the escape velocity eventually becomes insurmountable.

The only way for the system to last is for there to be some sort of magical anti-backwards gravity functioning on half of the black hole... but we have no reason to presume something like that is possible.

Personally I don't believe in the big bang theory, since no one can satisfactorily explain what was around to go bang in the first place. The only way that makes sense is that it may have felt like a bang when everything came out of one side of the black hole in the middle of the toroid.One of the cool things about science is that it doesn't matter waht Jack-ass Armchair-philosopher A thinks of it. Publish your refutation in respected scientific journals or shut your face. You either have a good argument against it or you don't. You don't. Your ignorance =/= a good argument against a valid scientific theory.

I've been over the whole "Time didn't exist before time such that 'before the big bang' is even a logically valid concept" thing before. It's not exactly difficult, either. Time started during the big bang. There's no such thing as "before" time. Difficulty understanding that doesn't mean you're more informed on the topic than most cosmologists on the planet such that you have any grounds to refute their theory.

Big Bang Theory = good tv show, crap physics theory.I'm actually not that big a fan of Big Bang Theory. It's entertaining, but not worth setting a timer on my outdated VHS.

Haha, VHS.

Brontosaurie
5th-August-2013, 03:32 AM
Thermally speaking, no. Entropy is the equilibrium of heat energy.

right.

not sure why i was asking tbh.

just george
5th-August-2013, 04:13 AM
The far, outer edge of the universe isn't even important. It's functioning is perfectly in line with technically possible. The part of the model which is contradicted by Thermodynamics is the part where all the mass is condensed into a black hole... and then spit back out the other side! I'm not saying that can't happen. However, I am saying that condensed matter pulls on other matter such that even if this is the case, the matter which falls into one side of the black hole will never be shot out as quickly/far as it was last time, causing the universe to shrink with each cycle and eventually collapse into the singularity entirely as the escape velocity eventually becomes insurmountable.

Hang on, why wouldn't what is going on at the edge of the universe be important? Wouldn't what is happening everywhere be important?

Also, have you ever bent your thought towards what comes out of black holes? Everyone says "nothing comes out of black holes" but...doesn't gravity come out? And doesn't gravity do some strange things to matter?



The only way for the system to last is for there to be some sort of magical anti-backwards gravity functioning on half of the black hole... but we have no reason to presume something like that is possible.
Actually we do. When atoms are monoatomic, they become superconductive, and then according to their heat, either become much heavier than usual or float.

Therefore, gravity doesn't interact with matter in the simplistic way Newton came up with. It seems to change as the spin of the atoms change.


One of the cool things about science is that it doesn't matter waht Jack-ass Armchair-philosopher A thinks of it. Publish your refutation in respected scientific journals or shut your face. You either have a good argument against it or you don't. You don't. Your ignorance =/= a good argument against a valid scientific theory.

Listen here Mr Hostile, I'll publish when I'm good and ready. Plus I don't respect the clowns at the journals very much myself.


I've been over the whole "Time didn't exist before time such that 'before the big bang' is even a logically valid concept" thing before. It's not exactly difficult, either. Time started during the big bang. There's no such thing as "before" time. Difficulty understanding that doesn't mean you're more informed on the topic than most cosmologists on the planet such that you have any grounds to refute their theory.
Time started at the big bang. I see.

So before the big bang, there was no time, and no universe, but then out of 2 nothings came 2 somethings.

I dunno, but this theory kind of stinks. Two nothings dont make a something.


I'm actually not that big a fan of Big Bang Theory. It's entertaining, but not worth setting a timer on my outdated VHS.

Haha, VHS.

Timer? You mean you actually wait for them, episode by episode?

People still do that?

omg.