A question about infinity

[murgatroyd]

One argument for why we can never accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light is that it would take infinite energy to accomplish.

On the other hand, a black hole is said to contain an infinitely dense region of spacetime with zero volume at the center.

Why is the first argument considered an instant refutation of light-speed or faster travel (and it is persuasive to me), but the evident impossibility of infinite density in zero volume is not considered an instant refutation of the theory behind black holes?

Note, please, I am asking a question, not making an assertion. I am hoping for an accessible explanation from within the mainstream of physics.

 

[billslugg]

On one hand is the impossibility of obtaining an infinite amount of mass.
On the other hand is a finite amount of mass with infinite density, which might be possible..

 

[Atlan0001]

On one hand is the impossibility of obtaining an infinite amount of mass.
On the other hand is a finite amount of mass with infinite density, which might be possible..

I must disagree with you, Bill. Whether a finite or an infinite mass with infinite density, infinite density is a hole. That is what a graviton singularity is, a hole with a string (ringed) horizon. Whether it actually reaches infinite density first before translating to hole and horizon is something we can never know.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, all areas of infinite density are black holes, but there is no such thing as an infinite amount of mass.

 

[Atlan0001]

Yes, all areas of infinite density are black holes, but there is no such thing as an infinite amount of mass.

Still, I must disagree with you, Bill. that is, partially! disagree. You state the rule correctly but there is the one exception that proves the rule. And once you think about it you know what and where, and when, and how, that exception is.

 

[billslugg]

I'll take that as a "non-refutation" refutation.

 

[billslugg]

It is a Schroedinger's refutation. It is and it isn't at the same time. Do not think too hard about this or it will destroy the entanglement.

 

[Atlan0001]

Infinities of horizons of universe, infinities of universes, close up to a single Horizon of them all. The closing up to the Horizon infinitizes the mass of all. But! all those infinities of horizons of universe, all those infinities of universes, close up to the Horizon set of them all only in a composited, a fused, offset dimensionality I've ponderously described many times! A dimensionality that is separate from the divided spread of the infinities to infinity. For immortality's sake, they must be in both divided '0' (null unity) and/or fused '1' (unity) dimensionalities of infinity all at once and always. An immortal state of "entanglement."

It is thoroughly 'Schrodinger' state, and thoroughly an entangled state, and thoroughly infinite absolute, intrinsically so, but with an infinite difference. I've placed them all in two places at once, two situations at once, two dimensionalities at once . . . and, therefore too, at once pulling a Hawking in singularizing all time (All Time!) to '1' and/or '0' . . . and parity. I reduced, closed up, an infinity of space to a string (ring) singularity of Horizon and eternity to a 0-point, to a monopole moment of time.

I infinitized the mass of all in Horizon of all, but only as a pointedly nakedly singular and separate "exception" dimension. And it has all of the resource, including the forces..., of the infinity in hand (so to speak). But that is description I've covered again and again.

And what does it look, act, and feel, like . . . Creationism!!!! Again, you've seen it, and you've said it, Bill, "It is and it isn't at the same time"!!!! An Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe can be that . . . and do more seeming impossibilities, too, than simply being a Horizon of all horizons that impossibly produces seeming impossibilities, observably so.

 

[Mart943]

"It is and it isn't at the same time" - Time appears to add an interesting side to this. How does space-time affect the content of your posts on this subject, or perhaps that is too difficult to understand and explain?

 

[Atlan0001]

"It is and it isn't at the same time" - Time appears to add an interesting side to this. How does space-time affect the content of your posts on this subject, or perhaps that is too difficult to understand and explain?

You can go back through the many posts I've posted to look for the answer. I wouldn't recommend it though. Suffice to say I have space, time, and spacetime, as three separate entities unto themselves. TIME, I have as by far the most rigidly fixed, collapsed cosmological constant universal Horizon set of horizons (t=0(1) . . . and magnetic monopole (moment) singularity entity entirely belonging to the electroweak force and forces). SPACE, I have as the least rigid, most fractal hyper-surface (hyper-spatial) entity. SPACETIME, to me is hologramlike. . . is holographical . . . the most local coordinate "frame," like; least universal like (most finitely local Relative with regard to universe; least Real with regard to the same).

But, perhaps, it is too difficult for you to understand, despite my many posts and many approaches . . . and many tweaks and corrections as I've gained even more understanding to my own satisfaction. My picturing, my modeling, my Atlanoverse, works for me. The more that is coming to light today, the more I'm becoming confirmed in my own picturing. I owe many thanks for a lot of contribution, a lot of input -- both positive and negative -- from this very wide-ranging, widely wandering, forum group.

 

[Atlan0001]

Gravity may be a fundamental force -- or actually two in one, as I have it as the gravitational strong binding force -- but at once be other things, other dimensions, such as "fractal zoom universe" hyper-surface hyper-space.

 

[Michael Varn]

One argument for why we can never accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light is that it would take infinite energy to accomplish.

On the other hand, a black hole is said to contain an infinitely dense region of spacetime with zero volume at the center.

Why is the first argument considered an instant refutation of light-speed or faster travel (and it is persuasive to me), but the evident impossibility of infinite density in zero volume is not considered an instant refutation of the theory behind black holes?

Note, please, I am asking a question, not making an assertion. I am hoping for an accessible explanation from within the mainstream of physics.

My take on the infinity of space is as simple as counting whole numbers starting with 1.

We know for a fact that once you start counting whole numbers, there is no last number, but you can continue to count as long as you want to.

If you simply apply this numerical concept of infinity to space, the nature of infinity is the same.

Infiniti is a process in transit, in that the whole of infinity does not exist now, and will not exist at any particular time in the future.

So this means that the expansion of space will never end.

Of course their is debate about wether the expansion of the universe will indeed go on forever.

Some believe that expansion will come to complete stop at some point, and start moving in the opposite direction toward what is called the "big crunch", or the big bang in reverse.

So the simple counting of whole numbers could prove one of the most complicated concepts in all of astronomy, infinity.

Infinite Space is still in the process of establishing itself through expansion, just like counting whole numbers continue to establish that there is no last number.

 

[Atlan0001]

Simply counting one more number, plus or minus, or fraction, and forever, still ends in a finite number divisible by itself to '1'. "Infinity" means "countless" and/or "without number." It isn't a quantity. It is a quality. Rich and richly beyond any measure . . . or no value at all ('0'). 'Everywhere' and everythingness, all at once, being 'Nowhere' (Gk, u-topos (no-place): 'Utopia') and nothingness, all at once.

1) In a closed system, Infinite, absolute, mass-density of monopole (moment) point-singularity equals an infinitely, absolutely, deep hole to a monopole (moment) point-singularity. Such doesn't exist regarding an open system.

2) In a closed system, the speed of light has ceiling, or rather vortex curvature into itself to a monopole (moment) point-singularity. Refer back to 1). Again, such does not exist regarding an open system where an object internally powered, self-accelerating, NOT being driven, or controlled -- not being tethered externally to -- in its momentum by any external force or means whatsoever) can continue at a constant of acceleration such as 1-g forever up and out, or decelerate down and in, through universes of SPACE (through hypersurfaces of hyperspace ("fractal zoom level universes")) without number and measure the relative speed of light locally to be its constant of 300,000kps in the vacuum all the way through a circle to eternity and back.

3) A craft continuously internally powered and continuously accelerating through the open system could leave the Earth behind, then the Solar System behind, then the Milky Way behind, then this our fractal of SPACE of universe behind, without ever getting closer to the speed of light than 300,000kps distant! And, last but not least, always find himself, herself, or itself, among more universes of more galaxies, more stars, and more worlds. Thus, always reset to the base, the set.

Infinity is not a quantity but a quality without number . . . countless.

 

[Helio]

“Infinity” is a mathematical concept and can be a useful tool, but Nature seems to skip over them for more pragmatic purposes.

There is no objective evidence for an infinite density of any mass. We have no lab that can create them, though making tiny black holes may be possible, but they will dissolve very quickly.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I just posted this elsewhere:

Page 4 - Question - How do stars form?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Had I seen your post first, I would have posted it here.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

“Infinity” is a mathematical concept and can be a useful tool, but Nature seems to skip over them for more pragmatic purposes.

There is no objective evidence for an infinite density of any mass. We have no lab that can create them, though making tiny black holes may be possible, but they will dissolve very quickly.

Of course, Infinities will always be nonlocal . . . distant ("at a distance") . . . whether up and out or down and in. Always [from] infinity (infinities) to the finite. Farthest outside-in. Deepest inside-out (thus, still, farthest outside-in).

 

[Classical Motion]

It would take infinite mass to produce infinite density. So that's out. And if you use intermittent acceleration, one can accelerate an electron to c easily, but no further. Unless you can find a faster than c acceleration source.

Only one thing can amount to and keep filling infinity as required.......and that is ZERO. Nothingness. No physical entity or property can achieve infinity......only the lack of such can.

 

[Helio]

It would take infinite mass to produce infinite density.

Thus may be a great way to show how dramatic the divide between math and physics can be. Any mass at a point yields infinite density, but only infinite mass could physically produce infinite density,

So that's out. And if you use intermittent acceleration, one can accelerate an electron to c easily, but no further. Unless you can find a faster than c acceleration source.

No mass, including electrons, can ever get all the way to v=c.

 

[Atlan0001]

Infinities are always nonlocal, including an infinitely / infinitesimally (which is it?) dense mass 0-point horizon (versus a string horizon).

There isn't anything that isn't faster than the speed of light (time). Light (time) only catches up to reality when two or more object realities shake hands. Laser beams punching holes in something is nothing but time "past," time's "old news" (time's "histories") catching up from the rear to t=0, 0-point 'now', to do the punching at 300,000kps. It is so slow in TIME it runs to the rear, into the past, while object realities run time futuristic (comparatively speaking). The only futures light will ever run, and record, are serial pasts advancing to t=0 (0-point, here, now) where we already sit (stand (travel)).

The object universe isn't so TIME slow! The speed of light is so damn TIME slow that the universe is, and the rest of we time travelers are, faster than it always forcing light-time always to have to catch up to us in SPACE and TIME! Again, light is the slowest, most dead beat, time traveler there is. Even at CERN the speed of light never gets past 'now' where detectors and observers already were and are (as if coming from TIME future to meet light's TIME past at t=0 (0-point 'now')!

 

[Classical Motion]

" Any mass at a point yields infinite density"

Who told you that? Is that statement really require consideration?

"No mass, including electrons, can ever get all the way to v=c."

Why not? What prevents it? Does anyone know why this happens? It's easy to see it happen, but do you know why it happens? Why does mass increase when we accelerate a particle? I know.....it's because E=Mc2.......right? Is that how you reason that a particle increases mass?

We do an experiment with an un-understood entity, thousands of times the same way, get the same result, and some how believe that this result is some kind of law or character ...................when we don't understand what mass is.

How intelligent is this?

Particles will not eat or poop in an analog fashion. They absolutely refuse to do so. They are also very stubborn, which is not listed in their properties. This has been called the quantum effect. They only eat and poop in precise and certain amounts.

In order for a particle to gain mass, the particle must absorb a set amount of energy. If the energy absorbed is less than that amount, the particle will immediately emit that absorbed amount back into space. And the particle will return to the inertia state(mass) before absorption.

If the energy absorbed is that amount, the particle will contract, to a smaller size with a faster RPM. This increases the density and the A momentum. That is the increase in the property of inertia. It will take more acceleration energy than before to accelerate the particle faster now. BUT......not only that, the particle is smaller now, which gives it a smaller area to interact with the acceleration field.

Modern science believes that there is a mass gain and there is.....but they are un-aware of the decreased interaction area. They are probably are accounting for this as energy required going into the particle. Think about that.

Ok, what if the particle absorbs the first required amount and immediately absorbs some more, but not to the next quantum level? It simply emits that part and stays at new level. The amounts and levels required for the series of quantum steps is not the same amount. Science has no clue as to why we have quantum steps......or why the steps are not equal. No idea at all.

If you accelerate a charge, then quit, before it can change level, it will keep it's velocity, without gaining mass. Then hit it again, and quit, right before the mass change, it will gain V, without the mass gain.......over and over.

If you give the charge a chance to reset, and briefly rest from the acceleration, I believe it can be pushed to c, without mass gain.

Intermittent acceleration. Gives us Inter-Planetary Cruise Lines.

 

[Helio]

" Any mass at a point yields infinite density"

Who told you that? Is that statement really require consideration?

Density = mass / vol. As volume goes to zero (i.e. point) density goes to infinity. Thus any mass within the volume of a point will yield an infinite density result.

 

[Classical Motion]

We can agree on the concept of density and volume. What is your concept on mass? What is that stuff? How do you concept this entity. Do you think that mass is an entity? Would you consider that because mass can be ratio-d with energy, that energy and mass might be properties, instead of entities?

Photons can superposition. "mass" can not. They have tried to superposition mass ever since the first accelerator. Like light. But it's stubborn and refuses to do so. It can only fragment and dissolve. That's all it does. Without size, volume and Structure, it's ceases to be mass.

No physicality can exist within one point. Ever. Not even a photon, the least of physicality. All physicality has size and area/volume. EM emission has a continuous expanding size and volume. The least of physicality has the largest physical structures in this universe. interesting.

All physicality requires structure. Physicality IS structure. Energy and mass are just properties of that structure. Photons, EM field forces, and g forces have structure too. For they come from and are generated by structure. And all structures require area and volume.

Shrinking density to a point with mathematics is possible. But mathematics at a point is only possible in an equation, not in this universe. Equating math dynamics with physical dynamics only works one way. And we use the wrong way. We insist that physicality conform to the math first. But the reality is the math must conform to the physical first.

So here you and I are. Questioning one another. We don't even argue about the mass anymore......we argue about the mathematics.

I figure differently. I think Parson's Magneton(1915) was and remains the zenith of all science. It physically explains matter and the periodic table with just two particles. Explains light without local time and explains gravity in a square empty space. It explains inertia, absorption, emission, neutron decay, anti-matter, planetary orbits, cosmic red shift, star V in galaxies. IN A STRUCTURAL MANNER. It unites the mechanical, electrical, chemical, optical and what ever else you have.....all together. WITH ONE STRUCTURE.

But who in this world would dare to consider electro-mechanical simplicity?

I will not see this, but some young reading this might. They have seen charge contraction at the fission ignition facility. And if you hit it right, the charge won't move and gain velocity......it just sits there and shrinks. They do pop up and down in size and density. Just like Parson said, over one hundred years ago.

 

[Atlan0001]

Is it point-particle or wave? Or is it both at once, a hybrid unison? Is a point-particle the point of a wave crest? An infinite ocean of waves (currents / over-currents / undercurrents) and points (point-particles) of wave crests and cresting throughout.

In a crude way I've been there, done that, but #22 is a very coherent presentation of possibility, I'd never read of "Parson's magneton" before. I had, maybe still do, the structure of ring-horizon, point centrality, coming from other infrastructure, though I did, and still do at this point, have the point-singularity centrality being vortex (thus innumerable varying wave crest vortices).

 

[Classical Motion]

Consider for a moment. Gravity affects/effects the earth-moon at ~ 240,000 miles. It binds us. The EM force is egads and egads more powerful. 10E+38 times as powerful. And at close range and at particle dimensions and density, imagine the strength and quickness of charge interaction. It's probably the most violent of interactions. Only anti-matter interaction could beat it. Proportioned with size, the densities must be tremendous. The electron in the ground state has about 18 amp turns of M flux thru the center of it. The proton...30,000 amp turns. And the proton is MUCH smaller than the electron....for the flux to flow thru. Imagine that density. And the neutron even has a little more in an area equal to the proton.

There are no physical points anywhere, except for direction. And then just for reference, not object. The only other points are between the ears or a math term. It's only a math convenience, not a entity. The weakest detectable light is never a point. Although in the future we might be able to emit one light photon at a time. Then we will wittiness a true light source, not a flux source.

Wave. It all depends on what you think a wave is. This could take a long time. It's because the terms wave and field can mean so many different things now. It's like the term waveform. Before digital electronics, a wave meant a similar and common motion. But now.....any change, no matter what the dynamic.....waveform can be and IS used to describe ANY(and all) change. So it does not have the meaning it used to. A waveform use to require an alternation.......but no longer. Even on and off.....is now called a waveform. It doesn't even need rhythm......to be a waveform. A random series of points is now a waveform. It's a cartoon.

So I'll try to clarify. Before a wave, comes a field. EM "waves" are NOT like water and sound waves, like you have been taught. When we charge a sphere, the net field around it is spherical. Like the sphere. Do you know why? Why is the field uniform? It's because the field is self-repulsive. All E fields are self repulsive. If you can think of electric field lines.....then each line is trying to get away from all the other field lines. An internal repulsion. The charge material itself is self-repulsive. This is why E fields are uniform with surface.....yet still always have divergence. Charge up a ring and measure the shape of the surrounding field. This is a little different. If the ring is horizontal, the field is null in the center and weak at the "poles". But at a distance, the poles fields will fill in and converged at a distance, due to the overall repulsion of the whole ring field. But close up, the field is like a rotating platter, getting more expansive away from the charge(sideways hourglass).....but only locally(because again....of E field repulsion and divergence). That patterned platter density will fan out with distance. The divergence...causes a convergence....at a distance. Make sense?

If the ring is non conductive and charged up with sticky charge, when you rotate the ring, a M dipole will magically appear in the center of the ring. A conductive ring will counter that dipole with current M. That statement right there is going to cause some confusion, for those that have followed.

This open M dipole surrounds and will produce a contracting force upon the ring. More RPM...more contracting force. So there are two fields around the ring. A rotating E field and a rotating M field. With the E field rotating around the dipole. The M field is rotating perpendicular to the E field. Two rotating "weaved" fields. These two perpendicular rotating momentums is expressed as inertia and mass. There is another EM field of this structure. The one just explained is the external EM field. There is also an internal EM field. The internal E part is the repulsion between the turns of the helix. This tends to expand the circumference of the ring. And their is a completely enclosed M dipole inside the round torus. This tends to compact the circumference. The internal EM field has the inertial priority with the added inertia from the external field.

An electrical wave comes from circuit electronics. An oscillating field is described as a wave. But a particle only has one E pole and an uniform E field, so how can it "wave"? It does not "wave".....it wobbles. It does not wave in energy or amplitude......it's wave is the small change of wobble. So it's the rotational wobble of the field that is the wave of a particle. Only the repeated tilt or alignment of the E field is the "wave". The M dipole also tilts with the E field tilt. There can be just a few wobbles per revolution(-).....or hundreds of wobbles per revolution(+). This is the only dynamic I know or heard of.....where a lower rate....is modulated with a higher rate.

It's like a 1 MHz signal is being modulated with a 10 MHz signal. So cool.

Rotational electrical resonance. Weaving E and M. The un-recognized dynamic that holds a repulsive charge together.

Those rotating charge fields can be cut from the charge. Emission can occur with both directions of the quantum energy change. This is because the charge can stop changing size........faster than c. The field can only move at c. But the charge can stop expanding or stop contracting faster than c. This is because the velocity of the charge is c on one side.....and another c in the opposite direction on the other side of the charge. The adjustment of the size can stop changing size......faster than c. The charge structure leaves the field behind and cut. Those cut fields were already at c speed. When the field is cut.....it changes from an angular trajectory or momentum.....into a linear out velocity and momentum of c. You do not need mass for momentum. Only density is needed. In all emission, a physical cut of field from source is needed. And it is all done with jerking the charge from the field....one way or another. On a dipole antenna, right at the time of peak current.....the current formation is jerked(by the tip reflection).....and the dipole field is cut and let loose from that current on the dipole. A quick flip, with a quick stop of flip(electron).....can cut those fields. Think of a crossover(flip) at peak current. Emission. Fast flip and fast stop the flip of a charge.....and you get radiation.

 

[Catastrophe]

Infinite and infinitely are just words originating in mathematics. They have no meaning in relation to reality, except as large or as small or as anything that can be imagined.
Using these words in relation to reality will not allow sane consideration or discussion.

Cat