At What Velocity Does Singularity (Naked Singularity) Exist -- And Do Singularities Exist?

[Atlan0001]

Where 'c' = '0'. And the plural of "singularity", singularities, is strictly relative: all blackholes everywhere and everywhen being no more than wormhole-like conduits to one -- and one only -- 'naked singularity' of infinite Big Crunch Universe (U) dimension of a multi-dimensional (multifaceted) Multiverse Universe (U).

Relativity (sic) speaking, 'c' = 300,000kps (rounded off) is everywhere and everywhen foreground local closed systemic constant: Constant, in every one of an infinity of parallel universes (u) making up the boundary-less open systemic dimension of a multi-dimensional (multifaceted) Multiverse Universe (U).

There is no such thing as a naked singularity of "closed system" dimension. It cannot exist without a co-existing and opposing dimensionality of "open system" (and vice-versa). The naked singularity -- the Big Crunch -- of all of an infinity of blackhole singularities is a dual dimensionality, a binary both singular and plural. [A] "Mirror" mirroring itself to infinity: A Universe (U) and, at once, an infinity of paralleling universes (u): 'c'='0' / 'c' = '300,000kps'.

A universe traveler can travel through an infinity of paralleling universes, accelerating at some constant of 'gravs' (such as one Earth grav) forever. He would be traveling the open system, traveling boundarylessness, relativity to relativity, parallel universe to parallel universe, point to point -- plane to plane, never measuring the speed of light inside him and outside around him to be anything but 300,000kps. That constant of the speed of light being a matter of relativity, a matter of the closed system, local, foreground, and finite. Of course he would be entering opening systems ahead, and leaving closing systems behind, like exiting a constant of Big Crunch universe behind into a constant of Big Bang universe ahead (the universe behind vanishing into singularities / naked singularity). The odds of finding one's way back to starting point would then be one in infinity. Point to point travel; plane to plane travel. This traveler has good position, comfortably speaking.... and good momentum, comfortably speaking.... but exists and lives in ever growing uncertainty as to universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Bad math that 0 is the smallest number.
What is a singularity of Nada/Nothing?
Not possible to create one or divide one with a number less than 0.

Yep it sounds crazy but replace 0 with nada and physics starts to work properly in odd black hole regions and singularities are no more than onion skins of time/space/activity compression.

Calculator and conception causing a number to exist when one doesn't.
JMO

 

[Catastrophe]

What do you mean by nada in this context?

Cat

 

[Terra Australis]

For what it's worth nada is nothing (Spanish)

 

[Catastrophe]

Thanks! "What is a singularity of Nada/Nothing?"

I was checking whether there was some qualification in the above, not just repetition.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What do you mean by nada in this context?

Cat

Singularity is dividing by 0
Dividing by 0 will give a result of a singularity.

But dividing by nothing gives a result of nothing. (nada) and no singularity.
Divide nada as many times as you like and the result is always nada since no number or place holder for a number exists.

Math concept and (0) giving a false result.

Took me many years to come to the conclusion that a place holder could cause math issues.
JMO

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE, dividing by zero gives infinity. Both just mathematical concepts.

"Nothing" in common parlance can mean very very small. In this case dividing by "nothing" gives something very very large.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, dividing by zero gives infinity. Both just mathematical concepts.

"Nothing" in common parlance can mean very very small. In this case dividing by "nothing" gives something very very large.

Cat

But only the infinity of a place holder (0)
Infinity of nothing is?

True infinity of nothing?
No number or place holder exists so the concept is wrong.?
Dividing nothing isn't possible?

See how easily that 0 causes math problems.

 

[Catastrophe]

IF "infinity of nothing" meant anything at all (which I doubt) it would mean that "all" was "nothing".

Since we know that this is not true - there is existence of many many things - then I say "infinity of nothing" is one meaningless word describing another meaningless word.

Cat

 

[Terra Australis]

Gosh VPE and Cat: I find it really amusing that you are discussing something like this in such depth. I say this in the nicest possible way.
To quote beloved Shakespeare "Much ado about Nothing"

 

[Atlan0001]

Some people say "infinity" is meaningless, which is exactly like saying "boundarylessness" and unreachable "horizons" are meaningless. There is nothing beyond the unreachable Planck horizon down, and the unreachable Big Bang horizon up (to me one and same), despite what even I say upon occasion, for one simple reason, infinity is this side, inside, those horizons. The constant of the speed of light in every closed system can never be reached for the same reason, infinity; or rather the calculus of infinitesimals. Mass attains infinite status at the speed of light in and as a closed system. So, infinite, infinitesimal, and infinity of...., are real and objective, as is their opposed "finite", rather than simply subjective.

Most of us realize that when you lump "everythingness" you've attained "nothingness": the subjective equivalent to the objective Big Crunch which is its own dual dimensionality (with the Big Vacuum). The third dimension sprung from those two all and/or nothings is subjectively "somethingness" (objectively "individuality").

Can you imagine a finite only mind, a narrowly closed systemic box with absolute walls and absolute limits, nothing (thus everything) being outside it? Versus minds that can attain open systemic dimensionality greater than the fixed finite dimensions of the boxed mind? Any mind that can think, and see, and in many cases do, outside the box. They are infinite thinkers.

Infinities cancel, sure, and I've cancelled them many times, resulting in parallelism to infinity. Cancellation does not mean the infinite ceases -- and the infinities (inclusive of finites and/or infinitesimals, plural) cease -- to exist. They remain in the background Universe, the non-local and non-relative, else the foreground universe, any and every local and relative universe, would simultaneously, instantaneously, cease to exist! Why? Because they exist in both places, both foreground local and background horizon non-local, at precisely the same [time!]; just another example of multi-dimensionality and quantum entanglement.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IF "infinity of nothing" meant anything at all (which I doubt) it would mean that "all" was "nothing".

Since we know that this is not true - there is existence of many many things - then I say "infinity of nothing" is one meaningless word describing another meaningless word.

Cat

Or it could be only a now thing that has created an infinity of something that was once an infinity of nothing.
We only now see the products of fluctuations E balance in all the something.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Gosh VPE and Cat: I find it really amusing that you are discussing something like this in such depth. I say this in the nicest possible way.
To quote beloved Shakespeare "Much ado about Nothing"

I think it's great fun to think of the universe as everything we see and so much more.
Getting that process to start somehow is a question i think both myself and Cat have given a lot of thought to so bouncing ideas of each other is great

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Some people say "infinity" is meaningless, which is exactly like saying "boundarylessness" and unreachable "horizons" are meaningless. There is nothing beyond the unreachable Planck horizon down, and the unreachable Big Bang horizon up (to me one and same), despite what even I say upon occasion, for one simple reason, infinity is this side, inside, those horizons. The constant of the speed of light in every closed system can never be reached for the same reason, infinity; or rather the calculus of infinitesimals. Mass attains infinite status at the speed of light in and as a closed system. So, infinite, infinitesimal, and infinity of...., are real and objective, as is their opposed "finite", rather than simply subjective.

Most of us realize that when you lump "everythingness" you've attained "nothingness": the subjective equivalent to the objective Big Crunch which is its own dual dimensionality (with the Big Vacuum). The third dimension sprung from those two all and/or nothings is subjectively "somethingness" (objectively "individuality").

Can you imagine a finite only mind, a narrowly closed systemic box with absolute walls and absolute limits, nothing (thus everything) being outside it? Versus minds that can attain open systemic dimensionality greater than the fixed finite dimensions of the boxed mind? Any mind that can think, and see, and in many cases do, outside the box. They are infinite thinkers.

Infinities cancel, sure, and I've cancelled them many times, resulting in parallelism to infinity. Cancellation does not mean the infinite ceases -- and the infinities (inclusive of finites and/or infinitesimals, plural) cease -- to exist. They remain in the background Universe, the non-local and non-relative, else the foreground universe, any and every local and relative universe, would simultaneously, instantaneously, cease to exist! Why? Because they exist in both places, both foreground local and background horizon non-local, at precisely the same [time!]; just another example of multi-dimensionality and quantum entanglement.

Could be as simple as each BB is an infinity and not an infinity because an infinite number of BB areas exist.
An infinity of bubbles all interacting at some level and more with pushy/pully neighbors.
Each one similar but unique because of the unique inteference of each location in infinity.

 

[Catastrophe]

Infinity is not meaningless. It is a mathematical construct with no meaning in reality. It is not a number, and cannot partake in addition, subtraction, multiplication or division, and thus cannot react with the real world. Mathematics uses it for the result of division by zero, as in a singularity.

When people use words based on infinity, such as infinite or infinitesimal, in common parlance, they simple mean "as large (or any property) as you can think or imagine". Thus it becomes descriptive, and not a concrete noun with real properties in the real world. They are adjectives.

Singularities are also mathematical constructs. Physics breaks down when you divide by zero to produce a singularity, hence parts company with reality.


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE. my friend, may I please ask a favour of you?

"an infinite number of BB areas exist"

Do you really require an infinite number of BB areas? Would not a very large number of / or a great many mean just as much what you want to convey? I say this because, surely, if you had an infimite number of BBs, there would be room for nothing else in the Universe?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Oh, I can't resist. With infinities there is plenty of room, dare I say it, an infinite amount of room, for everything else -- those other infinities, in the infinite Multiverse Universe; just not here, everywhere points of "here" are.

The infinite Big Crunch (infinite Big Vacuum) / Planck Big Bang 'collapsed' Horizon can be all of the Universe in its dimensionality, its extent, while yet being an infinity of boundaried parallelism and relativity in other, multi, dimensions of a Multiverse Universe. It is not the same horizon while being similar to the horizon of Earth, being all of the Earth's surface dimension while yet containing within its plane, its smooth and total dimensionality of the altogether, its boundarylessness, one heck of a lot of spread -- broad and deep -- boundaries and individuality. That totaled up mass and energy within that all encompassing horizon (singular) -- and/or those all encompassing horizons (plural) -- couldn't b more real for being both singular and plural. Fewer rules overall, more control (self-control) overall, more order overall (Cicero) (Crevecoeur) (Will Durant) (Albert Einstein) (Stephen Hawking) (?????).

The core principle of Chaos Theory and the Science of Complexity is that there is ultimately good order overall. Too bad so many have the thing backwards. It is infinity, the open system that ultimately deals in good order, not finite, the closed system (it is Frontier that ultimately deals in good order, not Utopia). Again: Too bad so many have the thing backwards.

 

[Terra Australis]

I think it's great fun to think of the universe as everything we see and so much more.
Getting that process to start somehow is a question i think both myself and Cat have given a lot of thought to so bouncing ideas of each other is great

I think it's good fun too. I'm enjoying just being an observer
Welcome to the party Atlan0101!

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE. my friend, may I please ask a favour of you?

"an infinite number of BB areas exist"

Do you really require an infinite number of BB areas? Would not a very large number of / or a great many mean just as much what you want to convey? I say this because, surely, if you had an infimite number of BBs, there would be room for nothing else in the Universe?

Cat

If indeed nothing ends up becoming something then infinite numbers will exist all following the same law set and all slightly different caused from location intererence .
A big number won't exist because infinity of nothing would have been just that infinite.
We have a few signs that external gravity sources exist, dark flow, dents of the microwave background etc so other universes probably exist.

Each universe will be infinite in it's scope but just a part of a larger infinity that can never be experience since we can't escape our universe.
All we can hope for from our perspective is hints that others exist.

If we live in something that can never be escaped then for all practical thinking it's infinite to us but might not be the real infinity. JMO

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

If indeed nothing ends up becoming something then infinite numbers will exist all following the same law set and all slightly different caused from location intererence .
A big number won't exist because infinity of nothing would have been just that infinite.
We have a few signs that external gravity sources exist, dark flow, dents of the microwave background etc so other universes probably exist.

Each universe will be infinite in it's scope but just a part of a larger infinity that can never be experience since we can't escape our universe.
All we can hope for from our perspective is hints that others exist.

If we live in something that can never be escaped then for all practical thinking it's infinite to us but might not be the real infinity. JMO

A fun side thought about an infinite collection of universes is the forest moon of Endor will exist in a universe far far away and have Ewoks on it.
Even with just 1 or less than 1intelligent species per universe an infinite math set will have an infinite number of them all unique because of location interference.
An infinite number of far more advanced species and an infinite number of far less advanced species with us exactly in the advanced middle of them all.
No matter how advanced we get we will always be at the middle of advanced.

 

[Atlan0001]

A triple feature exists, I suppose: The big three:

Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
(E = MC^2)
(M = E/C^2)
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum

And I'm not forgetting Big Mirror mirroring to infinity.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A triple feature exists, I suppose: The big three:

Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
(E = MC^2)
(M = E/C^2)
(Energy / Mass / C^2)
Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Vacuum

And I'm not forgetting Big Mirror mirroring to infinity.

If our universe isn't a closed loop it could be ugly cyclic.
We get consumed, we consume, we are torn apart, we bounce off.
Lots of options for ugly cyclic.
BB could be just E gets to high in a region or the outcome of consumption of ugly cyclic.
A bigger uglier outcome of neighbors
Or we are a closed loop and a BB could be a growing feedback loop of gravity when the universe is only a big black hole.
Cyclic is a normal process of one universe when expansion can't support time/space to expand into and big crunch time.

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE, what do you mean by ugly cyclic?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, what do you mean by ugly cyclic?

Cat

Ugly cyclic means our universe survives but in ugly format.
Becomes part of another, merges with another, bounces of another is torn apart by another etc.
The energy of our universe isn't going away just who gets what is the question
Cyclic for sure but all pretty ugly.

 

[Catastrophe]

ugly

Quote
laid
ugly, unsightly, uncomely, ill-favoured, ill-favored
moche
ugly, tacky, horrible, terrible, sorry, bum
vilain
ugly, naughty, nasty, dirty, wicked, horrid
Quote

Are we talking about the same word?

Cat