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

[Atlan0001]

VPE, I'm not following you either!? I claim that a one-dimensional cycling is too dicey and anarchic and fraught with potential peril for the Universe to be any part -- have any part -- of it. I adhere to the idea of a Universe loaded with a richness, life (animation) and wisdom greater than we can ever even conceive of.

It doesn't mean "cycling" doesn't exist to it. I say it does myself when I describe (how shall I put it) information going into blackhole singularities at one 2-dimensional single-sided end only to have information instantaneously simultaneously pop into being from 2-dimensional single-sided white hole-like quantum fluctuations elsewhere. The difference is that I'm not dealing in a one-dimensional cyclic Universe (U) -- or universe (u). I deal in the infinities of simultaneity and/or parallelism (including simultaneous opposites). Even, if it is possible, the infinity of individuality (more on that below).

A lot of people don't seem to see that Individuality is also a property of boundarylessness. "Boundarylessness" : The Earth has one horizon, yet mankind has always talked traveling from horizon to horizon, to horizon, seemingly without end. And per the calculus of infinitesimals the horizons have no end to them. We know better these days with our having shrunk distances to practically nothing, but when it comes to the Multiverse Horizon of the Universe (U); the horizons of the Universe (U); the paralleling horizon universes (u) of the Universe (U) -- relativity to relativity to relativity, then we may be talking no end to them, really -- and relatively -- speaking! Boundarylessness bespeaks topological individuality to the simultaneity; to the parallelism. One heck of lot of it before it rounds to clone -- so to speak -- duplications that would also be a property of infinity. These are the most difficult things to explain. How would any traveler know, after an infinity of travel, that he hasn't rounded to his original starting point? With exact clone duplications existing to infinity too, the duplicate universe is his original universe, yet it is not! And his double isn't there in it having left it at the same time, in the same direction, he left his duplicate universe. Everything is duplicated.

I've taken the infinity of parallel universes to the extreme example of an infinity of exactly duplicated universes. Now comes the most fantastic part. Every one of the infinity of exactly duplicated universes, and everything in them exactly duplicated, can overlay and inlay to a naked singularity of that particular universe. An infinity overlaying and inlaying into one, and one only, "individuality" of universe. and all things in it. This inevitability regarding all of the cloning also adhering to infinity, is a property of them all, every single one of the infinity of simultaneously paralleling universes.

But don't think about reducing infinity and infinities very much by doing cancellations (by way of overlaying and inlaying clones to one and only one individual) -- you might say, too fast. There is the little matter of so-called "decision points," and consequent subsequent taking every path possible pathings, branchings, away to infinity and infinities of infinities more of decision points to seemingly no ends, away from every trunk and every branching having to do with space-time. Each and every one of an infinity of decision points means a different universe in existence (and they all will have their duplicates). The Multiverse Universe loses nothing and gains nothing, including its infinity of alternative universes. Now all this is topological "boundarylessness" in Horizon and horizons to the max. That "galaxy far, far, away" you referred to in passing somewhere above in a post, may be farther away -- in an alternative time (space-time) universe -- than you can even imagine. Or it may be just one "plane of the Multiverse Universe" away (Which would be two planes of Chaos Theory away -- course to smooth to course (course to course)).

It's a coherently well integrated Multiverse Universe. It has it all, including complexity and seeming chaos, uncertainty -- every base there can possibly be; or maybe even seemingly impossibly be -- well covered and ruled in its greatest strength of few rules overall. When Dr. Samuel Johnson went up against Bishop George Berkeley (defending Isaac Newton) by kicking a stone in refutation, he refuted nothing. Why? Because they were both right regarding the Universe.
----------------------

C = 300,000kps = 0 (Universe's 0-point)
C = 300,000kps
and / or
C = 0
-------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

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

Yep ugly.
Best case if we have neighbor universes is bounce off.
Even that wouldn't be pretty but could be a mechanism for halt to expansion and start of a big crunch.
Lots of uglier possibilities for what could happen if 2 or more universes collide and any of them is far bigger or hungrier.
An E balance when it happens for sure but what happens is anyones guess.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, I'm not following you either!? I claim that a one-dimensional cycling is too dicey and anarchic and fraught with potential peril for the Universe to be any part -- have any part -- of it. I adhere to the idea of a Universe loaded with a richness, life (animation) and wisdom greater than we can ever even conceive of.

It doesn't mean "cycling" doesn't exist to it. I say it does myself when I describe (how shall I put it) information going into blackhole singularities at one 2-dimensional single-sided end only to have information instantaneously simultaneously pop into being from 2-dimensional single-sided white hole-like quantum fluctuations elsewhere. The difference is that I'm not dealing in a one-dimensional cyclic Universe (U) -- or universe (u). I deal in the infinities of simultaneity and/or parallelism (including simultaneous opposites). Even, if it is possible, the infinity of individuality (more on that below).

A lot of people don't seem to see that Individuality is also a property of boundarylessness. "Boundarylessness" : The Earth has one horizon, yet mankind has always talked traveling from horizon to horizon, to horizon, seemingly without end. And per the calculus of infinitesimals the horizons have no end to them. We know better these days with our having shrunk distances to practically nothing, but when it comes to the Multiverse Horizon of the Universe (U); the horizons of the Universe (U); the paralleling horizon universes (u) of the Universe (U) -- relativity to relativity to relativity, then we may be talking no end to them, really -- and relatively -- speaking! Boundarylessness bespeaks topological individuality to the simultaneity; to the parallelism. One heck of lot of it before it rounds to clone -- so to speak -- duplications that would also be a property of infinity. These are the most difficult things to explain. How would any traveler know, after an infinity of travel, that he hasn't rounded to his original starting point? With exact clone duplications existing to infinity too, the duplicate universe is his original universe, yet it is not! And his double isn't there in it having left it at the same time, in the same direction, he left his duplicate universe. Everything is duplicated.

I've taken the infinity of parallel universes to the extreme example of an infinity of exactly duplicated universes. Now comes the most fantastic part. Every one of the infinity of exactly duplicated universes, and everything in them exactly duplicated, can overlay and inlay to a naked singularity of that particular universe. An infinity overlaying and inlaying into one, and one only, "individuality" of universe. and all things in it. This inevitability regarding all of the cloning also adhering to infinity, is a property of them all, every single one of the infinity of simultaneously paralleling universes.

But don't think about reducing infinity and infinities very much by doing cancellations (by way of overlaying and inlaying clones to one and only one individual) -- you might say, too fast. There is the little matter of so-called "decision points," and consequent subsequent taking every path possible pathings, branchings, away to infinity and infinities of infinities more of decision points to seemingly no ends, away from every trunk and every branching having to do with space-time. Each and every one of an infinity of decision points means a different universe in existence (and they all will have their duplicates). The Multiverse Universe loses nothing and gains nothing, including its infinity of alternative universes. Now all this is topological "boundarylessness" in Horizon and horizons to the max. That "galaxy far, far, away" you referred to in passing somewhere above in a post, may be farther away -- in an alternative time (space-time) universe -- than you can even imagine. Or it may be just one "plane of the Multiverse Universe" away (Which would be two planes of Chaos Theory away -- course to smooth to course (course to course)).

It's a coherently well integrated Multiverse Universe. It has it all, including complexity and seeming chaos, uncertainty -- every base there can possibly be; or maybe even seemingly impossibly be -- well covered and ruled in its greatest strength of few rules overall. When Dr. Samuel Johnson went up against Bishop George Berkeley (defending Isaac Newton) by kicking a stone in refutation, he refuted nothing. Why? Because they were both right regarding the Universe.
----------------------

C = 300,000kps = 0 (Universe's 0-point)
C = 300,000kps
and / or
C = 0
-------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.

If nature can create 1 universe then logic says that it will create an endless number of them.
Our universe is after all just an energy balance, everything else we see is just energy in one format or another.
Energy to create one is probably a potential energy or instability of nothing.
The bounds of nothing is or was infinite so a one off universe like ours doesn't follow natural laws as just 1.
A source for the E is needed and nothing fits the bill as a start point like nothing.
My thinking is Nothing had trivial potential energy in it's occupation of forever.
It spawns quantum fluctuation and until it balances energy it creates particles/energy.
Then when balanced it is conservation of energy.
Merge of these areas until E is to high BB.

Having just 1 universe and that is it gets into creation problems of E.
But infinite universes following laws of fluctuation caused by potential energy of nothing has no such flaw.
JMO

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE, are you using ugly as bad to look at, or as unfortunate, undesirable?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

VPE,
To take from A. Canon Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlet': From a drop of water, a logician can infer.... great rivers and oceans of redundancy. Or a Great Big Mirror mirroring to infinity and infinities (to go further and take a page from, and paraphrase, Stephen Hawking (though not quite to infinity) : a nakedly singular particle having six faces, six sides, and being -- pluralistically -- six different particles). Variation to infinity. Individuality to infinity. Redundancy to infinity..... Singularity (the apex) to infinity and / or Plurality (the pyramid) to infinity, just two of countless simultaneous opposites (including the finite plurality of 'times', and the infinite singularity of 'Cosmic All Time' (( 'Cosmic All Time' (t=1)) and / or ((t=0) 'Cosmic All Timelessness'))).

All thoughtful observers, most especially the competent observer, should be astounded by the Universe's (thus the universes') capacity for self-renewal.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, are you using ugly as bad to look at, or as unfortunate, undesirable?

Cat

I think cyclic universe in some format.
Ugly i think no matter what happens.
We can be living in a universe that becomes part of another at some point in time.
Or we might steal a bunch of energy from next door at some point.
Or we are scavenged by all the neighbors and cease to exist as a universe.

Can't get much uglier cyclic that any of them.
And only cyclic in terms of our energy continues on to form something else that itself is ugly cyclic.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE,
To take from A. Canon Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlet': From a drop of water, a logician can infer.... great rivers and oceans of redundancy. Or a Great Big Mirror mirroring to infinity and infinities (to go further and take a page from, and paraphrase, Stephen Hawking (though not quite to infinity) : a nakedly singular particle having six faces, six sides, and being -- pluralistically -- six different particles). Variation to infinity. Individuality to infinity. Redundancy to infinity..... Singularity (the apex) to infinity and / or Plurality (the pyramid) to infinity, just two of countless simultaneous opposites (including the finite plurality of 'times', and the infinite singularity of 'Cosmic All Time' (( 'Cosmic All Time' (t=1)) and / or ((t=0) 'Cosmic All Timelessness'))).

All thoughtful observers, most especially the competent observer, should be astounded by the Universe's (thus the universes') capacity for self-renewal.

Well self renewal right now is a universe happens from no space/no time.
Simply a guess since physics can't create such a point full of the energy to have a universe in the first place.
Not many people dive into the how and why of that reality and at this point no good reason exists.

Is it crazy to think that no reason is the reason?
Just a potential energy of nothing that over endless time scales have merged energy to create our universe.

No start point since nothing had no time just a trivial potential energy of nothing that was infinite in it's scope.
At least it gives us a place before the universe and reason for it to exist and for it to BB.
JMO

 

[iwnt2kw]

Do you guys know what a singularity really is ??? Let me tell you what a singularity is A (singularity , a worm-hole , a monolith , an obolisques , a portal , a super-position , an amulet , a black hole , ect.) Are all forms of the same thing They are just coming at it , from different directions But essentially these are all the same thing And yes singularities do exist naturally in nature And yes singularities can be created How do I know this (I'm an actual scientist) One that still does and performs real scientific experiments And I have already (past tense) created and experimented with Many of the different forms and types of which singularities come in !!! For many decades

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Do you guys know what a singularity really is ??? Let me tell you what a singularity is A (singularity , a worm-hole , a monolith , an obolisques , a portal , a super-position , an amulet , a black hole , ect.) Are all forms of the same thing They are just coming at it , from different directions But essentially these are all the same thing And yes singularities do exist naturally in nature And yes singularities can be created How do I know this (I'm an actual scientist) One that still does and performs real scientific experiments And I have already (past tense) created and experimented with Many of the different forms and types of which singularities come in !!! For many decades

A singularity is 0x0 math of trying to multiply 0.
At best a concept of a calculator.