Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

[David-J-Franks]

Sorry for the delay in responding. To help me express my oppinion I first need to say something about infinity. I've done this by answering the thread 'Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?'

Page 2 - Question - Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

Page 2 - 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

If interested please read this while I get something to eat. Then I'll come back and continue

Continued; Onto the idea that there are an infinite other me's in other universes. These other me's you are referring to are not me, Im here. There maybe someone similar to me but they are not an exact copy of me.

I also believe there is not an exact replica of anything or any event for the following reason;

Take any two particles, say atoms, now take a perfect ruler and measure the distance between their centres. My ruler being perfect has its graduation lines marked out with ideal lines which have no thickness. This pair of atoms will not have obliged you by existing to exactly match the graduations of your ruler. The atoms centre point and the ruler's graduations are infinitely thin remember, so the chance that they exactly match up is 1 in infinity, ie zero. There are an infinite possible ways to divide your ruler but each graduation line will still be infinitely thin, so it doesn't matter how you choose the rulers markings they will never match up exactly with the centres of the atoms.

In other words, it's not possible to measure the exact distance between the atoms. What's more, they don't even have a knowable distance.

Now take another pair of atoms and using the same argument, there's a zero possibility for them to occur with the same separation as the first pair.

So the bottom line is if you can't even get 2 pairs of atoms to be the same distance apart how on earth are you going to get 2 objects with a zillion atoms to be exactly the same. I also think the same reasoning will apply to all the other parameters a system may have, eg temperature, pressure and constituent ratio etc. So nothing in the Universe of infinite universes (sorry Cat) can ever be exactly the same.

Also the kind of infinity I,m talking about is 'aleph 1' or the continuous infinity which is larger than 'aleph 0', the basic countable infinity, as I described in my post on the thread 'Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?'

When I say the above example has a '1 in infinity' chance of occurring, remember it is a '1 in (aleph 1) infinity', so a very small zero indeed. Bear in mind that the infinite number of universe's is 'aleph 0' infinity ie countable infinity, so a lot smaller than the 'aleph 1' infinite variation of parameters of events and objects. Thus highlighting the reason why all possible objects and events cannot fit into the smaller size infinity of countable universes.

To put it in one sentence. The type of infinity of possible events and objects (aleph 1) is of a greater size of infinity than the countable infinity of universes (aleph 0), and so won't fit in.

The above waffle is just my personal thought, I've never seen anyone saying this before, so there's a good chance it's nonsense. See what you think and I'd love your opinions either way.

As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists.

No, I didn't say this. All I've said previously is that space is infinite, 'The Infinite' (my name for the Universe) and that it contains infinite contents of infinite other big bangs (for which there isn't a word for yet, other than incorrect words such as pocket universes or bubble universes)

What I do believe is that 'The Infinite' is comprised of infinite variation, with no events or objects repeating. So I'm in agreement with voidpotentialenenergy as per his above post, but not with his explanation for it (from another thread). No cigars as he puts it.

 

[David-J-Franks]

There you couldn't be more wrong. It is only from a trunk that branching occurs. Each branch then becomes a trunk for more branching .... expanding out to infinity. In quantum mechanics every particle will take every possible path always, which includes repeating exactly the same paths (whether just one particle or a countless swarm of particles (ergo the entirety of certain horizons, of course those duplications being infinite distances apart; something like "spooky action at a distance")). In information, and life, decision points are for all time as well as each and every possible same or different decision made being for all time, having redundancy to infinity. Therefore all of the particles pathing, all of the decisions being made, will duplicate exactly...to infinity. But the proportion will be an infinitesimal number, comparatively speaking, to the infinite number of slightly different possible paths / decisions, running, in infinities, to the farthest possible limit of difference in different paths / decisions.

Are you refering to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics?

 

[David-J-Franks]

Infinite universes=infinite differences.

Parallel universes can't exist either for one reason, infinite energy in one region of space with parallel universes.
Quantum decision just won't work in a finite space.

Infinite universes=infinite differences.

Spot on again.

Parallel universes can't exist either for one reason, infinite energy in one region of space with parallel universes.
Quantum decision just won't work in a finite space.

As in post above "Are you referring to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics?" If so I agree.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also that, because infinite exists, then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity more) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity more), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity more). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what, YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (an extremely unique type, as every individual of every species or kind of life is). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else, or anything else, but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in, in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

(*I found an article on "Mirror Universe hiding in Space-Time" that made me think I might have left out some things from my own look of BB, while getting the direction of time backward, maybe, from even own previous descriptions. My universe traveler would neither see nor time travel the times as I tried to describe them here. So I scrapped my BB description. David is still right in my opinion in what he says above on this particular matter of BB that got me started. And in the article I cited as having found and read, there are too few dimensions and too little Universe for me. They think they see so much and I feel sorry for them, but what they see is practically barren. I like richer more dimensional paintings, not flat dark age-like poverty stricken ones. Some things in the article showed me I'm on a right track for my own realization and satisfaction, but I'm just not there yet. The material substance of my mirror doing the mirroring, as I see it, is gravity's waves.*)

What do you mean by horizons? you've lost me there.

 

[Atlan0001]

Continued; Onto the idea that there are an infinite other me's in other universes. These other me's you are referring to are not me, Im here. There maybe someone similar to me but they are not an exact copy of me.

I also believe there is not an exact replica of anything or any event for the following reason;

Take any two particles, say atoms, now take a perfect ruler and measure the distance between their centres. My ruler being perfect has its graduation lines marked out with ideal lines which have no thickness. This pair of atoms will not have obliged you by existing to exactly match the graduations of your ruler. The atoms centre point and the ruler's graduations are infinitely thin remember, so the chance that they exactly match up is 1 in infinity, ie zero. There are an infinite possible ways to divide your ruler but each graduation line will still be infinitely thin, so it doesn't matter how you choose the rulers markings they will never match up exactly with the centres of the atoms.

In other words, it's not possible to measure the exact distance between the atoms. What's more, they don't even have a knowable distance.

Now take another pair of atoms and using the same argument, there's a zero possibility for them to occur with the same separation as the first pair.

So the bottom line is if you can't even get 2 pairs of atoms to be the same distance apart how on earth are you going to get 2 objects with a zillion atoms to be exactly the same. I also think the same reasoning will apply to all the other parameters a system may have, eg temperature, pressure and constituent ratio etc. So nothing in the Universe of infinite universes (sorry Cat) can ever be exactly the same.

Also the kind of infinity I,m talking about is 'aleph 1' or the continuous infinity which is larger than 'aleph 0', the basic countable infinity, as I described in my post on the thread 'Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?'

When I say the above example has a '1 in infinity' chance of occurring, remember it is a '1 in (aleph 1) infinity', so a very small zero indeed. Bear in mind that the infinite number of universe's is 'aleph 0' infinity ie countable infinity, so a lot smaller than the 'aleph 1' infinite variation of parameters of events and objects. Thus highlighting the reason why all possible objects and events cannot fit into the smaller size infinity of countable universes.

To put it in one sentence. The type of infinity of possible events and objects (aleph 1) is of a greater size of infinity than the countable infinity of universes (aleph 0), and so won't fit in.

The above waffle is just my personal thought, I've never seen anyone saying this before, so there's a good chance it's nonsense. See what you think and I'd love your opinions either way.No, I didn't say this. All I've said previously is that space is infinite, 'The Infinite' (my name for the Universe) and that it contains infinite contents of infinite other big bangs (for which there isn't a word for yet, other than incorrect words such as pocket universes or bubble universes)

What I do believe is that 'The Infinite' is comprised of infinite variation, with no events or objects repeating. So I'm in agreement with voidpotentialenenergy as per his above post, but not with his explanation for it (from another thread). No cigars as he puts it.

"No cigars" uh. Then a minimum of a thousand and more DVD copies of 'Star Wars: IV' do not exist on this planet alone. A thousand and more universes of 'Star Wars IV' do not exist. A thousand and more copies of Han Solo, and every particle of Han Solo, drinking exactly the same drink in exactly the same cantina, at exactly the same time on exactly the same planet, in exactly the same galaxy, in exactly the same universe (every particle of that 'Star Wars IV' universe duplicated a thousand and more times and existing at exactly the same time), do not exist. Yet though duplicated a minimum of a thousand and more times, he is still uniquely Han Solo uniquely thinking his thoughts and uniquely doing his thing. And his entire universe of the moment is still uniquely the same universe though duplicated a thousand and more times (to an infinity of times).

It is the boundaries of universes that progress in differences toward different universes, progressing and progressing into all possible differences, radical differences, before finally progression to difference crests and takes place in reverse manner toward duplicates. That is why that in an infinity of universes duplication will be infinite distances apart. No matter how many Han Solos duplicate an existence like I pointed out above, no one of them, any of them, will live his individual life over again. He won't move laterally to duplicate a life he has already lived, in continuing. That is not continuing. He might have lived the same life an eternity ago, and might live the same life an eternity from now (whenever his now is), but not any time in between. Not until he's lived every possible other life he could live...as [uniquely] Han Solo in everything whatsoever that is essentially Han Solo! If he can't exist in a universe as who and what he is, he won't. Infinity is a heck of lot more than you imagine it is so far. An infinity of better.

What you told me above is that you haven't yet, or that you can't, grasp the full reaches, the full quality, of infinity in all its shapes and forms.

Don't tell me "no cigars."

 

[Atlan0001]

What do you mean by horizons? you've lost me there.

Then I've wasted my time completely. As quantum mechanics alternates between wave and particle (two views of the same thing) as needs must, I've alternated between horizon and universe (as being two views of the same thing) throughout my postings.

I'll waste a little more time, I guess, since you've given me reason to believe before.

I've seen in illustration before, in a book on physics and the Universe, how a wormhole might work between parts of a 'flat' infinite Universe folded and divided into an infinity of flat universes between the folds. An infinitely long cloth is laid out horizontally, then folded vertically like folding a towel. It has many (an infinity) flat sections between folds. The folds are horizons beyond which you cannot observe any other flat of the cloth (universe). But one way or another, through the fold curves, or via a wormhole driven from flat to flat, a universe traveler might travel from flat to flat (to infinity) of the folded cloth, the folded Universe...or from universe to universe, to universe.

The fold curves are horizons as I said beyond which no one sees any other horizontal flat of the vertically folded cloth (no other flat of the folded Universe) (no other universe).

Though I told of an illustration I saw, it doesn't have to be as it was illustrated. As a matter of fact it won't be any kind of line horizon such as our line horizons here on Earth. You can't possibly observe infinity. Distances toward infinity in an infinite Universe will collapse into distant points preceded by cone shaping from here to there, in 'space-time' not space, in all graduations toward countless points of horizon (toward countless point horizons).

The existence of time, and the slow constant of the speed of light, forces us to see any distance at all as a history (some history near or far). So the horizon at the distant point of collapse into it (which should be a fixed constant of horizon no traveler could ever close up to; it would recede before the traveler keeping its distance) would appear to be the earliest possible history in our or any portion of the Universe whatsoever. That collapse of horizon is at once that crunch (closing) and bang (opening) of horizon. Recessionary forward of the traveler, following behind the traveler, keeping distance all the way like our horizons on Earth. Those point horizons though mask and hide the infinity they harbor.

In travel toward the receding points of horizon, out of it would come new islands never observed by the traveler from where he started. A youth of universe observed at his starting point would be seen by him to mature speedily beyond belief as he advanced forward in his [time travel] across space. The Milky Way behind him would recede away toward the horizon behind him, falling back in time toward its baby universe-hood, and finally, if the traveler travels far enough, disappearing into the point horizon portal of the BB/BC, else simply dissolving into cosmic dust.

Now do you have some idea of what I mean by horizons? To one degree or another (in one way or another) I've said all this before.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Spot on again.As in post above "Are you referring to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics?" If so I agree.

Yes many worlds or quantum decision fosters a new universe.
Seems like it's possible until that infinite energy problem in a finite space.
Nature might be very weird and allow it to happen with 0 interference between each one.
Any format on interference between the infinite number of them and we have infinite energy.
Gravity is almost sure to leak between each one, so IMO many worlds isn't possible or so strange that we will never understand nature.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Then I've wasted my time completely. As quantum mechanics alternates between wave and particle (two views of the same thing) as needs must, I've alternated between horizon and universe (as being two views of the same thing) throughout my postings.

I'll waste a little more time, I guess, since you've given me reason to believe before.

I've seen in illustration before, in a book on physics and the Universe, how a wormhole might work between parts of a 'flat' infinite Universe folded and divided into an infinity of flat universes between the folds. An infinitely long cloth is laid out horizontally, then folded vertically like folding a towel. It has many (an infinity) flat sections between folds. The folds are horizons beyond which you cannot observe any other flat of the cloth (universe). But one way or another, through the fold curves, or via a wormhole driven from flat to flat, a universe traveler might travel from flat to flat (to infinity) of the folded cloth, the folded Universe...or from universe to universe, to universe.

The fold curves are horizons as I said beyond which no one sees any other horizontal flat of the vertically folded cloth (no other flat of the folded Universe) (no other universe).

Though I told of an illustration I saw, it doesn't have to be as it was illustrated. As a matter of fact it won't be any kind of line horizon such as our line horizons here on Earth. You can't possibly observe infinity. Distances toward infinity in an infinite Universe will collapse into distant points preceded by cone shaping from here to there, in 'space-time' not space, in all graduations toward countless points of horizon (toward countless point horizons).

The existence of time, and the slow constant of the speed of light, forces us to see any distance at all as a history (some history near or far). So the horizon at the distant point of collapse into it (which should be a fixed constant of horizon no traveler could ever close up to; it would recede before the traveler keeping its distance) would appear to be the earliest possible history in our or any portion of the Universe whatsoever. That collapse of horizon is at once that crunch (closing) and bang (opening) of horizon. Recessionary forward of the traveler, following behind the traveler, keeping distance all the way like our horizons on Earth. Those point horizons though mask and hide the infinity they harbor.

In travel toward the receding points of horizon, out of it would come new islands never observed by the traveler from where he started. A youth of universe observed at his starting point would be seen by him to mature speedily beyond belief as he advanced forward in his [time travel] across space. The Milky Way behind him would recede away toward the horizon behind him, falling back in time toward its baby universe-hood, and finally, if the traveler travels far enough, disappearing into the point horizon portal of the BB/BC, else simply dissolving into cosmic dust.

Now do you have some idea of what I mean by horizons? To one degree or another (in one way or another) I've said all this before.

What if the particle is the interaction of quantum fluctuation and the wave the voids between quantum fluctuation.
Then both are true and false depending on what you look at.
Gravity travels in the void and has no interaction with fluctuation.
Neutrino only travels in the fluctuation so it seems very easily to pass through things.
Duality of everything and gravity at instant speed.

JMO

 

[David-J-Franks]

"No cigars" uh. Then a minimum of a thousand and more DVD copies of 'Star Wars: IV' do not exist on this planet alone. A thousand and more universes of 'Star Wars IV' do not exist. A thousand and more copies of Han Solo, and every particle of Han Solo, drinking exactly the same drink in exactly the same cantina, at exactly the same time on exactly the same planet, in exactly the same galaxy, in exactly the same universe (every particle of that 'Star Wars IV' universe duplicated a thousand and more times and existing at exactly the same time), do not exist. Yet though duplicated a minimum of a thousand and more times, he is still uniquely Han Solo uniquely thinking his thoughts and uniquely doing his thing. And his entire universe of the moment is still uniquely the same universe though duplicated a thousand and more times (to an infinity of times).

It is the boundaries of universes that progress in differences toward different universes, progressing and progressing into all possible differences, radical differences, before finally progression to difference crests and takes place in reverse manner toward duplicates. That is why that in an infinity of universes duplication will be infinite distances apart. No matter how many Han Solos duplicate an existence like I pointed out above, no one of them, any of them, will live his individual life over again. He won't move laterally to duplicate a life he has already lived, in continuing. That is not continuing. He might have lived the same life an eternity ago, and might live the same life an eternity from now (whenever his now is), but not any time in between. Not until he's lived every possible other life he could live...as [uniquely] Han Solo in everything whatsoever that is essentially Han Solo! If he can't exist in a universe as who and what he is, he won't. Infinity is a heck of lot more than you imagine it is so far. An infinity of better.

What you told me above is that you haven't yet, or that you can't, grasp the full reaches, the full quality, of infinity in all its shapes and forms.

Don't tell me "no cigars."

Good point about the DVDs. I guess I've only been considering naturally occurring events and not manufactured things. However, I did stress exactly with an underline as in post 51;

"The atoms centre point and the ruler's graduations are infinitely thin remember, so the chance that they exactly match up is 1 in infinity, ie zero."

So according to my example, no 2 DVD's will be exactly the same, each will have small manufacturing defects.

What you told me above is that you haven't yet, or that you can't, grasp the full reaches, the full quality, of infinity in all its shapes and forms.

As for "the full quality, of infinity in all its shapes and forms." I suggest you may not have fully grasped the difference between countable infinity (aleph 0) and continuous infinity (aleph 1). The latter is much lager.

The number of possible forms of objects and events is infinite as with continuous infinity. This is a much larger infinity than the 'countable infinity' of universes, and so won't all fit in. There are not enough of the infinite countable universes to accommodate all the 'continuous infinity' of all possible objects and events. So everything that is possible doesn't happen. No cigars!

To compound the situation all the possible objects and events can also be taken in any one of infinite quantities at once and with infinite combinations and permutations. Again this infinity is of the 'aleph 1' type.

Furthermore, objects don't spontaneously appear, they're formed in a process, either a natural one or man-made. A duplicate object requires a duplicate designer, a duplicate forming process, which requires a duplicate planet, which requires a duplicate solar system, which requires a duplicate galaxy, which requires a duplicate universe.

The duplicate designer needs duplicate parents with a linage that probably goes back to first life ~ 3.8 billion years ago. Again this is where exact comes in. As you know with chaos theory the tiniest difference in the initial conditions will cause a completely different outcome. If the duplicate earth had just a few atoms differently arranged 3.8 billion years ago the duplicate designer would not have been born. 'Exact' matters. Another way of putting it is that events and objects are not isolated, they are all connected by cause and effect. To get a duplicate star wars DVD in another universe you need an exact duplicate universe, for which there's a 1 in 'aleph 1' chance of, ie zero

 

[Catastrophe]

I wish you all the very best in life for your futures and (sorry if you don't like it) that includes freedom from useless semantic drivel.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Good point about the DVDs. I guess I've only been considering naturally occurring events and not manufactured things. However, I did stress exactly with an underline as in post 51;

"The atoms centre point and the ruler's graduations are infinitely thin remember, so the chance that they exactly match up is 1 in infinity, ie zero."

So according to my example, no 2 DVD's will be exactly the same, each will have small manufacturing defects.As for "the full quality, of infinity in all its shapes and forms." I suggest you may not have fully grasped the difference between countable infinity (aleph 0) and continuous infinity (aleph 1). The latter is much lager.

The number of possible forms of objects and events is infinite as with continuous infinity. This is a much larger infinity than the 'countable infinity' of universes, and so won't all fit in. There are not enough of the infinite countable universes to accommodate all the 'continuous infinity' of all possible objects and events. So everything that is possible doesn't happen. No cigars!

To compound the situation all the possible objects and events can also be taken in any one of infinite quantities at once and with infinite combinations and permutations. Again this infinity is of the 'aleph 1' type.

Furthermore, objects don't spontaneously appear, they're formed in a process, either a natural one or man-made. A duplicate object requires a duplicate designer, a duplicate forming process, which requires a duplicate planet, which requires a duplicate solar system, which requires a duplicate galaxy, which requires a duplicate universe.

The duplicate designer needs duplicate parents with a linage that probably goes back to first life ~ 3.8 billion years ago. Again this is where exact comes in. As you know with chaos theory the tiniest difference in the initial conditions will cause a completely different outcome. If the duplicate earth had just a few atoms differently arranged 3.8 billion years ago the duplicate designer would not have been born. 'Exact' matters. Another way of putting it is that events and objects are not isolated, they are all connected by cause and effect. To get a duplicate star wars DVD in another universe you need an exact duplicate universe, for which there's a 1 in 'aleph 1' chance of, ie zero

You're repeating. I will to, some. You're not really dealing in infinite. You keep on dealing in runaway finite and don't see that you are. There is a big difference between runaway finites and infinity. Infinity is an already, pre-existing, fact, closed ended by binary absolutes '0' and/or '1'. In the case of Uni-verse, binary's '0' and/or '1' is all, the whole thing, no-loose-ends! Infinity is in the border, banked, closed up, to the Horizon of Uni-verse as I've stated so often. There are no loose ends to either the infinite of Uni-verse (Horizon) or the infinite of Big Crunch (Big Hole). The infinity of 'point horizons' are this side of '0' and/or'1'. You cannot count the number of point horizons, the number of cones to them, or the number of wormholes in the far dome of the night sky out from us. Curt Godel, one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived, tried something similar and ended up a driveling idiot. But the dome-horizon is there. You cannot count the number of universes those infinitesimal point horizons point to. You cannot [count] the greater Universe. You cannot count the number of point horizons down and in, or cones to them, or the number of blackholes in the horizon at the bottom of the micro-verse down and in. You cannot count the number of folds, the number of dimensions, there. They are the border, though, to 'Uni'-verse, to '0' and/or '1'. As binary Uni-verse, you can't number, you can't count, this '0' and/or '1'; this Nothingness and/or Everythingness; this Nowhere and/or Everywhere, this.... Well you should get the picture, I hope. Again you cannot count the greater Uni-verse.

Runaway finites are a mathematical illusion of numbers. Loose ends. Even mathematical physicists know they don't deal in real objects, much less, and especially, Uni-verse, as I've found over and over and over again in physics articles and books. Getting the two mixed up is why a lot of people don't believe in infinity. There are no loose ends to "everything that can exist, exists" (there are no loose ends to Uni-verse, no loose ends to infinite, no loose ends to this binary absolute of '0' and/or '1', whatsoever).

And, lastly, I knew the thousand and more duplicate (the infinity of duplicate) universes of 'Star Wars IV' would be ignored. That all someone would see and talk about would be the thousand and more "manufactured disks" which had nothing to do with the thousand and more universes of 'Star Wars IV' and 'Han Solo'' on them in my illustration of a point.

 

[David-J-Franks]

You're repeating. I will to, some. You're not really dealing in infinite. You keep on dealing in runaway finite and don't see that you are. There is a big difference between runaway finites and infinity. Infinity is a already, pre-existing fact, closed ended by binary absolutes '0' and/or '1'. In the case of Uni-verse, binary's '0' and/or '1' is all, the whole thing, no-loose-ends! Infinity is in the border, banked, closed up, to the Horizon of Uni-verse as I've stated so often. There are no loose ends to either the infinite of Uni-verse (Horizon) or the infinite of Big Crunch (Big Hole). The infinity of 'point horizons' are this side of '0' and/or'1'. You cannot count the number of point horizons, the number of cones to them, or the number of wormholes in the far dome of the night sky out from us. But the dome-horizon is there. You cannot count the number of universes those point horizons point to. You cannot [count] the greater Universe. You cannot count the number of point horizons down and in, or cones to them, or the number of blackholes in the horizon at the bottom of the micro-verse down and in. You cannot count the number of folds, the number of dimensions, there. They are border-line, though, to 'Uni'-verse, to '0' and/or '1'. As binary Uni-verse, you can't number, you can't count, this '0' and/or '1'; this Nothingness and/or Everythingness; this Nowhere and/or Everywhere, this.... Again you cannot count the greater Uni-verse.

Runaway finites are a mathematical illusion of numbers. Even mathematical physicists know they don't deal in real objects, as I've found over and over, and over again in physics articles and books. Getting the two mixed up is why a lot of people don't believe in infinity. There are no loose ends to "everything that can exist, exists" (there are no loose ends to Uni-verse, no loose ends to infinite, no loose ends to '0' and/or '1', whatsoever).

And, lastly, I knew the thousand and more duplicate (the infinity of duplicate) universes of 'Star Wars IV' would be ignored. That all someone would see and talk about would be the thousand and more "manufactured disks" which had nothing to do with the thousand and more universes of 'Star Wars IV' and 'Han Solo'' on them in my illustration of a point.

I believe in an infinity of universes I'm not suggesting for a moment you can count them. When I say universes are of the countable type of infinity it's just a name given to the first category/set of infinities - 'aleph 1'. Countable infinity is still infinity.

And, lastly, I knew the thousand and more duplicate (the infinity of duplicate) universes of 'Star Wars IV' would be ignored.

I've not ignored it. I ended post 59 with -

"To get a duplicate star wars DVD in another universe you need an exact duplicate universe, for which there's a 1 in 'aleph 1' chance of, ie zero"

As for the rest of your post, it's beyond me, sorry.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I wish you all the very best in life for your futures and (sorry if you don't like it) that includes freedom from useless semantic drivel.

Cat

I tend to just keep an open mind.
I don't think natures cares if I'm right or wrong and for sure it doesn't care about what i believe is right or wrong.
We are probably all wrong about the universe anyway but the fun is trying to figure out who is the least wrong at this point in time

IMO the universe will come down to some simple math calculation that can stand the test of time.
0/potential E=qf
qf E balance/time= big bang
universe=qf
big bang= event in qf

Something very simple like that.

Looking beyond the universe.
Our universe has it's clues about reality, but speculation at best to solve that puzzle.

 

[Michael Varn]

Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW

Yes, there is a question I have about black holes. Everyone knows the basics about black holes:

The gravity is so powerfull that nothing can escape it, not even light!

But there is a problem with this that is counter intuitive for me. On the cable TV science channels about black holes, there is this stuff that is being propelled and is moving away from the black hole. I asked a physics major about this and I was told it was called Hawkine radiation, named of course after the famous astrophysicist
who is a household name.

Now this guy is famous because he represents a human interest story in general concerning the fact that even though you may not be able to use your body, you can still use your mind! And ones mind is the most important thing in his case.

Of course, black holes are his speciality. So, how can anything like energy or radiation escape the gravitational pull of a black hole?

 

[Catastrophe]

Beyond a certain distance you can move freely towards or away. It is only when you are inside the "safe" distance that you cannot get out again. Outside that limit, speed will till get you away. The pull of the BH is very large, but remember the inverse square law. Attraction (however large) still fall off divided by distance squared.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Yes, there is a question I have about black holes. Everyone knows the basics about black holes:

The gravity is so powerfull that nothing can escape it, not even light!

But there is a problem with this that is counter intuitive for me. On the cable TV science channels about black holes, there is this stuff that is being propelled and is moving away from the black hole. I asked a physics major about this and I was told it was called Hawkine radiation, named of course after the famous astrophysicist
who is a household name.

Now this guy is famous because he represents a human interest story in general concerning the fact that even though you may not be able to use your body, you can still use your mind! And ones mind is the most important thing in his case.

Of course, black holes are his speciality. So, how can anything like energy or radiation escape the gravitational pull of a black hole?

All science needs now is a reason for a big bang, a mechanism that creates all that energy and then releases all that energy.
No real theory takes a serious stab at that problem.

IMO without other universes is the math, a good reason for everything will never make a good theory on why.

 

[Helio]

Of course, black holes are his speciality. So, how can anything like energy or radiation escape the gravitational pull of a black hole?

Hawking realized that when virtual particles form that they can split in their pairing at the edge of the BH where one particle falls into the BH and the other escapes. This has the effect of lowering the mass of the BH but it would take nearly forever to evaporate one.

 

[Michael Varn]

Beyond a certain distance you can move freely towards or away. It is only when you are inside the "safe" distance that you cannot get out again. Outside that limit, speed will till get you away. The pull of the BH is very large, but remember the inverse square law. Attraction (however large) still fall off divided by distance squared.

So does this mean if a stellar mass black hole appears unexpectedly right outside our solar system, we don't need to panic? You know, if it is just passing through and will not get to close to the Earth. I believe that the closest black hole that is currently feeding is about 35 to 38 hundred light years away from us. I have to assume that gravitational lensing is not fullproff. I believe this is the only way for astronomers to identify stellar mass black holes that are not feeding, so to speak. They are hungry, but there is nothing to eat!

 

[Helio]

It helps to think more in terms of their mass than their incredible density when thinking of them at a distance. If the Sun suddenly became a black hole, then it would have zero effect on the existing orbits as the gravity will remain the same. It's only when you get very near them that the gravity gradient can become extreme and can more easily pull things in.

 

[Atlan0001]

A blackhole may be quite different than a star, as is implied by its descriptive name. Its gravity may exist in its [local] of surface horizon, and internally the only probable singularity, as such, may be a shared (among all gravitational bodies, but particularly and immediately blackholes) non-local common of Big Crunch. All of them, throughout space and throughout time, may have their holed corridor, their wormhole throughway, running to, and ending in, the Big Crunch. The whatever, having attained it as newly primordially smooth as smooth can get, then transforms, or translates, or transfers, "through the looking glass" to the great white whale, the great white-hole, of the Big Bang to be vomited back into the Universe as brand spanking new information, dark matter(?), dark energy(?), vacuum energy(?), whatever, ready for whatever forming form it will be taking.

An End game constant of relative space-time will have looped the loop around to a Beginning game constant of relative space-time. History always repeats in larger smoother aspect, though very rarely (if at all) in fine grainy detail. Natural laws are strictly finite in number and always obeyed one way or another, though there be many possible spokes running into an inevitable hub.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

So does this mean if a stellar mass black hole appears unexpectedly right outside our solar system, we don't need to panic? You know, if it is just passing through and will not get to close to the Earth. I believe that the closest black hole that is currently feeding is about 35 to 38 hundred light years away from us. I have to assume that gravitational lensing is not fullproff. I believe this is the only way for astronomers to identify stellar mass black holes that are not feeding, so to speak. They are hungry, but there is nothing to eat!

A black hole passing our solar system at best would be a total disaster for orbital mechanics of the planets.
All comes down to how close it gets but even a stellar mass bh would cause trouble within 1 ly or less.
Earth moving in or out of it's normal orbit as little as 2% could be bake or freeze.

 

[Catastrophe]

I always find it interesting (in any thread) to go back, from time to time, to post #1.

Klovdal included the following in the #1 post:

"Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy." [my emphasis]

It would seem more appropriate (or whatever word you prefer) to see all this accumulated energy bursting out at the other end, so to speak. A new BB.

This is not a new idea. It has been around for decades. A Polish doctor was one of the first to suggest it, I believe. Please post it if you know. It would be good to have an early attribution.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

I always find it interesting (in any thread) to go back, from time to time, to post #1.

Klovdal included the following in the #1 post:

"Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy." [my emphasis]

It would seem more appropriate (or whatever word you prefer) to see all this accumulated energy bursting out at the other end, so to speak. A new BB.

This is not a new idea. It has been around for decades. A Polish doctor was one of the first to suggest it, I believe. Please post it if you know. It would be good to have an early attribution.

Cat

As I see it, in this scenario each and every [finite] one of a grainy infinity of trees is in the overall [infinite] smoothness of forest (as [singularly] separate entity from the [plurality]). The overall smoothly [infinite] forest is in each and every smoothly [infinitesimal] tree constituting it (each and every [finite] grain of an infinity of (cancelled to...) finite grains). Don't you just love the multi-dimensionality of a Multiverse (at once, duality... Universe ('1' (binary absolute(s) '0' and/or '1'))).

 

[Catastrophe]

As I think you probably know, I do not accept any attempt to apply the word "infinite" in any real world - use it in maths all you like, but please do not even begin to think that it applies to any real world situation.

If "infinite" = "too big to imagine", then fine. That is just semantics.
"Too big to imagine" merely applies to one person's imagination.

With all due respect, I do not see how anyone could relate post #73 to reality.

 

[Michael Varn]

A black hole passing our solar system at best would be a total disaster for orbital mechanics of the planets.
All comes down to how close it gets but even a stellar mass bh would cause trouble within 1 ly or less.
Earth moving in or out of it's normal orbit as little as 2% could be bake or freeze.

So what are the chances of one of these black holes slipping through the cracks so to speak, and ending up much closer to us than we might expect? Please tell me we have this covered, because I know that some employees at NASA have one job and one job only. That is to monitor any object like an asteroid that is headed in our direction.