Answer these questions please.
Why does our Sun have long Jeoparty?
How do spiral Galaxies form?
How do elliptical galaxies form?
Why does our Sun have long Jeoparty?
How do spiral Galaxies form?
How do elliptical galaxies form?
I am here to discuss the reason your "conservation of energy" objection is incorrect. Since you are unwilling to discuss it, the matter is closed. I will not be led off into other subjects.
to answer the questions allows me to know how much you know.
Im sorry if you took it the wrong way.
Im sorry if you took it the wrong way.
I've discussed it, infinity, and finite, for more than fifty years, including with computer and rocket scientists I've worked with during my career. Being widely read I could stay with them, and they with me, in general discussion and all of us enjoyed the relaxing back and forth. I will have no lecturing from anyone on that score. It began because the scientists I was working with used the word, the nature of infinity, in frustration more often than I was thinking about it at the time. They got me started on it as a great interest and I've never left it.
During open discussion breaks in our work they agreed with me, generally, that some "infinite" could possibly reduce to a constant, making the constant truly a constant (a kept constant)! Also agreeing, generally, that an "infinite density" would probably be a black hole in the universe, possibly [the] hole, [the] void, [the] vacuum, of the universe itself. Over the years I had forgotten that until recently when I entered upon this forum. I may not even have been the one to originally bring up that possibility. rather that probability. Also agreeing that it, infinity, would inevitably collapse in horizon to a line and/or point not anything like local, just as it does, is made to do, to become a finite constant, in the math, but never meaning that it actually ceases to exist. They were all "useful," "serious," discussions we had with mutually understood "terminology (aka language)" and positions.
I suggest you go to Wikipedia and read up on 'Calculus", though I am no master at math despite being identified by testing as a "visual mathematician" which only meant that I was a very good problem solver because I could literally see dimensions of problem complexity in my work, studies, and interests. You will certainly find "infinity" there in the article on "Calculus."
I really don't care what field you come from, as mine was computers (through several generations), information and information technology, communications and more (as I mention in passing above). For you to think you can lecture me, and/or instruct me, really gets irritating to someone with my background, my careers, my interests and studies over a lifetime, and my age. To keep moderators off my back for responding to you in kind.... I should have kept to my promise to myself I would not even read you in my return to the forum. I will keep that promise from here on.
During open discussion breaks in our work they agreed with me, generally, that some "infinite" could possibly reduce to a constant, making the constant truly a constant (a kept constant)! Also agreeing, generally, that an "infinite density" would probably be a black hole in the universe, possibly [the] hole, [the] void, [the] vacuum, of the universe itself. Over the years I had forgotten that until recently when I entered upon this forum. I may not even have been the one to originally bring up that possibility. rather that probability. Also agreeing that it, infinity, would inevitably collapse in horizon to a line and/or point not anything like local, just as it does, is made to do, to become a finite constant, in the math, but never meaning that it actually ceases to exist. They were all "useful," "serious," discussions we had with mutually understood "terminology (aka language)" and positions.
I suggest you go to Wikipedia and read up on 'Calculus", though I am no master at math despite being identified by testing as a "visual mathematician" which only meant that I was a very good problem solver because I could literally see dimensions of problem complexity in my work, studies, and interests. You will certainly find "infinity" there in the article on "Calculus."
I really don't care what field you come from, as mine was computers (through several generations), information and information technology, communications and more (as I mention in passing above). For you to think you can lecture me, and/or instruct me, really gets irritating to someone with my background, my careers, my interests and studies over a lifetime, and my age. To keep moderators off my back for responding to you in kind.... I should have kept to my promise to myself I would not even read you in my return to the forum. I will keep that promise from here on.
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I did not try to lecture you.
I'm sorry if you feel that way.
As for an infinite density, I do not agree.
Condensates I estimate from 10^5 to 10^35 .
All condensates have a dipolar electromagnetic field expelling matter preventing a classical black hole from forming.
Saying that, Event Horizon can form, the condensate core having quark/partonic properties creating the vector fields preventing EMR from escaping.
My research in this field started late 1969.
Yes, I had the Big Bang model as a model that had promises. As the years went by, researching the possibilities and following up science papers and updates through the decades up to 2023.
All the science points to and ongoing universe that has no start or end.
The ongoing universe, the parts within have cyclic processes.
if you have evidence to support the Big Bang Theory, I'm all ears.
As for:
My Calculus / Maths
My Chemistry
My Physics
My Biology
My Geology
My Genetics
My Quantum mechanics
all good
I'm sorry if you feel that way.
As for an infinite density, I do not agree.
Condensates I estimate from 10^5 to 10^35 .
All condensates have a dipolar electromagnetic field expelling matter preventing a classical black hole from forming.
Saying that, Event Horizon can form, the condensate core having quark/partonic properties creating the vector fields preventing EMR from escaping.
My research in this field started late 1969.
Yes, I had the Big Bang model as a model that had promises. As the years went by, researching the possibilities and following up science papers and updates through the decades up to 2023.
All the science points to and ongoing universe that has no start or end.
The ongoing universe, the parts within have cyclic processes.
if you have evidence to support the Big Bang Theory, I'm all ears.
As for:
My Calculus / Maths
My Chemistry
My Physics
My Biology
My Geology
My Genetics
My Quantum mechanics
all good
I was not referring to you, I was replying to post #50.Billslugg, I did not mention conservation at all.
Cat
Just so everyone understands, I have no interest in discussing "Against the Mainstream" physics.
Harry, I wasn't addressing you. I may disagree with you on certain things, even to the way we see infinity, something we both realize to be real, but I have never felt like you were being insidious or craftily undermining. You are not the type. I read you as being straight up in how you see and believe things to be, and I have no problems at all with that. Stay your course, You are okay with me, Harry. Keep digging for the pictures of physics, the natures (plural, more dimensions than one) of things, sharpening your realizations as you go along. Do not lose your imagination, the basis of the richness, the magic, of science as well as the art.
"Great spirits have alway encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..." -- Albert Einstein.
Last edited:
I think this fits here also:
Repeating: As Stephen Hawking hinted at in 'A Brief History of Time', there is no end to the 'frontier horizon' of early universe (of universe, period). Therefore it "is" the stereo-Horizon of creation / beginning / cycle (eternal). It never "was" created. Never! It "is" the Big Frontier of universe (eternal). It never "was" the Big Frontier of universe.
String Theory, as I've read it, looks to there being many more dimensions -- many extra dimensions -- than three or four to the universe. I do believe I've found some of those "many more" dimensions than three or four existing in the horizons of the frontier universe of "is", rather than "was", above.
(I thought about "Schwarzschild radius of the universe" but "CYCLIC UNIVERSE" won out. It would fit both just as well as its original placing. I wanted it in 'Cosmology' as well as its original placing. This mention is enough for Schwarzschild radius . . . again, what I term the 'turnaround' radius of local universe. The 'turnover' radius of local universe. The constant of radius (of any and all of the infinities of locals, of finites, in the grid matrix, creating the matrix structure of the grid, of the 2-dimensionally (multi-dimensionally) infinitely flat universe: The infinite flat horizontal of the 'Sierpinski Carpet'-like universe described also by the "zoom" description in 'Chaos Theory' (and described by each individual frame of 'light-time-history', the frame I describe elsewhere in 'Cosmology')).
Repeating: As Stephen Hawking hinted at in 'A Brief History of Time', there is no end to the 'frontier horizon' of early universe (of universe, period). Therefore it "is" the stereo-Horizon of creation / beginning / cycle (eternal). It never "was" created. Never! It "is" the Big Frontier of universe (eternal). It never "was" the Big Frontier of universe.
String Theory, as I've read it, looks to there being many more dimensions -- many extra dimensions -- than three or four to the universe. I do believe I've found some of those "many more" dimensions than three or four existing in the horizons of the frontier universe of "is", rather than "was", above.
(I thought about "Schwarzschild radius of the universe" but "CYCLIC UNIVERSE" won out. It would fit both just as well as its original placing. I wanted it in 'Cosmology' as well as its original placing. This mention is enough for Schwarzschild radius . . . again, what I term the 'turnaround' radius of local universe. The 'turnover' radius of local universe. The constant of radius (of any and all of the infinities of locals, of finites, in the grid matrix, creating the matrix structure of the grid, of the 2-dimensionally (multi-dimensionally) infinitely flat universe: The infinite flat horizontal of the 'Sierpinski Carpet'-like universe described also by the "zoom" description in 'Chaos Theory' (and described by each individual frame of 'light-time-history', the frame I describe elsewhere in 'Cosmology')).
Last edited:
Hello Atlan
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
Although I look at Condensates and their Transients.
I do look at other possibilities.
Transients' condensates: compaction
Atomic matter 10*5 known.
Neutron Matter 10^17 known.
Quark matter from 10^18 to 10^25 estimated range where possible Event Horizon forms.
Partonic matter 10^25 to 10^30 estimated. EH forms.
Axion Gluon matter 10^ 30 to 10^35 estimated. EH forms. (Not to infinity)
Range of mass of condensates with a common property best explained as
Chiral Supersymmetry Dipolar Electromagnetic Vector Field powered by the condensate core, that expels condensate droplets that seed stars etc.
Condensate Milkyway Black Hole (NON classical) 7 million soar masses. Dipolar jets 10000 Lys
Condensate M87 10 billion solar masses gravity sink to our local group of galaxies 10 million light years across. Dipolar jets over 100000 Lys. At the tip of the Jet you can fit clusters of stars ( millions)
Condensate Virgo Supercluster over 100 billion solar masses and the size is over 110 light years across. Dipolar jets millions of Lys. At the tip of the Jet you can fit galaxies.
The known Virgo Supercluster forms part of a humongous Super-duper cluster of superclusters.
To understand cyclic process, you need to know how matter can be broken down to Axion Gluon Matter and how Axion Gluon Matter, once expelled how it reforms atomic matter. Conservation of matter/energy.
As explained by the theory of the BB.
Nucleosynthesis.
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
Although I look at Condensates and their Transients.
I do look at other possibilities.
Transients' condensates: compaction
Atomic matter 10*5 known.
Neutron Matter 10^17 known.
Quark matter from 10^18 to 10^25 estimated range where possible Event Horizon forms.
Partonic matter 10^25 to 10^30 estimated. EH forms.
Axion Gluon matter 10^ 30 to 10^35 estimated. EH forms. (Not to infinity)
Range of mass of condensates with a common property best explained as
Chiral Supersymmetry Dipolar Electromagnetic Vector Field powered by the condensate core, that expels condensate droplets that seed stars etc.
Condensate Milkyway Black Hole (NON classical) 7 million soar masses. Dipolar jets 10000 Lys
Condensate M87 10 billion solar masses gravity sink to our local group of galaxies 10 million light years across. Dipolar jets over 100000 Lys. At the tip of the Jet you can fit clusters of stars ( millions)
Condensate Virgo Supercluster over 100 billion solar masses and the size is over 110 light years across. Dipolar jets millions of Lys. At the tip of the Jet you can fit galaxies.
The known Virgo Supercluster forms part of a humongous Super-duper cluster of superclusters.
To understand cyclic process, you need to know how matter can be broken down to Axion Gluon Matter and how Axion Gluon Matter, once expelled how it reforms atomic matter. Conservation of matter/energy.
As explained by the theory of the BB.
Nucleosynthesis.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, I would like to return to your opening comments in this thread, which impressed me greatly:
Let me analyse my interest in your comments, please.
Of course you are right. There has been much to commend the BBT, and I followed it blindly for a long time. It still has some appeal. Over a long period, I have had changes of mind, this way and that, as I have tried to think through what might be relatable to observations and what might be allowing a fudge to 'prop up' a transient guess. Don't we all go through processes like this?
At one point I was convinced that BBT was perfectly solid after [t = 0] which I like to think of as an imaginary 'time' immediately before expansion began. Once started, all seemed to follow quite reasonably. However, this line brings us up inexorably against a singularity. This gives me serious problems. I am still open to following any idea with reason, but there comes a point where science and metaphysics begin to overlap or gently merge. The methods of scientific observation and experiment are only able to be followed so far. Hence my doubts about any possible support which might be engendered for such an entity. At this point in my time, I find the idea unbelievable. That is, of course, entirely my opinion, and others are equally entitled to theirs. That is why I sprinkle my posts with the caveat of IMHO (in my honest opinion, of course).
I have to say that cyclic models have their own difficulties, of which I am well aware. There are issues of entropy which need a lot more consideration. It is just that, at this moment in (my) time, I have to try to balance the problems of entropy against the problems of singularity.
So what I am saying here is that:
1. I am not completely disregarding BBT. The biggest problem for me is where BBT meets singularity at [t = 0]. There may be some way of reconciling this problem, but, at this moment, IMHO, some cyclic theory seems high up for consideration.
2. What may be found, don't ask we when is that there may be some resolution similar to that moving from Newton to Einstein. Of course, much of Newton is still perfectly OK for our needs, whilst appreciating that in other more stringent circumstances, we must defer to Einstein. This you have covered by "keep on looking for theories".
Cyclic theories offer one way to avoid the singularity, replacing it with a nexus between phases, but there are still many twists on cyclic models yet to be explored.
Cosmological principle | astronomy | Britannica
This is where I am now. This is why I am interested in your thoughts on these questions.
Where do you stand on BB and on cyclic versus singularity? How do your condensate ideas apply here? I would much appreciate your input.
Cat
Let me analyse my interest in your comments, please.
Of course you are right. There has been much to commend the BBT, and I followed it blindly for a long time. It still has some appeal. Over a long period, I have had changes of mind, this way and that, as I have tried to think through what might be relatable to observations and what might be allowing a fudge to 'prop up' a transient guess. Don't we all go through processes like this?
At one point I was convinced that BBT was perfectly solid after [t = 0] which I like to think of as an imaginary 'time' immediately before expansion began. Once started, all seemed to follow quite reasonably. However, this line brings us up inexorably against a singularity. This gives me serious problems. I am still open to following any idea with reason, but there comes a point where science and metaphysics begin to overlap or gently merge. The methods of scientific observation and experiment are only able to be followed so far. Hence my doubts about any possible support which might be engendered for such an entity. At this point in my time, I find the idea unbelievable. That is, of course, entirely my opinion, and others are equally entitled to theirs. That is why I sprinkle my posts with the caveat of IMHO (in my honest opinion, of course).
I have to say that cyclic models have their own difficulties, of which I am well aware. There are issues of entropy which need a lot more consideration. It is just that, at this moment in (my) time, I have to try to balance the problems of entropy against the problems of singularity.
So what I am saying here is that:
1. I am not completely disregarding BBT. The biggest problem for me is where BBT meets singularity at [t = 0]. There may be some way of reconciling this problem, but, at this moment, IMHO, some cyclic theory seems high up for consideration.
2. What may be found, don't ask we when
is that there may be some resolution similar to that moving from Newton to Einstein. Of course, much of Newton is still perfectly OK for our needs, whilst appreciating that in other more stringent circumstances, we must defer to Einstein. This you have covered by "keep on looking for theories". Cyclic theories offer one way to avoid the singularity, replacing it with a nexus between phases, but there are still many twists on cyclic models yet to be explored.
Cosmological principle | astronomy | Britannica
This is where I am now. This is why I am interested in your thoughts on these questions.
Where do you stand on BB and on cyclic versus singularity? How do your condensate ideas apply here? I would much appreciate your input.
Cat
Hello
Catastrophe
If you are looking for T=0
Keep looking until then.
Look at the workings of Quantum Mechanics.
Singularity cannot exist.
The property of condensates is that they form Dipolar Jets that expel matter away from the core, preventing a singularity from forming.
The transient phase will determine the formation an Event Horizon. This type of a black hole mimics a Black Hole without a singularity.
How does BB Nucleosynthesis work?
Does it work in both directions?
DOES IT WORK THROUGH OUT THE UNIVERSE AT THE SAME TIME=0
Catastrophe
If you are looking for T=0
Keep looking until then.
Look at the workings of Quantum Mechanics.
Singularity cannot exist.
The property of condensates is that they form Dipolar Jets that expel matter away from the core, preventing a singularity from forming.
The transient phase will determine the formation an Event Horizon. This type of a black hole mimics a Black Hole without a singularity.
How does BB Nucleosynthesis work?
Does it work in both directions?
DOES IT WORK THROUGH OUT THE UNIVERSE AT THE SAME TIME=0
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Thank you, Harry, for your interesting reply. Did you know that Thomas Hertog has a book coming out on 6th April (at least on Kindle), entitled "On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking’s final theory"? It is previewed (by Hertog himself) in the current All About Space Issue 141.
He has some interesting comments on time, for example:
Of course, this is all metaphysics, although some confirmatory work is proposed. But what interests me is this long lasting 'singularity' which, taking away any suggestion of infinite, might just as well be a nexus in a cyclic system. Just my thoughts, anyway.
Cat
He has some interesting comments on time, for example:
Of course, this is all metaphysics, although some confirmatory work is proposed. But what interests me is this long lasting 'singularity' which, taking away any suggestion of infinite, might just as well be a nexus in a cyclic system. Just my thoughts, anyway.
Cat
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, I am finding it useful to review Hawking's position, prior to the Hertog publication. There is, [IMHO], scarcely a more succinct introduction to cyclic universe possibilities, than that contained in "The Grand Design" by Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) pp 128-9.
Of course, as I believe most will accept, we are in the realms of metaphysics, and cannot go back to observe any alleged singularity, or, as Hawking stated, cannot apply a broken down (at that point) theory.
No one has yet pointed out to me how any subsequent suggestions, arising after this fictitious start, might not have arisen equally from a cyclic model - maybe not in itself any more understandable than a singularity, but certainly no less worthy of metaphysical consideration.
Incidentally, as is well known both Hawking and Einstein were familiar with Flatland
Flatland - Wikipedia ,
Hawking uses the familiar balloon (ibid, page 126) analogy, without my pointing out the effect of expansion of a (n + 1) dimension observer.
Cat
My emphasis.
My emphasis.
Of course, as I believe most will accept, we are in the realms of metaphysics, and cannot go back to observe any alleged singularity, or, as Hawking stated, cannot apply a broken down (at that point) theory.
No one has yet pointed out to me how any subsequent suggestions, arising after this fictitious start, might not have arisen equally from a cyclic model - maybe not in itself any more understandable than a singularity, but certainly no less worthy of metaphysical consideration.
Incidentally, as is well known both Hawking and Einstein were familiar with Flatland
Flatland - Wikipedia ,
Hawking uses the familiar balloon (ibid, page 126) analogy, without my pointing out the effect of expansion of a (n + 1) dimension observer.
Cat
Last edited:
So what if I broke my promise to myself and read a post of yours. So what if I [liked] it.Harry, I am finding it useful to review Hawking's position, prior to the Hertog publication. There is, [IMHO], scarcely a more succinct introduction to cyclic universe possibilities, than that contained in "The Grand Design" by Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) pp 128-9.
My emphasis.
My emphasis.
Of course, as I believe most will accept, we are in the realms of metaphysics, and cannot go back to observe any alleged singularity, or, as Hawking stated, cannot apply a broken down (at that point) theory.
No one has yet pointed out to me how any subsequent suggestions, arising after this fictitious start, might not have arisen equally from a cyclic model - maybe not in itself any more understandable than a singularity, but certainly no less worthy of metaphysical consideration.
Incidentally, as is well known both Hawking and Einstein were familiar with Flatland
Flatland - Wikipedia ,
Hawking uses the familiar balloon (ibid, page 126) analogy, without my pointing out the effect of expansion of a (n + 1) dimension observer.
Cat
Hello One and all
I have been away to a wedding, celebrating a new beginning.
Life is passed on.
Man through the ages, have man the center of the universe.
Now we have a Big Bang Theory to explain the creation of the universe.
For now, I look at the parts within the universe and I observe cyclic events.
Stars and Galaxies show us through observations images that indicate part of cyclic events.
You do not have to like the papers that I posted.
The journey is non-stop to understanding.
I have been away to a wedding, celebrating a new beginning.
Life is passed on.
Man through the ages, have man the center of the universe.
Now we have a Big Bang Theory to explain the creation of the universe.
For now, I look at the parts within the universe and I observe cyclic events.
Stars and Galaxies show us through observations images that indicate part of cyclic events.
You do not have to like the papers that I posted.
The journey is non-stop to understanding.
Without evidence one can only assume and predict events.
Accretion flow towards the core in my opinion does not take part in the vortex expelled out.
Vortex is created by the Core Condensate that forms a dipolar jet. The matter within these jets reaches close to the speed of light close to the core. Further away from the core the quantum matter reforms into atomic matter. A process explained by BB nucleosynthesis. The atomic matter once formed will be attracted to the center core and slowed down within the solar or galactic envelope.
The vortex may push through the star envelope or galactic envelope.
The next 10 years will be quite interesting times.
[Submitted on 10 May 2018 (v1), last revised 31 Aug 2018 (this version, v3)]
Magnetic fields in the Galactic halo restrict fountain-driven recycling and accretion
Asger Grønnow, Thor Tepper-García, Joss Bland-Hawthorn
Accretion flow towards the core in my opinion does not take part in the vortex expelled out.
Vortex is created by the Core Condensate that forms a dipolar jet. The matter within these jets reaches close to the speed of light close to the core. Further away from the core the quantum matter reforms into atomic matter. A process explained by BB nucleosynthesis. The atomic matter once formed will be attracted to the center core and slowed down within the solar or galactic envelope.
The vortex may push through the star envelope or galactic envelope.
The next 10 years will be quite interesting times.
[Submitted on 10 May 2018 (v1), last revised 31 Aug 2018 (this version, v3)]
Magnetic fields in the Galactic halo restrict fountain-driven recycling and accretion
Asger Grønnow, Thor Tepper-García, Joss Bland-Hawthorn
"Distant objects near the horizon in a polluted atmosphere .... redden all light." -- Helio.
Such as in a very "polluted" universe? -- Me.
Such as in a very "polluted" universe? -- Me.
Last edited:
The universe has no pollution.
It is what it is.
That is why it is beautiful, even in chaos.
Near the Horizon matter will start to break down into atoms.
Once within the EH atoms start breaking down to protons and neutrons.
Protons under confinement gain electron forming Neutrons.
Neutrons compact to 10^17
Further compaction Neutrons break down to Composites of Quarks compaction upto 10^25.
Quarks will break down to Partonic Matter
and so on.
The reverse can happen
It is what it is.
That is why it is beautiful, even in chaos.
Near the Horizon matter will start to break down into atoms.
Once within the EH atoms start breaking down to protons and neutrons.
Protons under confinement gain electron forming Neutrons.
Neutrons compact to 10^17
Further compaction Neutrons break down to Composites of Quarks compaction upto 10^25.
Quarks will break down to Partonic Matter
and so on.
The reverse can happen
I believe the space in this universe and around this universe is very polluted. It's polluted with naked charge and orphan EM radiation. The naked charge, the mass, comes from the wind of stars. Once this wind is emitted, that mass can not interact with other mass. This naked charge is moving too fast to interact with other mass. It is dead mass. And with every emission of naked charge, the entropy of this universe increases. The mass stays the same, but it's it disorder is increased and it's usefulness is reduced. At this present time with all of these eons of stars, we probably have more naked charge than dipoles and matter.....in this universe. More un-usable mass, than usable mass.
They say that normal space has about one naked charge per cubic meter. Air has bout 10^24 molecules per meter. There are 30 million meters in a light second. Light passes 30 million naked particles every second thru space. That's 1800 million particles a minute. That's 108 BILLION particles per hour. And times that 24 for per day. And times that 365 for a light year. Now times that by 13 billion years.
The particle density of space......with 13 billion years of thickness......is more dense that our atmosphere.
And we all know what atmosphere can do with light. I'll bet if we made an accurate measurement, that naked charge density is greater than 1 charge per meter.
But that's just the mass pollution, there is a much heavier field pollution. Because of the quantum effect of mass, the mass acts like a spring.....with a ratchet. And when light hits that spring, if the light is not strong enough to set that spring, to set that charge to a higher level.......the charge will discharge that energy back out into space. This continuously happens with mass. And all mass emits these orphan emissions. This fills our space with orphan static. A blanket of it.
Any observation thru space can be distorted with this mass and field pollution. Or interference. Or superposition. And lot's of crazy speculation.
They say that normal space has about one naked charge per cubic meter. Air has bout 10^24 molecules per meter. There are 30 million meters in a light second. Light passes 30 million naked particles every second thru space. That's 1800 million particles a minute. That's 108 BILLION particles per hour. And times that 24 for per day. And times that 365 for a light year. Now times that by 13 billion years.
The particle density of space......with 13 billion years of thickness......is more dense that our atmosphere.
And we all know what atmosphere can do with light. I'll bet if we made an accurate measurement, that naked charge density is greater than 1 charge per meter.
But that's just the mass pollution, there is a much heavier field pollution. Because of the quantum effect of mass, the mass acts like a spring.....with a ratchet. And when light hits that spring, if the light is not strong enough to set that spring, to set that charge to a higher level.......the charge will discharge that energy back out into space. This continuously happens with mass. And all mass emits these orphan emissions. This fills our space with orphan static. A blanket of it.
Any observation thru space can be distorted with this mass and field pollution. Or interference. Or superposition. And lot's of crazy speculation.
What I'm calling a universal, an umbrella, of rising "pie crust" and/or rising "pollution" is the ever-continuing constant of creative condition, initial condition, primal-primordial conditions of birth and newness. Black holes, including the stereo of [THE] Black Hole Horizon of the PBB(B)H (cc) Horizon being just the other 'Verse' (a 'Turn' (a 'Turning' of the 'unity')) of my "mind's eye" (multi-dimensional (multiplex)) modeling of Infinite Multiverse-Universe richness. Spokes to the hub of 'unity' / spokes to the rim of 'unity' (hub and rim in a cosmopolitan multi-dimensional multiplex being interchangeable).
Yes, a finely, richly, "polluted" (the 'zoom out' of a Zoom) Universe, and our local, relative, universe of the non-local, not relative, infinity of universes (the 'zoom in' side of the coin of 'Zoom' Universe), that "is" and never "was."
And 'entropy' is a continuing constant on the side of 'returning' -- the reverse side of the coin -- [of-a-piece] with "universe" "([of-a-piece] with a 'turning' of the 'unity'").
Yes, a finely, richly, "polluted" (the 'zoom out' of a Zoom) Universe, and our local, relative, universe of the non-local, not relative, infinity of universes (the 'zoom in' side of the coin of 'Zoom' Universe), that "is" and never "was."
And 'entropy' is a continuing constant on the side of 'returning' -- the reverse side of the coin -- [of-a-piece] with "universe" "([of-a-piece] with a 'turning' of the 'unity'").
Last edited:
Science and opinion sometimes go hand in hand.
Imagination is a good thing.
Chinese whisper can be a runaway.
This is why I, advice people to keep on searching, learning off other scientists who have spent years on some topics. Sometimes in the wrong direction.
Entropy: some people use this word without understanding. Can someone explain to me what it means?
Black Hole: can someone explain to me what it means?
13 billion I assume you think that the universe is about 13 billion old?
Years gone by; the Classical Black Hole had a core singularity with infinite mass.
We now know that the furthest Galaxies that we can see are about 14 billion Yrs. away in every direction, giving as a Trillion Galaxies including over 20 Superclusters Galaxies.
We are at the footsteps of understanding.
You can lead a horse to water, But! you cannot make it drink.
Regardless have fun, imagination is a powerful tool.
Imagination is a good thing.
Chinese whisper can be a runaway.
This is why I, advice people to keep on searching, learning off other scientists who have spent years on some topics. Sometimes in the wrong direction.
Entropy: some people use this word without understanding. Can someone explain to me what it means?
Black Hole: can someone explain to me what it means?
13 billion I assume you think that the universe is about 13 billion old?
Years gone by; the Classical Black Hole had a core singularity with infinite mass.
We now know that the furthest Galaxies that we can see are about 14 billion Yrs. away in every direction, giving as a Trillion Galaxies including over 20 Superclusters Galaxies.
We are at the footsteps of understanding.
You can lead a horse to water, But! you cannot make it drink.
Regardless have fun, imagination is a powerful tool.
"Entropy: some people use this word without understanding. Can someone explain to me what it means?" - Harry Costas, post #71
Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system.
The English units are BTU's. In a closed system, the BTU's that are not available to do work comprise its entropy.
For example. If a closed system entailed two, one pint glasses of water, one at 0°F and one at 100°F the total heat in the system is 100 BTU. (zero times one pound plus 100 times one pound). A heat engine can be set up to move heat from the hot glass to the cold glass. When complete, both glasses are at 50°F. There is still 100 BTU in the system.
Before the heat is exchanged, each glass can contribute 50 BTU to the heat engine, as they both move towards 50°, so the unusable heat is zero, thus the entropy is zero.
At the end, both are at the same temperature and no more heat can be moved. All of the heat, 100 BTU, is unusable, therefore the entropy is 100 BTU.
There is never a case, on the macroscopic scale, where one glass would tend to get colder and one glass get hotter, all on their own. This is why entropy always increases. Entropy cannot decrease in a closed macroscopic system unless the arrow of time is reversed. When there are only a few hundred or so molecules, it is possible to see a deviation from this rule. There heve been attempts to derive useful power from this but nothing has ever been demonstrated.
If anyone claims to have done it, simply ask to see their Nobel Prize.
This is mainstream physics. People who argue for a violation of the Second Law are welcomed to have at it but I will not participate. Get your Nobel Prize first then I'll be all ears.
Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system.
The English units are BTU's. In a closed system, the BTU's that are not available to do work comprise its entropy.
For example. If a closed system entailed two, one pint glasses of water, one at 0°F and one at 100°F the total heat in the system is 100 BTU. (zero times one pound plus 100 times one pound). A heat engine can be set up to move heat from the hot glass to the cold glass. When complete, both glasses are at 50°F. There is still 100 BTU in the system.
Before the heat is exchanged, each glass can contribute 50 BTU to the heat engine, as they both move towards 50°, so the unusable heat is zero, thus the entropy is zero.
At the end, both are at the same temperature and no more heat can be moved. All of the heat, 100 BTU, is unusable, therefore the entropy is 100 BTU.
There is never a case, on the macroscopic scale, where one glass would tend to get colder and one glass get hotter, all on their own. This is why entropy always increases. Entropy cannot decrease in a closed macroscopic system unless the arrow of time is reversed. When there are only a few hundred or so molecules, it is possible to see a deviation from this rule. There heve been attempts to derive useful power from this but nothing has ever been demonstrated.
If anyone claims to have done it, simply ask to see their Nobel Prize.
This is mainstream physics. People who argue for a violation of the Second Law are welcomed to have at it but I will not participate. Get your Nobel Prize first then I'll be all ears.
I maybe on another planet or galaxy.
All formations and images that we observe out there and beyond, can be explained by understanding Chiral-Spersymmetry-Dipolar-Electro-Dynamic-Vector Fields.
[Submitted on 17 Dec 2021 (v1), last revised 10 Jan 2022 (this version, v3)]
Self-bound droplets in quasi-two-dimensional dipolar condensates
Yuqi Wang, Tao Shi, Su Yi
All formations and images that we observe out there and beyond, can be explained by understanding Chiral-Spersymmetry-Dipolar-Electro-Dynamic-Vector Fields.
[Submitted on 17 Dec 2021 (v1), last revised 10 Jan 2022 (this version, v3)]
Self-bound droplets in quasi-two-dimensional dipolar condensates
Yuqi Wang, Tao Shi, Su Yi
The following paper mentions recycling as part of Recyling.
It falls short in digging deeper into the core and its dance with the accretion of falling matter and twisting.
Saying that it is interesting reading.
My opinion should not lead you away from researching beyond.
[Submitted on 14 Mar 2023]
The Role of Outflow Feedback on Accretion of Compact Objects in Accretion Disk of Active Galactic Nuclei
Ken Chen, Jia Ren, Zi-Gao Dai
It falls short in digging deeper into the core and its dance with the accretion of falling matter and twisting.
Saying that it is interesting reading.
My opinion should not lead you away from researching beyond.
[Submitted on 14 Mar 2023]
The Role of Outflow Feedback on Accretion of Compact Objects in Accretion Disk of Active Galactic Nuclei
Ken Chen, Jia Ren, Zi-Gao Dai
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram