# Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

Page 3 - 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.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
No. We get to define “parallel” as lines that includes by implication no intersection.

Calculus easily solves Zeno’s paradox. There is no chance a hare or turtle will not cross the finish line by arguing its distance only approaches it fractionally. Calculus serves to support your argument to dump an infinite series when we already have the answer seen in the asymptote.

Agreed. But we need only understand the context for each use of “infinite”.

Context is not always clear.
For example, on hearing:

Salisbury Plain accident
and
Salisbury plane accident.

For those unfamiliar with UK, Salisbury Plain is a geographical area.

The former refers to an accident on Salisbury Plain (could be auto)
The latter refers to an aeroplane accident near Salisbury.

Cat

#### Gibsense

M, don't make too much of the BBT thing. I think that there is an infinite (OOOps) difference between BBT and t = 0. That interceding difference - reported as getting closer and closer to trillionths (or smaller) of a second is, in my opinion, due to the approaching infinitely (OOOps) large difference caused by division by zero.

My guess is that these tiny time spans are entirely due to the vast temperatures (reported elsewhere). Inordinately high temperatures 10^32 K obviously require exceedingly rapid cooling.

Cat
Infinite but bounded. It might be out of my depth but for example, you can have the ability to circumnavigate Earth forever but be bounded by the sphere. At t=0 there is no prior time but this is just a 4D time boundary to our 3D world. If time is a process then there are likely processes in 4/5+ dimensions that provide a prior cause to BB without the requirement for an infinity.
This would not exclude a cyclic universe nor does it require one.

Within Spacetime there is no beginning or 'before' with which to apply Relativity. The idea that the time after BB can be divided infinitely is probably wrong.

But then, infinite circumnavigation of the Earth would require an infinite amount of time; this would also require a boundary. Turtles upon turtles again

#### Atlan0001

The accelerating expansion of life in the universe (to infinity) is infinitely mitigated by the accelerating expansion of everything else in the universe (to infinities). Set! And, Reset!

Last edited:

#### Harry Costas

Accelerating Expansion to Where?
What forces caused the expansion?

#### Atlan0001

Accelerating Expansion to Where?
What forces caused the expansion?
Harry, I wish you would understand that you can't possibly observe infinity but you can observe the potential of infinity! You can observe the observable universe's accelerating expansion to that already pre-existing infinity you can never observe.

You can observe a mixed message, the above and the closed up Planck (BC) (BB) Horizon superposition "set" of an infinity of horizon universes! An infinity of curvature, curvatures, that will never complete wrap around at any point. But there is multi-dimensional action in and to that Horizon of horizons . . . Planck (BC) (BB) action.

#### billslugg

There is no force involved in the expansion of space, it just happens at some particular rate.

The early Universe did not expand because of the pressure cause by its high temperature. It could not expand because there was no place for it to expand into. The hot plasma already occupied the whole universe.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Infinite but bounded

This is simple to understand, if you think of the Flatlander sphere analogy.

To the Flatlander, it is "infinite" (having no boundary).
His "universe" is a spherical surface.
If you prefer the version where the surface represents spacetime, then there is no end to space or time (to put it in those terms.
If you prefer the version where the surface represents space (2D) only, then he can perceive no time limitation - the surface may expand 'in time' in this version.

But to the D+ observer, the Flatlander's "universe" is easily perceived as bounded, and for D+ there could be any number of Flatlander "universes".

The Flatlander perceives expansion of his "universe" by noticing that distances on his sphere grow larger. He senses expansion, but does not know into "what?".
The D+ observer perceives expansion of Flatlander "universes" by noting the "radius" of the expanding Flatlander spherical surface "universe". This "radius" is incomprehensible to the Flatlander, but D+ can see any number of them, whereas the Flatlander believes that he is alone.

Cat

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry,

Accelerating Expansion to Where?
What forces caused the expansion?

The Flatlander analogy gives the clue.
The Flatlander "universes" expand into a dimension higher than their perception allows.
D+ can see any number of Flatlander "universes" expanding within D+'s "universe".

Cat

Gibsense

#### Atlan0001

The local-relative hypersphere moves with the mover. It merges hyperspheres with movers merging. It separates out into two to countless many hypersphere-bubble "observable universes" with movers moving and separating out in dividing energy cells. There is no true wall, no true edge, to universes.

#### mdswartz

I say our section expands into the rest of the universe. My new idea is that the weak force might be the key to big bangs from black holes at cosmic mass limit #3. You see, the strong force works entirely inside of matter holding structure firm from the inside, and gravity works entirely outside of matter holding structure firm from the outside, but the weak force can work both inside and outside of matter, and is the only force known to eject matter from matter.

In regular atomic matter the weak force essentially splits in half and ejects electromagnetism outside of matter to work partially inside of matter on electron orbits and degeneracy pressure, and partially outside of matter on electromagnetic fields and the attractive/repellant forces of charged particles. In that state, as matter is added, gravity and nuclear/degeneracy forces are added as well, in nearly equal increments, but gravity is added slightly incrementally more, right up to collapse to black hole, when total gravity finally overtakes total nuclear/degeneracy forces. However, at that time, electromagnetism is pushed entirely inside of matter, the entirety of the weak force is 100% inside of matter, and the black hole has a neutral charge. In that state, as matter is added, nuclear/degeneracy forces and gravity are added in nearly identical increments as well, but nuclear/degeneracy forces are added slightly incrementally more than gravity, right up until cosmic mass limit #3, when total nuclear/degeneracy forces finally overtake gravity with a big bang.

In the very early universe, even under the expansion of the entirety of the universe theory, we know that the early universe particles were so hot and so full of kinetic energy that no attractive force could bind them, not even gravity, and we know expansion of space between the particles happened anyway, even though we might otherwise have expected everything to collapse into a black hole back then. So what happens when a black hole becomes as massive as the observable universe, and the particles inside are equally as hot and equally as full of kinetic energy as the early universe particles? Wouldn't we expect that not even gravity could bind them, just like it couldn't bind the early universe particles either?

Black holes are a constant battle between the repulsive forces of the primordial matter within and gravity pushing in, and it's a very close battle. At equilibrium day 1 before collapse to neutron star, we have roughly 1.4 solar masses gravity pushing in = 1.4 solar masses (net mass) nuclear/degeneracy forces pushing out. Add 1 gram that day and you get collapse to neutron star, because you then have roughly 1.4 solar masses plus one gram gravity pushing in but only 1.4 solar masses plus a fraction of a gram nuclear/degeneracy forces pushing out, a ratio of .9999999999999 or more to 1.

At that point, the weak force's work outside of matter consists mostly of massive magnetic forces, but there is some electric charge as well because some protons become trapped inside the core. A new countdown begins as matter is added, and gravity continues to be added at an incrementally higher rate than the nuclear/degeneracy inside of matter, until equilibrium day #2, when again, roughly 2.3 solar masses gravity pushing in = 2.3 solar masses nuclear/degeneracy forces pushing out. Add one gram that day, and collapse to black hole, whereby you have roughly 2.3 solar masses plus 1 gram gravity pushing in versus 2.3 solar masses plus a fraction of a gram nuclear/degeneracy forces pushing out, a ratio of roughly .9999999999999 to 1, nearly the same ratio but higher total force.

This proves that that nuclear/degeneracy forces, which are forever inseparable from matter, go right down into the neutron star and into the black hole, and it also proves that as matter was added, gravity was added incrementally more than nuclear/degeneracy forces right up to both collapses. But it's a very close battle and it doesn't take much to turn the tides the other way. And the pushing of the weak force entirely inside of matter provides the edge, and from the moment a black hole first forms, the new countdown begins, and nuclear/degeneracy forces are added incrementally more than gravity when matter is added, right up to cosmic mass limit #3, when gravity is overpowered and the big bang happens.

#### mdswartz

What was there before the big bang? The universe was there, is there, and will be there. And there was a ginormous black hole there, and probably the biggest galaxy in the universe, judging from the size of the black hole. Where did the primordial matter for the big bang come from? A black hole, and a big one, the only source of primordial matter in the universe. Why are supermassive black holes and quasars being seen so soon after the big bang? Because they were there before the big bang, they survived the big bang, and they're growing ever more massive to this day. Why are such huge and mature galaxies being seen so soon after the big bang? Because the smbh's gave a massive head start to very early galaxy formation shortly after the big bang. Why is our section of the universe expanding? Because the big bang broke the bounds of gravity, sending the matter ever outward. Why is expansion accelerating? Because gravity from the rest of the universe has now become primary and acts to help pull our section apart at an increased rate. What is our section expanding into? The rest of the universe, which is already everywhere. Where did all the heavy elements come from? As the big bang pulverized it's own host galaxy it helped fuse heavier and heavier elements, providing a rich source of rubble for very early planetary formation. Why are intermediate sized black holes so rare? Because they're small enough to have been mostly pushed away by the big bang, but too large to have yet formed naturally in the 14 or so billion years since the big bang. It's one big universe guys, billions of times bigger than many have imagined. And gravity eventually wins in the case of atomic matter and neutron star, but nuclear/degeneracy forces eventually win in the case of primordial matter squeezed in a black hole.

#### mdswartz

Gravity builds things bigger and bigger, seemingly forever at first, but you don't want things to get bigger forever, so you have the black hole mechanism to break it all down again. Then black holes crush things smaller and smaller, seemingly forever at first, but you don't want everything to end up in a black hole, so you have the big bang mechanism to shoot it all out into open spaces again. And matter might form intelligent life after any big bang, yet it's still a crap shoot, because the right conditions might not develop. But with such a large cosmic mass limit #3, it gives a reasonable chance. Look at us, it happened.

#### mdswartz

There are 2 things, matter and open spaces. All the forces are forever inseparable from matter and thus are a part of matter. Matter arranges itself into space, matter removes itself from space. Black holes remove matter from space, big bangs replace matter into space. The primordial matter in black holes does take up space, but the particles are next to each other and there's no space between them. The only thing the particles lack is open spaces. The function of the black hole is to safely store and accumulate the primordial matter up to cosmic mass limit #3. The black hole does it's job perfectly, surviving any number of cosmic interactions such as mergers, accretion, and close passes. The black hole does it's job by denying the particles access to open spaces, which is the only thing the primordial matter needs, nothing else. Primordial matter + open spaces = a newly expanding section of the universe composed of nearly all hydrogen via a big bang. And the only way to get primordial matter is to form it in a black hole. And the only way to store primordial matter is to store it in a black hole. And the only way to restore the primordial matter into open spaces is a big bang explosion from a black hole that breaks the bounds of gravity.

Last edited:

#### mdswartz

If matter is in the universe, then the universe consists only of open spaces. Open spaces are everywhere, and matter is in open spaces. Space can't expand beyond everywhere. Space is just there.

#### Harry Costas

Imagination gives rise to many movies.

Joke from my Grandson:

Why can't you trust an Atom?
Because atoms make up things.

#### mdswartz

Thank you Harry, I don't mind. Yes, I've made everything up, 0% from text books, 100% made up. But it's hard to find knowledge of some of the stuff I'm thinking about, like what is the impact of the weak force being pushed entirely inside of matter. I'm grasping at straws here, thinking that big bangs must come from black holes because they're the only source of primordial matter, the only thing that can formulate primordial matter, and the only thing that can hold primordial matter. And I don't like the current explanations of why the early universe particles didn't get bound by gravity in a black hole, or the idea that even though gravity already failed once to hold the early universe particles it should be expected to hold them in a black hole once conditions become identical to the early universe particles. So I'm taking guesses here, concluding that big bangs must come black holes, but how, since our math says it's impossible? So I came up with this guess, that the entirety of weak force inside of matter could provide the edge needed, especially since it's such a close battle between the repulsive forces of primordial matter and gravity, and it doesn't take much of an edge to turn the tides.

And I'm not a fan of every time Webb makes an ever more unexplainable discovery under current theory that the answer is to move current theory forward, never to look elsewhere. So I'm looking in a natural direction.

So yes, it's all made up, but there has to be a clue, an answer somewhere, and that's what I'm guessing toward. I'm hoping even one small aspect of my guesses could bear out.

#### mdswartz

And Cat told me earlier in this thread that it's ok to barge in on the thread, that the forums allow it. So once again I've barged in, my apologies Cat. But I'm done now, nothing more in mind.

#### Greenlight

Now I need your assistance please. I am not making a statement, but asking you what is the highest temperature which has actually been achieved scientifically? I am not interested in theoretical estimates like 10^32 deg. C. What has actually been achieved?

I have Googled extensively and the highest I have found so far is this:

4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12.

I am sure you will be able to better this, as some persons have guessed (is this comment unkind or unjustified) that INFINITE temperatures are possible. Is this utter unscientific nonsense?

The reason I am asking is to question statements like this:
One second after the Big Bang - The universe was made up of fundamental particles including quarks, electrons, photons and neutrinos. The universe continued to expand, but not as quickly as during inflation. As the universe cooled, the four fundamental forces in nature emerged: gravity, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force. Protons and neutrons began to form. The temperature of the universe was around 10^32 Kelvin. (My emphasis).

Rather different from 4 trillion degrees C is 4 x 10^12.

Hence I consider the comment from the previous post particularly apt:

Cat
Temperature is relative
There is no maximum only a relative maximum (when observed is as blackhole event horizon)
The minimum is infinitely divisible and never reached.

#### Atlan0001

Temperature is relative
There is no maximum only a relative maximum (when observed is as blackhole event horizon)
The minimum is infinitely divisible and never reached.
The maximum and minimum are curves that round into horizons that breakdown all relativity by merging standing pluralities into singularities, and finally into ('1' ('unity')) and/or ('0' (null or dis-unity (discrete quanta (quantum chaos)))).
((+1) (-1)) = 1/0.

At the far nonlocal, non-relative, reaches of the energy spectrum, there is no difference, whatsoever, between infinite and infinitesimal . . . and between finite, infinite, and infinitesimal!

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
And Cat told me earlier in this thread that it's ok to barge in on the thread, that the forums allow it. So once again I've barged in, my apologies Cat. But I'm done now, nothing more in mind.

Mdswartz,

As far as I know, making polite comments (like yours) is perfectly acceptable.
I do not call it barging in.

Cat

#### Harry Costas

My grandson's joke was a joke not aimed at any person.

As for Black Holes.

Condensates with probable quark or partonic core may create dipolar fields, expelling matter from the core and vector fields attracting matter to the core.

These vector fields are strong enough to stop EMR from escaping and forming an event horizon. Therefore creating a core that mimics Black Hole properties.
A classic Black Hole cannot form having a singularity.
A basic property of condensates is the formation of a dipolar electromagnetic field generated by Chiral Supersymmetry within the core.

Expansion and contraction within the universe are controlled by condensates found in large Galaxies and cores of Super Cluster of Galaxies and so on.

M87 core over 8 billion solar masses
Virgo supercluster of galaxies has a giant condensate core way over 65 billion solar masses and our local group of galaxies belongs to this cluster.
100 million light years across.
But! wait there is more
Our Virgo cluster belongs to the Laniakea Supercluster.

The funny thing is that people think the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Do some maths

#### mdswartz

Mdswartz,

As far as I know, making polite comments (like yours) is perfectly acceptable.
I do not call it barging in.

Cat
Thank you Cat, yes, I'm the one who described it as barging in.

#### mdswartz

My grandson's joke was a joke not aimed at any person.

As for Black Holes.

Condensates with probable quark or partonic core may create dipolar fields, expelling matter from the core and vector fields attracting matter to the core.

These vector fields are strong enough to stop EMR from escaping and forming an event horizon. Therefore creating a core that mimics Black Hole properties.
A classic Black Hole cannot form having a singularity.
A basic property of condensates is the formation of a dipolar electromagnetic field generated by Chiral Supersymmetry within the core.

Expansion and contraction within the universe are controlled by condensates found in large Galaxies and cores of Super Cluster of Galaxies and so on.

M87 core over 8 billion solar masses
Virgo supercluster of galaxies has a giant condensate core way over 65 billion solar masses and our local group of galaxies belongs to this cluster.
100 million light years across.
But! wait there is more
Our Virgo cluster belongs to the Laniakea Supercluster.

The funny thing is that people think the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Do some maths
Sorry for my assumption Harry. I've been jeered and ridiculed on other websites, but everyone here has been very nice and accommodating, so I've seen slight jabs where they don't even exist, apologies again.

#### Harry Costas

Hello mdswartz

Smile and live another day.

Jeered and Ridiculed
Join the club
That's the name of the game.

mdswartz

#### mdswartz

Hello mdswartz

Smile and live another day.

Jeered and Ridiculed
Join the club
That's the name of the game.

Replies
95
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
111
Views
18K
Replies
2
Views
5K