Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

[Gibsense]

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.

I think this statement of Cat's is rather profound. It meets the question of "What's Outside" by putting it in the context of the ability to directly perceive their space (Is it 1D, 2D, or 3D). The higher-dimensional being can always resolve the dilemma of what is outside.
The 2D Flatlander cannot conceive of the radius of a sphere and therefore cannot understand the inside space (cannot conceive of a ball) and of course, the inside of the sphere is the same 'type' of space as the outside of the sphere into which the sphere can grow.
In a similar way a 3D flatlander (let's call it a Spacelander) has trouble with the idea of what is outside our universe.

 

[mdswartz]

One additional note regarding recent Webb observations. The furthest away galaxies seen, and thus viewed at their youngest ages, mostly seem to have much higher proportions of smbh mass versus stellar mass. This is the expected result when the smbh's preceded the big bang, survived the big bang but we're mostly stripped of stars, and became drivers for very early galaxy formation shortly after the big bang. Shortly after the big bang these galaxies did form, but there wasn't enough time yet for the usual stellar mass versus smbh mass to evolve yet, but the closer, and thus viewed as more mature galaxies, ultimately evolve to a more standard ratio of smbh mass to stellar mass.

 

[Harry Costas]

Deep Field images show a variety of ages similar to near and far.

 

[Catastrophe]

I rather like the following, extracted from The Universe by Dr Greg Brown, published by Royal Observatory, Greenwich:

With vast mass and zero size, a singularity has infinite density, and infinities are a pain. Their maths makes no sense, meaning every equation you chuck at them sends back gibberish.

I understand that any equation involving division by zero will ultimately reduce to gibberish.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

I rather like the following, extracted from The Universe by Dr Greg Brown, published by Royal Observatory, Greenwich:



I understand that any equation involving division by zero will ultimately reduce to gibberish.

Cat

Depends on your definition of zero! Which -- what -- zero of more than one meaning are you talking about, Cat? And if numbering systems, which numbering system? There is more than one or two (inclusive of "0-point").

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall....
Through the Looking Glass....

((+1) (-1)) = 1/0.
((+1) (-1)) = (unsigned superposition finite constant) '1' / (infinity) '0'.
Exampling:
(t=+1) Past histories.... (SPACETIME MATRIX).
(t=-1) Future histories.... (SPACETIME MATRIX).
(t='1') SPACE.
(t='0') REALTIME NOW (essentially, the equator of all equators (every center point without exception is the center point of infinity)).
....
=====================

Cantor set - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================

Sierpiński carpet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================

Menger sponge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================

Definition of ASYMPTOTE

a straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

=====================

Asymptote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================
Adding even more geometry to the above:

Tesseract - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

=====================

There is much more "gibberish" than the above . . . and elsewhere from me . . . I could go into regarding 0s and 1s, and more, Trojans, but the above will do!

 

[stanwaterman]

I rather like the following, extracted from The Universe by Dr Greg Brown, published by Royal Observatory, Greenwich:



I understand that any equation involving division by zero will ultimately reduce to gibberish.

Cat

It's perfectly simple really, it was a huge mass but not zero size. Why would it be? Dividing by zero, just gives infinity of course and our universe cannot contain infinities. The proof of the pudding is that we are here, trying to work it out!

 

[Catastrophe]

What is your point?

In addition to the above, there is the incorrect assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, and then the assumption is ignored.

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.

What you were calling "barging in", I thought was just entering to participate.
That is what a forum is for, isn't it?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

I understand that any equation involving division by zero will ultimately reduce to gibberish.

And I believe that any equation involving attempted division by zero cannot compute.

 

[Catastrophe]

So we agree.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

So we agree.

Yes, Any difference is trivial

 

[Atlan0001]

If you can multiply by zero or infinity you can divide by zero or infinity. The result may be more than one physic, er, result ((+1) (-1)) to an overall of....

Finites contain infinities, just as infinities contain finites. And division will have its half of the universe, in the entirety, of half, if it has to rip it out of the GUT of unity!

As Stephen Hawking told a bunch of panicking physicists -- who had done the the reduction -- in his book, 'A Brief History of Time', the universe reduces in total to zero (thus the mass matter and mass energy of the universe reducing, reduces, in total to zero) because it was and is, in total, nothing but zero! Multiplying by zero gets there. Dividing by zero gets the (+/-) split out eventuating in zero. Thus the 'order' and 'unity' of the universe have a big problem, the 'disorder' and 'disunity' of the same.

Give me another number, quality, physic, cosmic, what have you, that particularly represents 'Chaos' ('disorder' and 'disunity' (strange attractors of chaos)), other than '0' and/or ((+1) (-1)), or infinity....

Apparently some feel complexity and chaos doesn't "compute" and is nothing but "gibberish." That half of the fundamental binary base2 (plus Trojan) of the universe, or the reduction of the universe to it as Stephen Hawking and the others had it, doesn't compute and is nothing but gibberish to some. After a long life time of reading, studying, thinking, and dealing, I'm not one of them ("And division will have its half of the universe, in the entirety of half, if it has to rip it out of the GUT of unity" (((+1) (-1)) = 1/0)!

Chaos! To include Heisenberg and Schrodinger, and the "incompleteness theorem" of Kurt Godel (don't ask me to explain more than I have already explained, and placed pointers to items elsewhere I consider relevant, as I see these things . . . many times over)!
--------------------------------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partially." -- Thomas S. Kuhn.

 

[Atlan0001]

Ad#86:

I can't remember if it was Kip Thorn or someone else, whom I read, said our current realization of physics, and our current mathematical descriptions, may not be good enough to describe the reality of the universe.

 

[Gibsense]

I can't remember if it was Kip Thorn or someone else, whom I read, said our current realization of physics, and our current mathematical descriptions, may not be good enough to describe the reality of the universe.

Probably thousands of people so no surprise there

 

[mdswartz]

There are infinities for real, like infinite universe and eternal universe, but not because math says so. I don't know what math says about the universe. But infinite universe seems more plausible then an edge, and even if eternal universe isn't actually so, it makes more sense than any flimsy theories about a beginning at t=0. With big bangs from black holes in an eternal universe, you can also keep the universe going forever (eternally), using black holes to remove matter from space and to head up the recycling operations by safely breaking matter down and storing the elementary particles and forces for accumulation, and ultimately, to be released back into open spaces with a big bang.

With big bangs from black holes you get overlapping, just like in a neutron star, but not because of crushing gravity. The total volume of a neutron star is way less than the sum of the volumes of the individual neutrons that make it up. Insomuch as the size of a neutron is determined as the size at which the inward binding pressure from the strong force reaches equilibrium with the outward pressure associated with the enclosed elementary particles' quantum spin, you would expect the neutron to get smaller and smaller as inward gravitational pressures steadily increase, but the size stays the same. However, this is achieved by overlapping the neutrons, in that the implied neutron boundaries of the outermost extent of the quantum spin do in fact overlap, allowing vast increases in density to occur while maintaining the size of the neutrons.

The universe is like this. Big bangs go off at precisely the speed of light, in that the shock wave goes off at the speed of light, and the particles somewhat slower. This is no coincidence; in fact, the speed of light is determined from the speed of the big bang shock wave. Nothing can exceed that speed, and the fasted things, like light, can only match it, and any light emanating from any particle within our big bang can never escape the shock wave. That assures uniqueness and privacy in that no observer outside of our big bang can possibly see the big bang coming until after the shock wave hits, at which point the observer would be inside of our big bang bubble, and can thereafter see our section of the universe as a bona-fide occupant. This prevents observers within multiple big bang bubbles from ever becoming aware of each other, at least until big bang shock waves intersect.

Big bangs happen somewhere, but not necessarily everywhere. And where they do happen, big bang bubbles of safety, privacy and uniqueness develop, anywhere in the universe a big bang happens. As the billions of years wear on, the size of these big bang bubbles grows larger and larger, and some are bound to intersect and overlap somewhere. Others might remain lonely. But I view the universe as composed of countless overlapping big bang bubbles, gravity-busting shock waves now reduced to mere gravitational waves, where the entirety of the universe, though infinite, is still smaller than the sum of the volumes of all of the overlapping big bang bubbles, just like the neutrons in the neutron star. Subsets of infinity exceeding infinity in total.

 

[mdswartz]

And just like many say there's no escape from a black hole, the real answer is there's no escape from a big bang bubble, which is why we have the speed of light.

 

[Harry Costas]

What is the Big Bang Bubble?

 

[mdswartz]

The force of the blast results in a pushed back section of the rest of the universe in all directions, except the smbh's are moved much less, and partially hold their relative positions in the new section of universe, and the particles, forces and resultant atomic matter and hydrogen are thrown right into the midst of the smbh's, which survive the big bang but are mostly stripped of stars. The shock wave goes off in all directions at the speed of light, and to the extent that shock wave emanates outward at light speed, resulting in an ever-growing "bubble", that section still inside of the shock wave is the big bang bubble, mostly kept apart from the rest of the universe by the force of the blast for a finite number of billions of years. Our big bang bubble is roughly the size of the visible universe.

 

[Harry Costas]

Is that one bubble?
and where is the origin?

 

[mdswartz]

Harry, way above on this thread and months ago I gave some crank science comments about how I believed that big bangs are natural occurrences in the greater universe, and how I viewed it all going down. I don't think it would be right to repeat any of that here. But what I'm implying with this latest post is that there have been many big bangs within the universe over time, eternally backward, any time a black hole's mass surpassed the cosmic limit, roughly 1 big bang of mass. And each one created a spherical shock wave in all directions at the speed of light. Our big bang was roughly 13.8 billion years ago, so our spherical shock wave is now roughly 27.6 billion light years in diameter. That's our big bang bubble. A big bang somewhere else in the universe from, say, 80 billion years ago, would now have a shock wave 160 billion light years across, that's their big bang bubble. A big bang somewhere else in the universe from, say, a trillion years ago has a spherical shock wave 2 trillion light years in diameter; that's their big bang bubble. All these spherical shock waves have long since waned into gravitational waves, but as they inevitably intersect, one big bang bubble overlaps another. We're just a puny little big bang bubble of 27.6 billion light years across within an infinite universe, there's trillions and trillions of times more universe than our puny little area (infinity). I believe (crank science) there's been countless big bangs in countless different places all around the infinite universe, every time a black hole somewhere surpasses the upper mass limit, including ours. My point was to compare a universe of countless overlapping big bang bubbles within an infinite universe with the overlapping neutrons in a neutron star, and to comment on true infinities without math, like infinite universe and eternal universe.

 

[mdswartz]

Sorry Harry, forgot to say I don't know where the point of origin is, but there was one, and you can't tell now because everything looks the same in all directions. But don't forget, everything is pushed back by the force of the blast except the biggest black holes, which are moved much less and partially hold their relative positions in the new section of the universe, though they're mostly stripped of stars. These massive black holes and galactic remnants became drivers for very early galaxy formation and quasars very shortly after our big bang. So where you might expect a big spatial void near wherever was the point of origination of this big bang I'm describing, you can't find it now because all of the most massive black holes have captured much of the elementary particles, forces and resultant hydrogen to form new galaxies all around, even in relative proximity to wherever the point of origin was.

 

[Harry Costas]

You say the age of the universe is 13.8 Billion years old.

And yet we have billions of Galaxies.

Our Sun is about 12 billion years old.

Our Milky Way is more than 13.8 billion years, possibly over 100 billion years to explain the spiral formation.

Our Milky Way has several dwarf Galaxies and is merging with another.

The process of Nucleosynthesis is independent of the BBT.

The bubble that you speak of is an opinion, without evidence.

But! I could be wrong.