Infinitely Dense Mass Of Big Crunch Vortex?

[Atlan0001]

I keep on reading here and there that because there is no such thing as infinite energy, there is no thing as infinitely dense mass, and, following, no such thing as the infinite Universe (U) of an infinitely dense mass of Big Crunch Vortex and its infinite of gravity.

As I see it, yes there is such a thing as the infinitely dense mass of the infinite of Big Crunch Vortex with an infinite of gravity (do I have enough "infinites" there?). It is why it has alternative face The infinitely dense mass of Big Crunch Vortex is something very different from your normal every day mass. It is binary (1 and/or 0) 'naked singularity'. It is binary infinite Big Crunch Vortex and/or infinite Big Hole Vacuum. It is the two in one and the same singularity. More; It is its own Mirror mirroring the infinite Universe (U) (Multiverse) -- that it is -- to an infinity of point infinitesimal / finite local, relative universes (u) (multiverses).

Where is there any energy existing in [the] irresistible force of [the] immovable object? That question is only and strictly answered by the horizon of difference between infinite Universe (U) and finite universe(s) (u), the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'.

 

[IG2007]

I don't really understand your question. Can you explain it a little better please? I am a little dumb.

 

[Atlan0001]

I don't really understand your question. Can you explain it a little better please? I am a little dumb.

No need. Firstly, it was a rhetorical question and I answered it myself. Secondly, it has been picked up and is running a good and varying course along more than line of approach in another thread, at the very least one other thread, as I think you already knew since you are one those engaged there in that particular thread.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've recently run into a problem with my own theory and modeling. There is no energy to an infinite Universe of Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum. Further, that means, too, it is timeless (okay, but presenting a problem... it cannot be energetic... no energy to it). Then I began looking back into my threads and posts and realized I was staring at the answer to the problem. "Stare into the Abyss; the Abyss will stare back into you." The infinite Universe (U) as its own Mirror mirroring its infinite to an infinity of point infinitesimal / finite bubble universes (u) I keep mentioning in passing.

It isn't the horizon of difference between infinite, infinitesimal, and finite, which exists as -- in which exists -- the infinity of Planck level blue-white holes / quantum field fluctuations (which would total up to a timeless constant of Big Bang (the dimensional centralization of a dimensional decentralization existing throughout all spaces and times as a most distant outland (Big Bang) / inland (Planck) horizon).

The [Mirror mirroring] is the third dimensional manifestation of the binary 'naked singularity' of infinite Universe (Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum). The three dimensions altogether, BCV / BHV / Mirror mirroring to infinity. As one alternate being of it, it is the infinite Universe (an alternative face and being of Multiverse multi-dimensionality). So it is not the "horizon of difference." But it is the cause, the instrumentality, of energy (or the superposition correlative in which it exists; to which it belongs).... and, therefore, time (mass-energy / space-time). (Mass (space) - Energy (time).)

The irresistible force of the immovable object.

"If you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss will stare back into you."

 

[Atlan0001]

An infinitely dense mass infinite Universe (U). The Big Crunch Vortex that is at once the Big Hole Vacuum, that is at once the Mirror mirroring the infinite Universe to infinities of point infinitesimal / finite universes (u). At once the infinite Multiverse (multidimensionality) of an infinity of multiverses (multi-dimensionalities). Whaaat?

One should not forget that also in the infinite, the infinity, all possible paths are taken. All possible branchings of all possible decision points exist -- and all possible branchings from those decision point branchings exist, to ever increasing and interconnecting and crossing jungles of infinity. All possible events, all possible eventualities, all possible "dimensionalities," also exist, to infinity. An infinitely dense mass infinite Universe (U), inclusive.

 

[Atlan0001]

This was the major portion of a reply elsewhere, but its gist -- of fleshing out "vortex" -- belongs here:

A capable universe traveler traveling at speed away from the Milky Way would see it doing time reversal in his review mirror toward a distant collapsed horizon. Not just doing time reversal but curving away from the straight line the traveler might be trying to keep it, the Milky Way, in to keep it centered and focused in his review mirror.

But the Milky Way, rather the earlier versions of it back to its mergers of component parts, would be flatly refusing to stay centered and focusable to his rear. It would keep on curving away and he, the traveler, would have to keep curving with it -- in an opposed curvature -- to keep it at all centered. Eventually he would lose it anyway in the distant horizon, but not before he had lost it from his own inability to keep on accelerating, spiraling, into that "vortex" of "curvature" (into that "curvature" of "vortex").

 

[Atlan0001]

Herein I must make a modification to my modeling. I've called all blackhole singularities a merger via one way wormholes to one 'naked singularity' of an infinite Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum. I've got to back that up a place to the region I defined as the one way wormhole region between the event horizon and the singularity.

Any mass proceeding toward infinite density would develop heat as it crunches in wormholing (through a cone) toward singularity. It might have reached infinite mass density (reaching some primordial state) but it certainly wouldn't reach any infinity of heat. That is forbidden to it (relatively speaking, Planck speaking, "a spinning of wheels"). The hottest heat anywhere is the heat of the infinity of Planck level blue-white holes, here one instant, gone the next (quantum fluctuations), sparking and leaving as nova-similar residue material existence to the infinity of finite universes. The decentralized version of the Big Bang; totaled up and closed up in collapsed horizon as the Big Bang (Big Bang / Planck / 'c' / '?'). I begin to realize in my own mind's eye that those blackhole singularities can and should translate to Planck level blue-white holes (quantum fluctuations) via superposition.

That leaves my realization of the infinite of Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum / Big Mirror Mirroring to also have a decentralized version which I've described more than once but ascribed to the wrong involved element. My modification in modeling is to back it up one place in the scheme of things to the region between the event horizon of the blackhole and the singularity. Subtracting the local, relative, event horizon and the collapsed horizon of Planck level singularities / blue-white holes (quantum fluctuations) that region still qualifies as infinitized binary 'naked singularity'.

With the above I think I've finished crossing and recrossing the border between the universe of the large (mostly the largest) and the universe of the small (mostly the smallest). A wrap into itself. The doing still deals, too, in time reversal. From a qualified end to a qualified beginning. From single-sided 2-dimensional frame exit portal (door) marked "Exist Only" to single-sided 2-dimensional frame entry portal (door) marked "Entrance Only."

 

[Catastrophe]

Neither of us have been there to observe, so we are each entitled to our own ideas. One could apply Occam's Razor, but that is not infallible.

My preference is to avoid "infinite" anything - especially singularities. Yet another mathematical fiction, like infinity.

Smooth transition through a vortex (no infinite densities or anything like that).
A maximum density in the vortex, but how do you push something up an infinitely steep gradient?

Anyway, keep up the good work. Promulgation of ideas is the lifeblood of healthy forums.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Neither of us have been there to observe, so we are each entitled to our own ideas. One could apply Occam's Razor, but that is not infallible.

My preference is to avoid "infinite" anything - especially singularities. Yet another mathematical fiction, like infinity.

Smooth transition through a vortex (no infinite densities or anything like that).
A maximum density in the vortex, but how do you push something up an infinitely steep gradient?

Anyway, keep up the good work. Promulgation of ideas is the lifeblood of healthy forums.

Cat

Two things come to mind... I think just two, maybe three.

First off, if anyone dismisses "infinity" as a fiction they dismiss "gravity" as a fiction. Each one of these two is the very physicality of the other. The other three... 'forces' must be defined "finite." I thought you had been reading me long enough to realize I never [really] separate the two ("the irresistible force of the immovable object," the "infinitely dense mass of the Big Crunch Vortex" / The Big Hole Vacuum / The Big Mirror Mirroring to infinity... ("the infinite Universe") and so on and on). Even to dimensionally closing up -- bringing forward -- the infinity of finite universes (u) to and into the collapsed horizon of each one of that infinity of finite universes is a matter of "gravity." The gravity of the "infinite" : The infinite of "gravity."

Secondly, I suppose, what "infinitely steep gradient" would you be talking about if you've been reading me as closely as I thought. I've talked of "rim gravity", the infinite gravity of the outland Universe, the gravity of the infinity of them all closed up to the horizon of each and every universe (u) of the infinity. Again the analogy I like to use: The gravity of the forest of all of the trees versus the gravity of each and every tree that makes up the forest of all (the trees are in the forest, the forest is in each and every tree (thus not a chance of that infinite pulling (tearing) any of the infinity of finites apart. But!, the influence of the non-local outland infinite would exist and would everywhere be present as a counter to the local.... never permitting the local to reach to achieve its own potential of infinity)).

You're preference may be to avoid "infinite" anything, but you'd have to avoid 'gravity' to do so and I don't think you're going to be able to avoid gravity. There are physicists, too, who try to avoid "infinite anything", only to have 'gravity', ultimately, confound (baffle) them.

 

[Catastrophe]

Ditto.

Anyway, I am not going to, and have no wish to, persuade you, and you are not going to persuade me so I suggest we "leave well alone".

There never was a good war, or a bad peace

 

[spacedweller]

@Catastrophe
I can't agree with your opinion that infinity is fictional.

For example, in real world you can place 2 mirrors facing each other and you can see infinite amount of mirrors.
The only limitation is the angle you position yourself and human eye too see "far" enough.

I keep on reading here and there that because there is no such thing as infinite energy, there is no thing as infinitely dense mass, and, following, no such thing as the infinite Universe (U) of an infinitely dense mass of Big Crunch Vortex and its infinite of gravity.

Think again... shouldn't "infinite gravity" if it's really infinite pull entry universe into it's domain?

Or put it another way with a bit of humor to understand:
If you're infinitely strong shouldn't you be able to hit every person on this planet and have a good laugh when you're done?

If your answer is yes then "infinite gravity" exists but entry universe should collapse right? [double meaning]

If you understand what I mean then there are 2 kinds of infinity:
A) Infinitely approaching some point but never reaching it
B) Infinite force or magnitude

---

My point here is that infinity is real (both A and B above) as long as object or concept being described with infinity makes common sense or is at least logical.

 

[Atlan0001]

@Catastrophe
I can't agree with your opinion that infinity is fictional.

For example, in real world you can place 2 mirrors facing each other and you can see infinite amount of mirrors.
The only limitation is the angle you position yourself and human eye too see "far" enough.



Think again... shouldn't "infinite gravity" if it's really infinite pull entry universe into it's domain?

Or put it another way with a bit of humor to understand:
If you're infinitely strong shouldn't you be able to hit every person on this planet and have a good laugh when you're done?

If your answer is yes then "infinite gravity" exists but entry universe should collapse right? [double meaning]

If you understand what I mean then there are 2 kinds of infinity:
A) Infinitely approaching some point but never reaching it
B) Infinite force or magnitude

---

My point here is that infinity is real (both A and B above) as long as object or concept being described with infinity makes common sense or is at least logical.

An infinitely dense mass is one infinitely big, deep, hole, a binary "naked singularity. An infinite Universe (U) / Multiverse. A vortex curving, wrapping, spiraling, into itself to a vacuum. Also, in third dimension of the two; a mirror mirroring the infinite to an infinity of point infinitesimals (vortices) translating (canceling without loss) to an infinity of finite universes (u) / multiverses.

 

[spacedweller]

An infinitely dense mass is one infinitely big, deep, hole, a binary "naked singularity. An infinite Universe (U) / Multiverse. A vortex curving, wrapping, spiraling, into itself to a vacuum. Also, in third dimension of the two; a mirror mirroring the infinite to an infinity of point infinitesimals (vortices) translating (canceling without loss) to an infinity of finite universes (u) / multiverses.

Into which 2 of the sample definitions of infinity (A or B) would you put your quote?

If you have 3rd possible definition of infinity "C" can you make it "one liner" definition?

 

[Atlan0001]

There never was a good war, or a bad peace

I had a long and furious answer to this off topic @#$%!, then suddenly woke up in the middle of the night and decided it just wasn't worth it.

 

[Atlan0001]

Into which 2 of the sample definitions of infinity (A or B) would you put your quote?

If you have 3rd possible definition of infinity "C" can you make it "one liner" definition?

How's this for a short answer? '1'.

 

[Catastrophe]

I had a long and furious answer to this off topic @#$%!, then suddenly woke up in the middle of the night and decided it just wasn't worth it.

If you include the entire post:

"Anyway, I am not going to, and have no wish to, persuade you, and you are not going to persuade me so I suggest we "leave well alone".

you will see that I am in favour of avoiding senseless disagreements.

Let's just agree to disagree and coexist in peace.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

If you include the entire post:

"Anyway, I am not going to, and have no wish to, persuade you, and you are not going to persuade me so I suggest we "leave well alone".

you will see that I am in favour of avoiding senseless disagreements.

Let's just agree to disagree and coexist in peace.

Cat

You are in no way "in favor of avoiding senseless disagreements." You enter your two cents worth of hostility then immediately wish to "coexist in peace" (to avoid any return). Subtle. Insidious. I'm one that after long experience can read the author (in what is written) as well as what is written. And you came after me, I did not go after you. You enjoy goading. That bold printed line was a spur. When I do not stand you are a fly constantly buzzing around my threads and posts with constant, actual, hostility. So I expect no co-existence in peace any time soon from you. Remember what I quoted from Albert Einstein regarding "great spirits."

 

[COLGeek]

It is okay to disagree and offer opposing viewpoints. What is not okay are personal attacks.

Now, I don't see personal attacks in this thread, but maybe a lack of understanding of expressed points being made. It is difficult to express context at times.

This thread is being closed now. Have a good day.