Singularity

[sam357tay]

Remember John Titor?

 

[csmyth3025]

Remember John Titor?

Until your post I'd never even heard of him. After reading a Wikipedia article about the name I'm a bit confused. Did the person posting messages under the name John Titor ever mention singularities in any of his posts?

Chris

 

[pjay]

Gosh, dryson, if you really want to explain singularities this way, you have an awful amount of observations to explain. I hope you know how much you have to explain here and maths alone will get you nowhere because maths doesn't know anything about spacetime nor about forces etc... but ... so what ?

 

[csmyth3025]

by pjay » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:40 pm

I hope you know how much you have to explain here and maths alone will get you nowhere because maths doesn't know anything about spacetime nor about forces etc... but ... so what ?

I believe the spacetime of Einstein and the forces of Newton are both described by mathematical equations.

Chris

 

[pjay]

Well, think about it. Mathematics doesn't tell you that spacetime has four dimensions. Maths would work the same way with 10 or 5000 dimensions. e=mc^2 could be about apples and pears. The maths doesn't tell you that electromagnetism is a force. That's why physics uses maths extensively but it not synonymous with maths. Logically all mathematical equations no matter how complicated are mere tautologies. You could describe any universe with the same maths. Maths doesn't tell what your universe is like. It's not empirical. :roll:

 

[ramparts]

You're both saying things that are true. You are arguing semantics. I don't see the point.

 

[csmyth3025]

You're both saying things that are true. You are arguing semantics. I don't see the point.

I think what pjay is saying is that it's possible to mathematically construct any number of universes with different properties (laws of nature, so to speak) provided they're self-consistent.

The trick is, of course, to find the mathematical construct that is both self-consistent and that matches the empirical evidence we've gleaned about how our universe works.

Chris

 

[dryson]

Well, think about it. Mathematics doesn't tell you that spacetime has four dimensions. Maths would work the same way with 10 or 5000 dimensions. e=mc^2 could be about apples and pears. The maths doesn't tell you that electromagnetism is a force. That's why physics uses maths extensively but it not synonymous with maths. Logically all mathematical equations no matter how complicated are mere tautologies. You could describe any universe with the same maths. Maths doesn't tell what your universe is like. It's not empirical

What you are trying to describe are two different types of thought processes or Universes of the mind as you will.

The first Universe is the space outside that surrounds the planet Earth. When we place a geometric constraint on a particular part of space we have created a flat dimension where we can observe the measurable energetic reactions of the particles within the geometric constraint. The first dimension is a flat dimension where the observed energetic reactions between particles can only be observed in the horizontal and vertical frame of reference within the dimension of the geometrical constraint, which means that the actual geometrical constraint used to measure the observeable energetic reaction between the particles can be measured at a certain length from point A to point B.

Then we have third dimensional space which is where the two dimensional geometrical constraint has depth added to it's shape, meaning that instead of only having four sides or flat 2D planes or surfaces we now have a six planed or surfaced cube. Each of these planes or surfaces are their own dimension because which ever way we turn the cube we can observe the energetic reaction of the particles at different points of reference within the cube. Now if we take the intersect points where the corners meet and draw a line to the opposite and opposing corner we how have a further two planes or surfaces of interior dimensions from which to observe the energetic reaction between the particles that have been bound by the cube's geometrical constraint.

The only two geometrical constraints that do not allow for multiple interior dimensions are the pyramid and the sphere.

The second Universe that you speak of is called a Biological Universe where the process of thought which is outside of the realm of particle interaction which allows for one to define and shape their thought process on a daily basis, whereas in the Universe of the particle reactions, the particles would be delegated to an equal and opposite reaction basewd on numerous causes that create the affect of distance or time. Biological Universe's are infinte ranging from someone thinking that they can control the interaction of two atoms with their mind without using any form of equipment to harness the thought wave patterns generated by the firing of the synapse from one node to the other and even someone thinking that they have created the entire Universe in instant of a thought.

 

[ramparts]

Always count on dryson for some good thread necromancy! Although I think I lost a good share of brain cells while skimming that. And it has nothing to do with that beer I just had. That grows brain cells back.

 

[dryson]

When you drink alcohol the brain cells are killed ramparts and do not grow back. It also goes to show that when you drink any amount of alcohol your thinking process's become impaired.

Here is a link that proves what I am saying is correct.

http://www.chemcases.com/alcohol/alc-07.htm

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

 

[dryson]

Gosh, dryson, if you really want to explain singularities this way, you have an awful amount of observations to explain. I hope you know how much you have to explain here and maths alone will get you nowhere because maths doesn't know anything about spacetime nor about forces etc... but ... so what ?pjay
atom

Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:16 pm
Private message

I know anyone care to help? I will post a link to the picture that has formed in my mind relating to this theory.

 

[dryson]

I was watching The History Channel last night and they talked about various aspects of a planet's creation. I was mostly interested in the portion about the planets core. The show talked about the Sun's core, the Earth's core and then went on to talk about IO and why it's volcanoes were active. The discussion continued on about the layers of Saturn and that there was not any type of active core what so ever but instead only gravity. Since there is not an active core like the Sun or Earth's present then what type of core is keeping the planet together? The only answer would ahve to be either a miniature black hole, or a gravity singularity.

 

[origin]

I was watching The History Channel last night and they talked about various aspects of a planet's creation. I was mostly interested in the portion about the planets core. The show talked about the Sun's core, the Earth's core and then went on to talk about IO and why it's volcanoes were active. The discussion continued on about the layers of Saturn and that there was not any type of active core what so ever but instead only gravity. Since there is not an active core like the Sun or Earth's present then what type of core is keeping the planet together? The only answer would ahve to be either a miniature black hole, or a gravity singularity.

Huh? What do you mean there is no active core. only gravity?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Gravity works quite well at keeping planets together, in fact it is the only force that does. Whether the core is active or not is irrelevant.

 

[michaelmozina]

I was watching The History Channel last night and they talked about various aspects of a planet's creation. I was mostly interested in the portion about the planets core. The show talked about the Sun's core, the Earth's core and then went on to talk about IO and why it's volcanoes were active. The discussion continued on about the layers of Saturn and that there was not any type of active core what so ever but instead only gravity. Since there is not an active core like the Sun or Earth's present then what type of core is keeping the planet together? The only answer would ahve to be either a miniature black hole, or a gravity singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn

I'm not quite sure what you watched on the History Channel, but Saturn is thought to have a spinning rocky/iron core. It does have a magnetic field that is stronger than Earth's field, but weaker than Jupiter. Jupiter and Saturn are thought to have a similar internal construction and both are thought to have a small rocky core. From the link:

Though there is no direct information about Saturn's internal structure, it is thought that its interior is similar to that of Jupiter, having a small rocky core surrounded mostly by hydrogen and helium. The rocky core is similar in composition to the Earth, but denser. Above this, there is a thicker liquid metallic hydrogen layer, followed by a layer of liquid hydrogen and helium, and in the outermost 1000 km a gaseous atmosphere.

The term "active" is a bit confusing in this instance. That term typically denotes whether or not the planet has spinning core that is covered by molten material. Such a core tends to generate a electromagnetic field. Saturn does indeed have a reasonably strong magnetic field so I would assume that it's core would be considered "active".

 

[FlatEarth]

When you drink alcohol the brain cells are killed ramparts and do not grow back. It also goes to show that when you drink any amount of alcohol your thinking process's become impaired.

Here is a link that proves what I am saying is correct.

http://www.chemcases.com/alcohol/alc-07.htm

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

I must respectfully disagree. There a significant body of evidence that beer is actually beneficial, and no one explains it better than Cliff at the Cheers Bar:

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive drinking of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

Cheers!

 

[ramparts]

Thank you! And when you don't drink beer, the sobriety induces you to do silly things like post links to random internet sites and claim they "prove" some point you're making.