• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel

Migrated topic.
[:] said:
Comments like this that make me grateful that the forum has an ignore function.
Click to expand...
That is not very constructive.

What was probably meant is that with our current models they break down in places such as black holes, we call those a singularity.

That means that we have to refine our models with something we haven't found or understood yet, be that in the math or physics.


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
To believe that quantum mechanics means the rejection of physics, when it is literally a domain of physics, is something I have little patience for.
To me, it was a perfect example of the type of thing I was addressing in the post before it.

I can apologize for mentioning the ignore function, sorry about that, I see how it can see seen as rude, but I have no intention of removing people who make and defend such assertions from my ignore list.

It may be that I am out of place here at the forum and should likely not be here or participating.
 
How math is used is contextual to the matter in which it is being used. At different levels, math will be used in different ways.

Scale is a big deal.

It's virtually impossible to say whether the Universe was created or always existed. We as creatures are too limited. Any supposition we make is predicated on logic, not empiricism, so at the end of the day one chooses a camp based on faith, not fact. If the universe had a beginning it's too far in the past to say for sure. If it's infinite and eternal then there is no upper limit or outer boundary for us to say that it is infinite and eternal because that's impossible to do in something infinite and eternal.

Now, let's all get along.

One love
 
A black hole is literally collapsed mass, not a hole, nor a location with room or space in it.

One might as well speculate that the universe exists inside a ball bearing.
The idea that somehow that if the ball bearing is collapsed as a mass then it can hold another location inside of it is very imaginative, at least, but it is also quite absurd.
 
Voidmatrix said:
It's virtually impossible to say whether the Universe was created or always existed.
Click to expand...
These are not mutually exclusive in terms of Relativity.

To elaborate: without matter spacetime is not curved by gravitational forces.

In this state there is no spatial or temporal relationship, meaning that the concept of origin, which is involved in linear time, does not exist as that linear time is related to the curvature of space time and the positional relationship of matter to it. From the perspective of this curvature; origination is a context of position, but from beyond it when there is no matter nor curvature then what we call spacetime doesn't even exist, hence the concepts of origination and linear time do not and cannot apply, for they are timespace curvature properties, so to speak.
 
Last edited:
[:] said:
A black hole is literally collapsed mass, not a hole, nor a location with room or space in it.

One might as well speculate that the universe exists inside a ball bearing.
The idea that somehow that if the ball bearing is collapsed as a mass then it can hold another location inside of it is very imaginative, at least, but it is also quite absurd.
Click to expand...
Please refine your writing skills a bit to give your posts a better appeal and encourage better responses. Presently, the level of emotion in your posts makes it a challenge for others to respond politely, which can hinder the flow of conversation.


Something like this might be a better answer since it also gives some perspective and understanding:

Black holes are regions in space where mass has collapsed to a point of such high density and gravity that nothing, not even light, can escape from them. This extreme gravitational pull is a result of mass being compressed into a very small area. Black holes are not empty spaces or holes in the usual sense; instead, they are objects with such strong gravitational fields that nearby matter and radiation are drawn in.

We call them a black hole since they absorb all light that hits it while reflecting nothing. So the "hole" part is contextual for the outside observer and does not make any statement about what is inside it.


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
Yeah, I second Trav here. I know I don't want to talk to you. You act like you know it all, accusing me of absurdity and levying unnecessary correction with a "why don't you know this approach" which shows a lack of self awareness on your part. It's a friendly conversation about physics, so why be so combative? What do you have to prove?

One love
 
Ok, I will make the effort to word things differently.

In terms of the theory of Poplawski, who proposes that the paradox of origination from a singularity can be solved by stating that the universe exists in a black hole, there is a slippery slope fallacy wherein the paradox of origination is not actually solved. The same issue with linear temporal origins exists, so his proposal while novel is not a solution and can be seen as untenable from the point of view of relativity.

I'll explain why:

The issue of origination in terms of the paradox only applies to states where matter is differentiated spacetime exists. At a point where differentiation of matter has not occurred such as in a singularity there is no spacetime nor curvature and the paradox does not even exist. In other words the paradox is an artifact of the position of our perspective where were are differentiated according to the curvature of spacetime hence trying to explain the position of the singularity in terms of timespace, when the property of timespace arises from the differentiation and expansion of matter, is itself paradoxical.

It is akin to trying to explain something without color in terms of color.
 
[:] said:
Ok, I will make the effort to word things differently.

In terms of the theory of Poplawski, who proposes that the paradox of origination from a singularity can be solved by stating that the universe exists in a black hole, there is a slippery slope fallacy wherein the paradox of origination is not actually solved. The same issue with linear temporal origins exists, so his proposal while novel is not a solution and can be seen as untenable from the point of view of relativity.

I'll explain why:

The issue of origination in terms of the paradox only applies to states where matter is differentiated spacetime exists. At a point where differentiation of matter has not occurred such as in a singularity there is no spacetime nor curvature and the paradox does not even exist. In other words the paradox is an artifact of the position of our perspective where were are differentiated according to the curvature of spacetime hence trying to explain the position of the singularity in terms of timespace, when the property of timespace arises from the differentiation and expansion of matter, is itself paradoxical.

It is akin to trying to explain something without color in terms of color.
Click to expand...
Much better, thank you!


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
Thank you. I can very well see what you mean with this, but then I'm biased towards paradox. Though I tend to see paradox (in general) as a two way road between the a thing and how we perceive whether sensory perception or conceptual perception. So something is still said about the "thing" in this case where paradox "can't exist" and the boundary of our perception of it (where it can't exist), so simply an overall "thing" (paradox) we can't escape.
Your final analogy makes me think about describing color in general 🤣
One love
 
Voidmatrix said:
I know I don't want to talk to you.
Click to expand...
Nor I you for that matter and I have long seen you as a know it all who talks down to others, so our perspectives in that regard is mutual.
I can simply leave the forum, but at least this time you aren't insulting me directly for my opinion, which is an improvement over other encounters in the past.

But I don't think you are absurd, just that the idea that a universe can exist inside a collapsed mass seems preposterous to me. The idea that I have accused you of absurdity is an example of how your approach is just as bad, I think the position you share is absurd, not you, but if you are going to claim that my opinion that a position is absurd is an accusation that you are absurd, which is a straw man if I am not mistaken, when what is the point of even trying to have a conversation with you? It isn't like I have seen you display this same tact and consideration you demand here of me Void.

I am inclined to leave here every time you converse with me for a reason.
If I could I would put you on an ignore list and just carry on and participate on the forum normally, but you are a moderator.
Still, I find you to be incredibly frustrating.
 
Do you man. I don't know why this is such a big deal. And if you don't like me so much, then why respond to a thread I started that I obviously want to have discourse in? And I didn't say that you said I was absurd, but more broadly, accusing me of putting forth absurd ideas, which a way of accusing me of absurdity. I apologize for that confusion.

If you come across something you don't like or don't agree with, if you can't respond constructively and politely, then you don't have to say anything.

Though you recognize me, and I don't recognize you, you're welcome here.

One love
 
Less of a problem than a reminder of how little we can actually ever know, perhaps.
[:] said:
A black hole is literally collapsed mass, not a hole, nor a location with room or space in it.

One might as well speculate that the universe exists inside a ball bearing.
The idea that somehow that if the ball bearing is collapsed as a mass then it can hold another location inside of it is very imaginative, at least, but it is also quite absurd.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, is it not the case that the calculation for the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with the same mass as the universe gives a figure somewhat larger than the observable universe? Perhaps I ought to knuckle down and do that calculation myself since it's pretty easy 🤣

The other fun calculation is finding the energy of a photon with a wavelength the size of the universe. When I tried that one it spat out a number with an uncanny resemblance to Planck's constant.
 
If you can invision black holes within black holes, you come to a pattern that looks like tree roots that branch into one another from a single location, because each universe that a black hole goes to has more than just one black hole. That is my theory on the construction of how the universe is built. Just like roots, they expand (grow) into another universe inside a black hole that produces more black holes into more black holes. Its like a fractal. Fractals are maths..
 
Technomancy said:
If you can invision black holes within black holes, you come to a pattern that looks like tree roots that branch into one another from a single location, because each universe that a black hole goes to has more than just one black hole. That is my theory on the construction of how the universe is built. Just like roots, they expand (grow) into another universe inside a black hole that produces more black holes into more black holes. Its like a fractal. Fractals are maths..
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the likelihood of a black hole existing in another black hole is, with our current knowledge, something that is considered as not possible.

This due to the ever increasing density en gravity pull inside, thereby making it impossible to have anything go into another direction than IN (and therefore you cannot have another 'bubble' inside a black hole since that requires information to also move OUT).


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
Back
Top Bottom