Do Black Holes Equal Universes?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dkane75, Oct 27, 2007.

  1. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Do Black Holes Equal Universes?

    Copyright 2007, Dennis H. Kane

    Notice: You can copy and distribute this work as long as you do not modify it in any way.

    In order to get a full grasp of the Cosmological Problem, two important discoveries from Einstein are going to have to be understood:

    1) E=mc^2
    2) The universe is composed of a self-adhesive, flexible substance that is called the spacetime continuum (or just "spacetime").

    The fatal flaw with current cosmologies is that they do not come to grips with these fundamentals. In fact, they completely ignore them. Cosmologists instead remain wedded to using physical models that treat space and time as distinct, empty dimensions that are simply meant to be "filled in" with the equations of particle physicists. Using this context, a true cosmology is not even possible, because spacetime must be understood as the primordial substance that allows for the existence of all of the substances that we experience in every day life.

    Theoretical particle physicists (TPP's) always proclaim that space is simply a vacuum, filled with something called "vacuum energy", out of which particles may appear, causing a phenonmenon called "antigravity" (aka "dark energy"). Upon closer inspection, this notion becomes so incredibly preposterous that it almost boggles the mind! In other words, what they are saying is that the total energy content of the universe is constantly increasing because "dead space" is actually filled with a kind of energy that mysteriously replicates itself. This is the necessary axiom of today's so-called "cosmology".

    In order to believe this axiom, however, we are forced to forget everything that we were taught about the conservation of mass-energy in junior high school! We are told that this principle no longer applies to the real world, because of what the TPP's, in all of their infinite wisdom, have jotted down in their notebooks.

    However, if we were to just close our ears to those "rabid dogs" called TPP's, then perhaps we can start to make sense of the universe that we've been given, using Einstein's discoveries. This way, a whole new world of possibilities becomes open to us!

    If we are to understand that the universe is constantly gaining in mass-energy while at the same time holding on to common sense, then we must come to the unavoidable conclusion that the known universe is simply a dynamic part of a much bigger system. In this way, our universe must consist of at least one "inlet valve" into which mass-energy is input and possibly one or more "drains" into which mass-energy escapes (any guesses as to what these drains might be called?).

    Now let us think about this always changing (by way of general relativity) substance called spacetime. It is said that mass-energy causes spacetime to expand, which thereby allows mass-energy to travel longer distances in the same periods of time (as witnessed by bending light and the slingshot effect of satelites around planets). What this is really saying is that mass-energy causes spacetime to grow and that spacetime causes mass-energy to grow (space grows while energy content grows). Well, this seems to be the classic case of a vicious circle. It seems, by all rights, that this "law of gravity" should spiral out of control at the very moment it is implemented! We are supposed to think that mass-energy causes itself to grow!

    What is really happening here is that it makes precisely zero sense to speak of mass-energy and spacetime as being different kinds of substance. For every reason imaginable, spacetime is mass-energy and mass-energy is spacetime. So, let us see if we can borrow a razor from our good friend, Ockham. For the moment, let us use mass-energy and forget about that thing called spacetime. But even the term "mass-energy" is unnecessarily complicated, because mass and energy are two sides of the same "E=mc^2 coin". In fact, we could just say that an amount of mass-energy is simply a "mass" of Energy. In this way, we are able to reduce the two fundamental concepts of cosmology (spacetime and mass-energy) to one easy to understand idea: the universe is simply a mass of Energy.

    In fact, whenever we talk about a universe as a whole, it is of fundamental necessity to talk about it simply as a singular, undifferentiable mass of Energy. After all, any of its internal differences are of concern only to the relationships between the beings of the universe in question. If we think in these terms, then we can plainly see that there is no way that this mass can grow without some kind of external input.

    ***

    If we think of a black hole, we understand an extremely dense mass of Energy that is called a singularity. We understand that Energy is always being "pulled" into black hole singularities. The effect of this action upon the incoming Energy waves is profound: they are stretched out until they are nearly completely flat (think of a sine wave). It is said that this dramatic decrease in the frequency of Energy waves means that time dramatically is slowing down inside of the singularity.

    What this means is just that whenever a mass of Energy grows, it is also true that the time that is internal to it also grows (or stretches). However, since space and time are forever bound together into a substance called spacetime, then an increase in the "length" of time is identical with an increase in the "mass" of spacetime. Furthermore (pay very close attention here), to say that spacetime grows is equivalent to either of these two statements:

    1) space expands
    2) time expands

    Within the singularity of a black hole, then, there is precisely no difference between the following two ideas:

    1) time expands while space remains constant
    2) space expands while time remains constant

    It is funny how physicists describe the singularity of a black hole only in terms of #1 and the singularity of the moment of the "big bang" only in terms of #2. In all respects, however, both kinds of singularity have the exact same essence: their spacetime increases. According to both Einstein's theory of general relativity and to common sense, then, there is precisely zero difference between a black hole that continually slows down time and a universe that continually expands! They are tautologous!

    A black hole singularity is a "big bang" singularity!

    For every imaginable reason, then, it is entirely necessary to say that our universe is the singularity of a black hole and that our black holes contain universes. To say otherwise is to slap both Einstein and your own good sense squarely in the face!

    The Energy that is always being input into our universe, then, has precisely nothing to do with a mysteriously replicating entity called "dark energy" that only finds life in the weird scribblings of the notebooks of those crackpots called theoretical particle physicists. But rather, it is the same ordinary kind of Energy that is always disappearing into countless black holes across our own universe!

    The only problem in all of this is that we haven't fully come to terms with that mysterious force that is called: gravity. All we have shown is that the concept of gravity, as such, leads into a vicious cycle, whereby spacetime and mass-energy become what are known as infinitely recursive functions (computer programmer terminology) that continuously feed into each other. Perhaps, then, we should consider that spacetime might just grow and shrink all on its own accord, much like a living organism. As we don't want to violate our common sense understanding of the conservation of mass-energy (aka spacetime), the growth of spacetime in one region should cause the shrinkage of spacetime in another region. And when this growth becomes too great, perhaps there is a moment during which it could be said that spacetime ruptures, causing it to drain into a region that is known (depending on your perspective) either as a black hole singularity (in which time grows) or as a universe (in which space grows).

    Just as speculation, because we now think of spacetime as a kind of living organism, perhaps it is just as likely that a black hole can start shrinking, causing either of these phenomena (again, depending on perspective):

    1) time within the known black hole starts shrinking
    2) space within the hidden universe starts shrinking

    In either case, we could say that Energy (spacetime) is being returned from the singularity of the black hole back into the surrounding universe. After all, if regions of the universe can arbitrarily start growing, there is no reason why they cannot arbitrarily start shrinking! (Consider this the Kane Hypothesis).

    ***

    All of the problems in the state of the cosmology are due to the fact that physicists are mere technicians without anything in the way of genuine philosophical intuition. This fact is almost unavoidable if we consider that academies are tremendously competitive institutions that must always outdo one another with the newest, sexiest theories. In fact, it is in their best interest to invent bizarre mathematical theories that are taken as confounding, yet amazing revelations concerning the "strange, hidden ways" of the universe. After all, many people just want to live their lives in constant states of amazement, brought about by the so-called impressiveness of mathematical symbology. And these are precisely the people who feel ethically bound to support the "sciences", no matter how fantastically ungrounded are the sciences in question.

    Theoretical particle physicists are modern day alchemists, claiming that they are able to turn iron into gold with their mysterious formulations!

    They are today's "Rainmen" who are able to count a six-deck black jack chute but aren't able to tell you if a car costs more than a candy bar!

    Einstein was simply an honest man with good philosophical insight who was confounded at every turn by those "mathematical wizards" who wanted to make everyone else think that only the "elect" could understand the ways of the cosmos!

    Viva la philosophe!

    (To understand where I am coming from, read almost anything by Heidegger.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Yes. They do.

    Even Cramer has postulated that the entire universe [[might as well be a black hole!!]].

    According to relativity, our entire universe could be the second interior of a black hole. Consider the following.

    (R- M)

    is where radius is proportional to mass.

    (D=M/V)

    But the volume of a thing is found to be divided by the mass, giving the density.

    (D- M^-2)

    (V- R^3)

    And the radius of a black hole is raised to the power of three, giving the complete volume.

    But then the density, which is inversley proportional to the mass raised to the second minus power:

    (D- M^-2)...

    Which tells us, if our universe is a black hole, to an outside observer, the hole would seem very very dense... but from the inside, it doesn't. This could be describing the universe.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    To realise that the Universe is effectively a black hole, try reaching the edge- it is receding at the speed of light, so you can never escape without exceeding c.
    Hoever the Universe has no singularity or centre, so does not conform to the concept of a black hole in every respect.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    .

    Please give me a link or some kind of reference where I can find someone who has said anything like what I am saying. I'm not denying you, I just want to know. I don't know anyone named Cramer except for the CNBC lunatic.

    I'll believe your calculations, but my whole point is that they are completely unnecessary. My point is one of pure logic.

    If spacetime is just a concept which shows that an increase in the space of a singularity while holding time constant is identical with an increase in the time of the same singularity while holding space constant, then it is a tautology to say that our universe is a black hole singularity and that the black hole singularities that populate our universe are universes in their own right. This is a statement of pure identity, and has nothing to do with observation.

    ...

    Also, "dark matter" must simply be the natural action of the spacetime continuum to grow and shrink of its own volition. We are truly living in an awesome, active multiverse that I can only call Pure Creative Chaos!


    (Someone thought that one of my other posts was written by you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  8. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    You are misunderstanding something very basic. The universe never stopped being a singularity, from the moment it was created. This "singularity" nonsense is really just a bunch of hocus-pocus from people who think that space and time are simply empty containers that are filled with "stuff". Once you realize that the container and the "stuff" are indistinguishable (variously known as spacetime or mass-energy) then you really start to understand what is going on in the big picture.
     
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Yes... ben thought you were me... or someone like that: Then Ben told you to up your radar, becasue you thought i was a physicist... well... not any forms to prove thus such, but i guess i am a scientist of sorts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes, the calculations are accurate - indeed, your's was pure logic.

    I will get you some of cramers work... i have his comments on the universe being a black hole somewhere!!
    Catch ya!
     
  10. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Was the calculations based on the size of the visible universe or the believed size of the present day universe?

    Since gravity is severely limited to light speed, then the edge of a proposed black hole will correspond with the rim of an expanding universe. Unless the universe is one which continually collapses and expands, there can be no "outer shell" of a black hole because of this.

    At some point, the black hole would reach full size and nothing inside can go beyond that. When the physical universe catches up with it, it will at some point fail to achieve escape velocity and maybe start falling inwards again?
     
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    10^26m Kaneda. These calculations are not mine though. I should have made that clear. They where featured by Dr. Fred A. Wolf, and before that, by other authors.

    ''At some point, the black hole would reach full size and nothing inside can go beyond that. When the physical universe catches up with it, it will at some point fail to achieve escape velocity and maybe start falling inwards again?''

    Totally agree though.
     
  12. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Reiku. Presumably all that we can see in the visible universe is all that there is, even after billions of years of expansion to it's present size?

    It is estimated that there are some 7x10^22 stars of varying masses and anyone's guess how many black holes of all sizes since we are still discovering them in huge numbers. Also maybe a trillion, trillion planets and moons as well as meteors, dust, gas etc and maybe DM or something else we don't know about. I think an estimate of the mass in the universe would be little more than guesswork with our present technology, though it could give an idea on a lower limit of the size of a possible black hole that the universe could be inside.
     
  13. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    We must attribute the black holes as ''being'' the universe.
    We shouldn't get diverted here, and say it is ''in'' the black hole.
     
  14. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    The black hole would be the universe's gravity shell, so to speak.

    Just wandering. One day a zillion years from now a super-massive black hole of billions of solar masses wanders into "the wall of the universe". What would happen? Would it bounce off? Could it lose mass to "outside?" Would it collapse as it's structure merged with "the wall"? Would it never be able to reach "the wall"?
     
  15. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Reiku, I didn't mean that I thought you were are professional physicist. I just meant that I thought that you seemed to think a lot about physical problems and that you have a knack for putting them into mathematical terms

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ...

    What do you all think about the notion that gravity has nothing to do with the interaction between "point masses"?

    In other words, my understanding of general relativity is such that a point mass causes spacetime to grow and that increased spacetime causes point masses to grow (that is, gravitational acceleration causes mass to grow). We always look at this from the effect that one point mass has on another but we never consider the effect that a point mass would have on itself.

    It seems to me that a point mass, causing the region of spacetime it occupies to grow, would also cause itself to grow, leading to an infinite loop. According to this "law", it seems, a point mass would instantly lead to a black hole that gobbles up all of existence.

    It is very hard for me to describe my thoughts because I think that the concept of gravity is the one thing that the sciences are not able to fully grasp. I believe that it takes a kind of holistic intuition to see that this thing that we call spacetime is nothing other than the left side of Einstein's famous equation (E).

    And it isn't possible to sense Energy, as such (such as what enters into a black hole/universe) because it has been totally cleansed of all of its "corrupting" quanta. I just fail to see why (given our horribly inadequate models of the concept that we call "gravity") it doesn't make sense that spacetime/Energy simply condenses and expands of its own "free will".

    And when it condenses, it fractures and develops tiny entanglements that we call quanta that subsequently build up to form all of the phenomenal matter in the universe. But every once in a while, spacetime/Energy will condense were there are pre-existing bits of matter, forming all of the spherical heavenly bodies that we see as well as the larger structures, like clusters and superclusters. When there is no phenomenal matter, we call these condensations "dark matter".

    Then, when spacetime "decides" to condense to a great enough degree, free Energy cannot help but to fall inside, feeding the expansion of a universe. Furthermore, I think that the most logical explanation for quasars is that spacetime simply decides to reverse course and start expanding. In other words, when a black hole stops feeding a universe, it starts sucking Energy and putting it back from where it came. From what I've read, there are no known physical theories that can explain the extreme Energy production that we see emanating from quasars.

    Because of this, our universe could actually be inside of a quasar, but the Energy input from all of the quasars in our universe would be greater than the output, causing our universe to increase in spacetime.

    Does anybody else feel totally hoodwinked by Cosmology, as it currently exists? I mean, to claim that the universe is a closed system that also happens to be continually increasing its total Energy content, seems to me to be profoundly absurd. How hard is it to come to the conclusion that our universe is simply a part of a far larger system that seems in every way to be alive?

    When you get down to it, you start to understand why Einstein was a Spinozist and why he considered Buddhism to be the world's profoundest philosophy/ religion. It just seems that Einstein understood that there is a kind of holistic intuition necessary to understand how the universe works.

    From where I stand, the ultimate problem stems from the fact that science, in general, always takes the concept of dimensionality to be a priori, as it were. In other words, physicists always think that the dimensions ground the possibility of physical existence. I think that scientists are totally misled when they think that there is anything dimensional about spacetime. Spacetime, rather, is substantial. It is pure, non-sensible Energy.

    It is only when Energy freely condenses that it tangles itself into knots, forming the "point masses" that allow there to be anything like the Cartesian dimensionality upon which the entire modern Western philosophical paradigm (and its derived sciences) is based.

    All of this means that the age of the universe is perfectly unknowable, because of the arbitrarity of the condensation and expansion of spacetime into black holes and quasars. I mean, our universe might have had a billion or more expansion/contraction cycles. It is just totally awe inspiring!

    ...

    By the way, these discoveries of mine have caused me to undergo a spiritual evolution. I can now understand the transcendental unity of all things. I am doing my best to attain Buddha-hood. I've been living out of my car for two weeks. I decided to come back to UF in Gainesville because this is where I first discovered my inner spirit (in 1993/94). When I dropped out of UF, I started on my journey of self-discovery. I've read every type of philosophy you can possibly imagine, and I finally developed my own system (geocities.com/dkane75/phil.html) several years ago. But I never knew that I needed a Cosmology in order to make my system substantial. It is only now that I feel that I am able to start to live my philosophy.

    I've been going on to campus and doing what I call existential preaching. It's sort of like what Christians do, except that I try to use good humor and only speak profound philosophical truths that have no connection to any tradition. I want to inspire people to seek for their essential selves rather than always running around in circles. I want to keep myself as far away from the insanity of the global economy as is humanly possible. As such, I befriended Hare Krishnas yesterday, and got into one of the best conversations I've been in, in a long time.

    I eventually want to make my way to an intentional community that is spiritual and artistic. I want to be able to grow my own food and do small scale, cooperative trading. I want to be able to sleep under the stars, next to a camp fire. I want to be able to truly respect everyone around me. And most of all, I want to be able to discover true, spontaneous love, such as is nearly impossible to find in this insane system of neverending competitiveness.

    Anybody want to join me?


    Dennis Kane
     
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Dennis

    You said>

    ''Does anybody else feel totally hoodwinked by Cosmology, as it currently exists? I mean, to claim that the universe is a closed system that also happens to be continually increasing its total Energy content, seems to me to be profoundly absurd. How hard is it to come to the conclusion that our universe is simply a part of a far larger system that seems in every way to be alive?''

    Funnily enough, i feel the other way round. I prefer a closed universe, rather than an open. Beginnings are terrible in physics without an end. Granted though, the idea's are all plausible. Energy in energy, particle in atom, black hole in black hole... the possibilities are endless.

    ''When you get down to it, you start to understand why Einstein was a Spinozist and why he considered Buddhism to be the world's profoundest philosophy/ religion. It just seems that Einstein understood that there is a kind of holistic intuition necessary to understand how the universe works.''

    I totally agree. I am what i call, a new age christian. I won't hold onto these dogmatic interprtetaions of a book. I will see God in light of science first, over science in light of God.

    ''From where I stand, the ultimate problem stems from the fact that science, in general, always takes the concept of dimensionality to be a priori, as it were. In other words, physicists always think that the dimensions ground the possibility of physical existence. I think that scientists are totally misled when they think that there is anything dimensional about spacetime. Spacetime, rather, is substantial. It is pure, non-sensible Energy.''

    Again... i totally agree with you. There are subrealities which are profoundly disconnected from these ''dimensional concepts,'' but are still intimately related to both space and time vectors.

    ''It is only when Energy freely condenses that it tangles itself into knots, forming the "point masses" that allow there to be anything like the Cartesian dimensionality upon which the entire modern Western philosophical paradigm (and its derived sciences) is based.''

    A lot of people, including Farsight, have been talking about energy knots in their work. I'm finding this wrong for some reason. Call it a hunch.
    But the knots you are talking about might be something different?

    ''All of this means that the age of the universe is perfectly unknowable, because of the arbitrarity of the condensation and expansion of spacetime into black holes and quasars. I mean, our universe might have had a billion or more expansion/contraction cycles. It is just totally awe inspiring!''

    This might be true. Though, i think the universe is more like 150 billion years old.

    ''By the way, these discoveries of mine have caused me to undergo a spiritual evolution. I can now understand the transcendental unity of all things. I am doing my best to attain Buddha-hood. I've been living out of my car for two weeks. I decided to come back to UF in Gainesville because this is where I first discovered my inner spirit (in 1993/94). When I dropped out of UF, I started on my journey of self-discovery. I've read every type of philosophy you can possibly imagine, and I finally developed my own system (geocities.com/dkane75/phil.html) several years ago. But I never knew that I needed a Cosmology in order to make my system substantial. It is only now that I feel that I am able to start to live my philosophy.''

    I also work the woo-woo, as its called. Most of work is dedicated to nothing but psychophysics. Can i just say, that you also need quantum mechanics, not just cosmology, and relativity, if you want to be thorough.

    ''I eventually want to make my way to an intentional community that is spiritual and artistic. I want to be able to grow my own food and do small scale, cooperative trading. I want to be able to sleep under the stars, next to a camp fire. I want to be able to truly respect everyone around me. And most of all, I want to be able to discover true, spontaneous love, such as is nearly impossible to find in this insane system of neverending competitiveness.

    Anybody want to join me?''

    It sounds like a beautiful dream, but under the wrong interpretation, it would be considered a cult. Or a religious fanatical goal. But i like it. I would join, but i live too far away........................
     
  17. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    kaneda, the universe does not have a wall. It is simply a self-adhesive mass of Energy that we call spacetime. Spacetime/Energy is a self-evolving substance. There is no difference between the individual masses that are "contained within" spacetime and spacetime itself. This is the holistic paradigm that understands that all universes ultimately exist as a part of a transcendent unity that I call Pure Creative Chaos.


    ...

    reiku, so "gravity" is the primordial force of the universe. That is, the universe, as a mass of free energy, is always perfectly free to locally compress and expand. Somehow, these compressions cause pure Energy to become corrupted with tiny knots. It seems to intuitively make sense, but it is not a process that can ever be observed.

    So, everything that we call quantum physics is a derivative of these localized gravitational phenomena. Just because the scale of quanta is so small, we use terms like "probability" and "uncertainty".

    But these terms are redundancies if you understand that there is no such thing as measurement, as such. In other words, all measurements are necessarily approximations between arbitrarily determined "units".

    However, there can never truly be a "spatial unit". This is because distance is only defined as the "betweenness" that separates two geometric points. Geometric points, furthermore, are nothing but things called "mathematical limits", which depend on the concept of infinity. In other words, a limit can only be approached, but never finally reached. This only makes sense, because a point, itself, is zero-dimensional.

    So, to attempt to "unitize" the "betweenness" between mathematical limits is necessarily only a theoretical construct that cannot have any application to everyday physical reality and its theories. Therefore, concepts like "quantum uncertainty" are philosophically unnecessary.

    Also, it wasn't until I rearranged E=mc^2 to read m=E/c^2 that I realized that the concept of mass is wholly contained within the concept of Energy. Matter needs Energy in order to exist and not the other way around.

    The understanding that Energy is the primordial substance is a monumental paradigm shift from the typical materialistic Western conception. I have never been convinced that scientists ever had any clue of what they were talking about with their "timelines" of the early universe. They say that there is a bunch of hot plasma that cools down and forms matter.

    It just seems to be enormously naive to speak in terms of "hotness" which deals with the vibrations of already existing bits of matter. The pure Energy that comes into a singularity, however, is perfectly clean. It is not "hot". Pure Energy is simply free to do what it will, including locally condensing and expanding.

    When you say you prefer a closed universe, you have to define what you mean by "universe". I prefer to call it the complete matrix of minor universes (such as ours) embedded inside of minor universes. I like the term Pure Creative Chaos. It is like a sine wave that is infinitely scalable. Oscillations embedded inside of oscillations: each oscillation-scale represents a time signature. We need to stop thinking of the true universe as a spatial construct and rather as an infinitely scalable temporal construct (think about the "time" part of spacetime rather than the "space" part).

    ...

    Oh yeah, everything is a cult (short for culture). There are plenty of intentional communities (aka communes) in existence, all of varying philosophies. Some are whacked out fringe groups, but some are just ordinary people who have had it with all of the stress. I've already visited one in Virginia called Twin Oaks (twinoaks.org). They are your basic bearded hippies. The one I've had my eye on recently is called Zendik (zendik.org) which is based upon a philosophy that emphasizes the creative genius in every individual. It is much more spiritually inclined than Twin Oaks, but not in a dogmatic way. There just seem to be a whole bunch of cool, hip people living there who seem to have my same sensibilities.

    So yeah, every different way of life is going to seem to be a "cult" from the outside. But it doesn't mean that that "cult" is not an infinitely better way of life than the cult of neverendingly competitive capitalism.

    The reason why I am living "homelessly" right now (my car is my home) is because I want to wean myself off of all of the amusements so that I may be able to truly enjoy my experience in an intentional community with as few adjustment issues as possible. It's completely a psychological thing. I eventually want to start wandering around with a backpack and a tent for a while to complete the psychological cleansing process.

    I feel that people who always need to be "part of something" are the ones who are susceptible to becoming fanatics (such as you might consider Hare Krishnas to be). When they find that their current cult (mainstream society) is not satisfying, they seek out the first place that will feed and clothe them. It just so happens that many spiritual fanatics are also some of the kindest people in the whole world, so the whole subsumption into fanaticism can be extraordinarily quick and forceful.

    I feel that everyone needs to have time to lose themselves in order to finally discover what grounds them. And once you've found your ground (usually done by way of reading and philosophical introspection), there ain't no one in the world who can convince you that their philosophy is "the way". The past 13 years of my life (since I dropped out of UF) has been a search for my philosophical ground. But it wasn't until I developed an idea of the physical principles that ground the phenomenal universe (cosmology) that I was really "forced" to take my existential philosophy seriously.

    I am comfortable with my cosmology. After skimming through all of the newest popular books concerning particle physics/string theory and cosmology, I feel that I understand why it is that academic physicists are not able to make sense of the whole shebang. It is for the simple reason that time can only be understood as an undifferentible duration rather than as a sequence of "timepoints". Again, a timepoint is simply a geometric construct that is based upon the impossible case of a "spatial frame" of precisely zero duration. Timelines work as constructs that help us model intra-universal phenomena but they are necessarily hopeless when it comes to understanding the idea of the universe, as a transcendent unity. In other words, the concept of dimensionality, as such, is wholly practical, and is not at all ontological.

    So, once you understand that time, itself, is a singularity (no past or future to worry about), then you've figured out what Buddha realized. All that's left to do is to sit down and enjoy the hell out of being in your own skin and the infinitely ineffable cosmos that surrounds you. All of these realizations are obtained from the philosophical process, which is a necessary journey for any "modern" human who wants to experience transcendental, spiritual freedom.

    If I can find a community of people that is down with this kind of thinking, then I don't care how far I have to travel. It's only a minor annoyance compared with the ever present headache that results from the amusement-based contraption that is the consumer culture called "Western civilization".


    Dennis Kane
     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Hi again... I like it when intelligent questions comes this way.

    ''reiku, so "gravity" is the primordial force of the universe. That is, the universe, as a mass of free energy, is always perfectly free to locally compress and expand. Somehow, these compressions cause pure Energy to become corrupted with tiny knots. It seems to intuitively make sense, but it is not a process that can ever be observed.''

    I find something very definate about the knot theory. Whilst it predicts, that all subatomic matter are made up of simply ''differential knotted energies,'' doesn't quite cut it for me. There is something else. Inertia.
    Inertia was never explained by Einstein. In fact, since Newton proposed it, it hasn't really been answered for. It's been extended, through relativity, but it hasn't been explained. This Inertia would imply a unique characteristic for knotted patterns. It would determined how and what the knot consists of, due to limitations in spacetime.

    As for the gravity part, we call the fundamental field Quantum gravity, which is electromageto-strong-weak-gravity combined.

    ''So, everything that we call quantum physics is a derivative of these localized gravitational phenomena. Just because the scale of quanta is so small, we use terms like "probability" and "uncertainty".

    But these terms are redundancies if you understand that there is no such thing as measurement, as such. In other words, all measurements are necessarily approximations between arbitrarily determined "units".

    However, there can never truly be a "spatial unit". This is because distance is only defined as the "betweenness" that separates two geometric points. Geometric points, furthermore, are nothing but things called "mathematical limits", which depend on the concept of infinity. In other words, a limit can only be approached, but never finally reached. This only makes sense, because a point, itself, is zero-dimensional.

    So, to attempt to "unitize" the "betweenness" between mathematical limits is necessarily only a theoretical construct that cannot have any application to everyday physical reality and its theories. Therefore, concepts like "quantum uncertainty" are philosophically unnecessary.''

    These idea's would have to be ''choice''; for instence, i would like to say uncertainty has a role in metaphysics. But i'd agree mostly with the rest

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ''Also, it wasn't until I rearranged E=mc^2 to read m=E/c^2 that I realized that the concept of mass is wholly contained within the concept of Energy. Matter needs Energy in order to exist and not the other way around.''

    Exactly. Just because E=Mc^2 shows an equivalance, doesn't make them absolute, because only energy could be required at any given time. Mass is only a second-state of energy, or ''trapped light.'' So in ALL cases, Mc^2= E, and that would initialize always to energy: E<t<0.

    ''The understanding that Energy is the primordial substance is a monumental paradigm shift from the typical materialistic Western conception. I have never been convinced that scientists ever had any clue of what they were talking about with their "timelines" of the early universe. They say that there is a bunch of hot plasma that cools down and forms matter.

    It just seems to be enormously naive to speak in terms of "hotness" which deals with the vibrations of already existing bits of matter. The pure Energy that comes into a singularity, however, is perfectly clean. It is not "hot". Pure Energy is simply free to do what it will, including locally condensing and expanding.''

    I know what you mean. In physics, we say that ''timelines'' are ''abtracts''. Just like a line on a board it only accounts to what the observer interprets it to be. I like to say it was an electromagnetic sea very early on, instead of mearly saying ''plasma'', even though it is a line used often in physics.
    About a billion chronons (a chronon is the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second), passed before any energy/light emerged into the universe. When it did, all there was, was light. Then they produced a soup of quarks ect. ect. The Synthesis predictions of big bang are very good. But are still very incomplete.

    ''When you say you prefer a closed universe, you have to define what you mean by "universe". I prefer to call it the complete matrix of minor universes (such as ours) embedded inside of minor universes. I like the term Pure Creative Chaos. It is like a sine wave that is infinitely scalable. Oscillations embedded inside of oscillations: each oscillation-scale represents a time signature. We need to stop thinking of the true universe as a spatial construct and rather as an infinitely scalable temporal construct (think about the "time" part of spacetime rather than the "space" part).''

    In any good theory, one must, as i always try to do, is stick by the rules as much as possible. That way, your imagination can still run wild, but staying within a certain boundary. When i say a universe, it may not be any more different to your vision. If i say that the universe is open, that shouldn't worry you. Your theory still holds. If i say it is closed, it shouldn't affect your idea's either.
    The is the great thing. Universes are self-consistant, so it doesn't matter what state the next universe is in, everything that happens in one universe, is totally unique to the next.
     
  19. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    dkane75. I did say "wall". It would not be a physical barrier but a furthest point of the gravity field of the matter, from the matter of the whole universe.

    Spacetime? Does this mean we need a TARDIS to travel to the Moon since we are travelling through time as well as space?

    How does an energy field evolve? It can alter in minor ways according to environment and other physicalities, even be absorbed, but not change form.

    You are saying that there is no difference between a planet and the space around it?

    Chaos is just another way of saying that there are too many quantities to work out. If you could know them all, there would be no chaos, since chaos implies cause without effect.
     
  20. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    In case anyone was worried about me, I am back in good old Tampa. Every once in awhile, I get terribly bored of things, and I want to wander around the country for god knows how long. I also get these "utopian communal" fantasies that last for a couple of weeks or longer. But, since I am a die hard existentialist, I don't think I will be joining any "communities" any time soon

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think I am going to continue to post to this thread for the forseeable future, because this question of universes vs. black holes is just so damn fascinating for every reason...

    I found this article on space.com: space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html which I thought was going to be a confirmation of my theory. Ohh... so close and yet so far!

    In that article, Blake Temple of UC Davis talks about a "white hole", which is supposed to be a reverse black hole. In a white hole, Temple says, matter is thrown outward instead of being pulled inward.

    Again, I'm not quite sure what makes it so hard for scientists to see the logical equivalence between a black hole singularity that is seen to have increasing temporal dimensionality and a "big bang" singularity that is seen to have increasing spatial dimensionality. I've said it before and I'll say it again: in both cases, it is spacetime that is increasing.

    I also fail to understand how cosmologists hold onto their notion of a "universal explosion". An explosion is a kind of event that deals with the breaking of chemical or nuclear bonds. Spacetime expansion, however, has nothing to do with this kind of thing.

    For some reason, scientists don't want to take seriously the concept of a substantial spacetime, which is exactly what general relativity depends on. They are much more likely to think of spacetime merely as a 4-dimensional container into which mass-energy (substance) is inserted.

    With my theory, mass-energy and spacetime are one and the same substance. Furthermore, it is crucial to realize that this substance is alive. It operates under no laws: it is free. Its freedom is simply to form localized intensities that we call "gravity".

    These intensities have a two-fold purpose:

    1) Create tiny entanglements that are called energy quanta
    2) Create singularities that serve to create spacetime contexts (universes), which also happen to "cleanse" energy of its entanglements.

    In this paradigm, all of the mysteries of the universe become predictable. Universal expansion (increases in "dark energy") is simply a local intensification that collects energy within itself. Dark matter is an intensification around which there is not any pre-existing matter. The three small-scale forces are results of the interactions between different kinds of energy quanta and they have nothing directly to do with the freedom of spacetime to gather upon itself.

    What I've done is to get rid of the notion of a single moment of arbitrarity that we call the "big bang" and replace it with constantly occurring arbitrarities within a plenum that might as well be called Pure Creative Chaos.

    Given these considerations, a major philosophical shift must be made away from systematic lawfulness and towards chaotic arbitrarity. In other words, chaos is the very ontological ground of all possible systems (scientific constructs). The ancient Greeks, I believe, nailed this one right on the head. Also, the Buddhism's notion of sunyata (emptiness) could be interpreted to be in the same vein. Add some Spinoza and Einstein with a touch of Bergson and Heidegger, and you've pretty much got yourself a dish of what I'm trying to serve up here!

    (Of course, this whole idea pretty much screws the entire scientific endeavour. This is why science can never, of itself, come to any of these conclusions. To do so would be to pull the rug out from under itself, leading to a whole bunch of dismissals from prestigious academic posts.)


    Dennis Kane
     

Share This Page