hoola
Senior Members
Content Count
746 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Everything posted by hoola

Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
correct, as "science" deals with direct evidence and I deal without, unless gravitational waves or neutrinos can peer before the big bang and some evidence may be forthcoming. Hopefully someday that will happen and I will be quite happy to have my idea falsified if that be the case. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
not really, many qualified mathematicans have stated as much.(the discovered, not invented part)..hence my leaning towards my intuition as viable possibility. I agree with your dismissive attitude however. I am attempting to ascertain fundamentals, the premath of the maths, and realize the futility of the attempt. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
I have no evidence that equations are only discovered, not invented, only intuition. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle and how it relates to the early proto universe, would seem to indicate base 2 calculations. Base 26 calculations of PI is an interesting question perhaps someone else might have some insights, but Occam's Razor would seem to limit the processing base to "least action" to accomplish the task, whatever base that calculation was made in. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
Equations are there to be discovered, not invented. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
the measured diameter of circle as relates to it's circumference offers a long lasting and perhaps non repeating numerical result...that in itself may not be an equation per se, but equations do exist that closely approximate it. That's what I meant. As long as the information cranked out by the approximation goes on, and is faithful to the fundamental premise of the metric, my assertion seems valid. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
the number PI is but one of many such equations, also E, sq rt of 2, etc..some of the "bones" delineating physical reality as ordered by classic logic. More ephemeral states seem ordered by sq rt minus one, in the companion quantum logic system, which among other things, determines empty space properties, with virtual particles as the observable effects. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
not really, only that there are two levels of "unrealness", with them. You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits, and they are ordered about in a reliable fashion over aeons in a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations. The MPR was the "least real" of the species, but became "more real" by relating to all other numbers, thus become real enough to "do work" along with all the rest. With this, is an inference of 2 levels or realness, or functionality with numbers. The solitary MPR, and all the rest. However, the void is long gone, filled up with stuff, and with it, that MPR status that was the kick start part of the process, gone with it. 
yeah, bowling with black holes to get a perfect strike seems something an advanced species might do to see if the results matched prediction.

Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
a Mathematical Proxy Representation, is the "stand in" of a number, before there were any numbers to "fill that spot". In this case I posit that this MPR number (one nothing) was not a number until other numbers appeared and developed relationships with the MPR via a developing logic system. This is akin to today's "nothing exists without an observer" effect, as expressed in it's earliest form, as applied to the question of how math could have evolved from this simple start in a natural, organic way. No need for god or eternality in the system as described. If it is relevant to ask why anything today, it seems relevant to ask why mathematics then. 
I agree that is is very unlikely, perhaps impossible unless arranged somehow. I was more interested in the merger efficiency, that is, how much mass loss would be given by such a theoretical merger vs. the standard orbiting one. I was hoping that if a numerical simulation had been done, it would be reported here. Thanks.

Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
well, my conjecture is that there was no nothing, allowing the minimum state of a supposed void to have a mathematical proxy representation of exactly one. How many voids were there? Three? Nine? ...could several voids be separated by a "less than void" state, differentiating them? Seems unlikely....the irreducible "one and only one void", or void singularity, is the "bit" that "it" came from which I further conjecture was the seed of mathematic constructs of the various branches that eventually led to complex mathematical, and therefore complex physical structures. I venture that this first bit was "unreal math", and only when math evolved additional potentialities (other numbers), did the original bit have a comparison to "measure" itself with, and become "less unreal" in a conventional sense, mostly due to persistence , or durability of internal value, which we see and confirm in routine fashion in relation to other numbers using simple arithmetic. just google "john wheeler it from bit" on utube and you will get several interviews which discuss this. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
I thought Wheeler's comment was common knowledge....I have no direct citation, and pardon me if I am incorrect, but I have seen lectures concerning Wheeler's legacy, and that statement was listed as one of them. I will find a lecture and list it later. My overall statements are relevant to the thread title of "something from nothing" , supposing that the void (the nothing) spit out that bit (the something). 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
Wheeler's "it from bit" supposition leads to a "bit from void" supposition. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
quantum mechanics, as a system, does not exist (yet) within the confines of the pertinent time frame as described, as no systems of any form, quantum or classical, have had time to mature to expression. Therefore, formulae, and their underlying logic structures, QM included, are irrelevant to the conversation. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
what I am saying is not meant to be metaphysics, only that all the pertinent formulae you speak of are a result of a long evolution from the basic default void information, and as such are rather "johnny come lately" and are quite post the period that I am concerned with examining. The conjecture of math not being eternal, or somehow a contrivance building upon itself, and how this might have had a beginning impetus, is what I am referring to in relation to the original thread question. If everything is mathematics, then how did math come about...seems a rather obvious question having nothing to do with metaphysics. To presume that math is eternal is metaphysics. 
Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)
hoola replied to hoola's topic in Speculations
which to me is a rather incorrect way to look at it . How could anything, especially such complex concepts as energy, and it rather distinct categories, exist at an early stage when only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void, which is the only member of a set that, at that early stage of developement, contains no digits, in effect, the concept of math is only hinted at? 
I get around the something from nothing paradox, by postulating that there could never be a "nothing". Before the big bang and any leadup to it, a void must have been present. However, this void contained a default bit of information, namely that the was "one void", thus giving this void it's fundamental structure of the "one", as an early identifier, giving us a math based reality versus one built upon some other self organizing principle.

what if two black holes should collide directly, and not merge by orbiting each other, but directly merge? If this were possible to occur, what would a signal to LIGO look like, and would the energy of a direct merger be equivalent to a normal rotational merger energy release? Thanks.

if a spacecraft crew could safely orbit a black hole closely, and attain relativistic speeds approaching 20% the speed of light, what would they see when looking around the interior of the cabin as far as visual distortions and color variations?

I have read that a spinning black hole has a central bulge and is not perfectly spherical. This is the shrinkage I am talking about, in a physical sense, as it spins down due to frame dragging or other effects and becomes more spherical. I am not referring to mass loss, and as a thought experiment, keep the mass constant and consider the matter as a change in shape. Does the hole approach the perfect spherical shape in units of multiples of plank units, with no steps between, exhibiting quantum behavior and if so, would that be classically measurable ? Thanks for the responses.

does a black hole of slowing rotation with a shrinking event horizon equatorial diameter, reduce that diameter in discrete steps of multiples of plank units, or in a smoother curve of a classical object in plank unit steps?

I don't see what "honesty" has much to do with the topic. I am just stating ideas, not claiming them to be true, for a discussion of the specifics of them..

that is a meaningless statement....and not even wrong when addressing the topic.
 32 replies

2

I realize that what i am saying is ridiculous, but until, and if ever, someone comes up with a better set of ideas about the "Why Anything" question, and "Why did things turn out like what we see" this is my "Placeholder" pet idea. YOU come up with something that is better and doesn't need an omnipotent god to set things going, and I would be quite thankful...