Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

infamouse's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. The English language could be compressed at any point to maximize utility, we literally don't care. Seriously, you can compress a 500 page book to 250 pages... sorry, what am I saying? The latin alphabet is the epitome of perfection. This conversation is sooooo intelligent. No. Mandatory conformity at the expense of legitimate intellectual development is not intelligence. Contending that contemporary language can't be structurally improved is like saying caveman grunts were fine, but since we bothered to advance I must now insist Islam is superior. Call me whatever you want. I could create a superior language with ease... it doesn't matter. You would rather be happy as squirrels. I am not criticizing science, just the illusion of it. I'm not demanding perfection, I AM INSISTING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND WE ARE BOUND TO LIVE AND DIE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. Such is the nature of the Singularity. A single "point" of infinite energy expands into an infinite "expanse" of infinite energy, and we all observers are caught between. What an unfathomable (obvious?) mystery(answer?) that thermodynamic arrow of time I mean Dark Energy...
  2. The problem with taxation is that the public and private sectors are each extraordinarily corrupt. Communism works no better than capitalism when human beings enter the picture. As far as your scientific question goes, I don't have 14 doctorates therefore I can't meet the illustrious standards required by the Medieval Roman Catholic Cardinals... sorry, I mean ScienceForum moderators... required to offer an opinion on this subject. On a completely unrelated note with zero logical implications, kilonovas are an interesting phenomenon, wouldn't you say?
  3. Time is universal. The clock is an artifice. He might not want to say it but I will: you are stupid, and belligerently arrogant. You are the one who needs to update your understanding of relativity, which in turn should improve your capacity to contribute productively to a conversation as opposed to imposing your imagined intellectual superiority.
  4. EVERYTHING is relative. The ONLY reason GR "fails us" is that taking it at face value refutes so-called common sense. Yet actual common sense renders everything clear and every thing muddled by uncertainty. What is an apple? Why doesn't a pear qualify for such a prestigious club? What is an inch? Why do all the metric cool kids cast it aside? Why is my totally valid BeeCee unit (1/100000^9876543^6543298^4^671132 of 14/11 of 3.14159 astronomical units) *generally* considered to be *relatively* irrelevant? 🤷‍♂️ Indisputably, for example, as it turns out all black holes possess unique mass (see infinite precision principle). As with all other words (and/or caveman grunts) the term "singularity" is subjective. When I say all manifestations of *the* Singularity in physics represent a unified (dare I say "Singular") phenomenon, I think I make my meaning relatively clear. The Singularity indicates infinite cause relative to infinite effect in all circumstances. When a tsunami forms, it alters the molecular distribution of the entire ocean long before it reaches shore. Turns out the central insight of General Relativity is that every thing is generally relative.
  5. There is only one Truth: The Universe is infinite. Everything else is speculation relative to observation. What are the odds that a measurement made to the nearest inch will be exactly 1 inch when measured to the nearest quintillionth of a quadrillionth of an inch? Negligible, in terms of the scientific burden of proof. As this methodology can be applied endlessly to any system of measurement regardless of the context, I have conclusively and scientifically proven that every single thread in this forum belongs to the category "Speculation". #math
  6. No, I don't have a paper ready to publish succeeding General Relativity. It isn't necessary. Once you account for the Singularity, it becomes clear that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are compatible. Wave-Particle duality and Black Holes are each manifestations of the Singularity in the context of relative observation. Modern physics isn't deficient, just the physicists. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Entanglement are all manifestations of the Singularity as well. I can say with 100% certainty that all measurements and descriptions leave infinite room for improvement in all circumstances, and that nothing else can ever be stated with 100% certainty regardless of the circumstances.
  7. Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin. Use whatever unit you want, you can never accurately measure temperature of any point in space at any given moment in time. The units themselves are arbitrary, constructed within the relative confines of an arbitrarily constructed infinitely imperfect human language and numerical system. I can invent a new unit called a Swansonot, described as 1/18th of 3/8trillionths of 11.713456432456789 Kelvin, and use this new unit to describe the temperature of any object I like. Much more precise than the nearest Degree Fahrenheit, wouldn't you say? Yet infinitely short of absolute precision. A new unit called a Jumbalaya measures 1/7th of 1 Swansonot, more precise you see; but only relatively speaking. We can no more measure the universe with perfect accuracy in English than a caveman could with a well articulated elaborate series of gestures and grunts. Such is the nature of the Singularity: EVERYTHING is relative in comparison.
  8. First: I don't agree with the perspective that GR fails us, I think our perspective fails us. Rather than think of a Singularity as an "infinitely dense point" we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*. If you chart the energy density of a black hole from the Event Horizon to as close as you can get to the Singularity on a line graph, you will see a line that steadily increases towards a vertical angle until it appears to be almost perfectly vertical. However, if you change the units you are using to describe smaller scales, you can chart a graph that shows the energy distribution relative to smaller and smaller scales. For example, imagine a primordial black hole with a radius of about a meter. Create a line graph charting its energy density distribution to the nearest centimeter from the event horizon to the Singularity. Now, create a graph charting it to the nearest nanometer. Now, to the nearest 1 trillionth of a nanometer... there is no limit to the number of line graphs you can chart, each more precise than the last. For the sake of argument, imagine you could shrink down to the size of 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nanometers and make observations from within the black hole. What appears to be infinitely dense from beyond, is infinitely vast from within. What I believe is the overlooked central message of relativity, is that physics exist relative to the scale on which it is observed, in terms of the Singularity. Second: Agreed. However, a Gravitational Wave is not the same as Gravitational Warping. A Gravitational Wave travels at a finite speed, but every object warps spacetime in perpetuity. If a star goes supernova, all that mass and energy continues to warp spacetime, but the distribution changes. In other words, E=MC^2, matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, all matter and energy warps spacetime persistently, altering the trajectory of all other matter and energy concurrently. Only its relative distribution changes at any given moment. Third: I agree, I simply take this understanding to its logical conclusion, that on scales of infinity the Geometry of Spacetime is the Geometry of the Singularity itself. As I come to a point of re-prioritizing education in my life, I plan to revisit mathematics and chemistry first, then progress to physics. At the moment I have been reading some books about physics but I am hoping my library will have access to some textbooks so I can educate myself on the specifics. Thanks for the info!
  9. First: Regarding the specifically referenced point, I believe I made myself quite clear and demonstrated my point conclusively, so I guess we can agree to disagree. Second: My point is, even though General Relativity tells us exactly what is at the heart of a Black Hole and what comes before the Big Bang, scientists seem to ignore it because it can't be observed and the idea itself is difficult to work with. I forgot an important point in my last reply to you, which is that when Schwarzchild used GR to describe a black hole in 1916, Einstein immediately recognized the mathematical significance of his finding, but did not believe that black holes would occur in nature. Einstein himself would argue the fact that just because wormholes are mathematically possible within the constraints of general relativity does not mean they would be bound to occur, or that we could readily observe them. Wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement are both perfectly congruent with Relativity, Einstein simply didn't recognize that at the heart of his model was the Singularity itself, connecting all things at all times persistently without violating the cosmic speed limit. The Singularity is the source of all gravity and indeed, reality itself. I felt like you were belittling my perspective intentionally, although I can see now I took it personally unnecessarily. I should have just addressed your actual point if I was going to bother to respond to you, so that's my bad. I am continuing to clarify my points here, as relevant to any conversations at hand.
  10. First: I think I have demonstrated that although scientists claim you can only believe what is observed, they are unwilling or unable to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion. You have not provided any significant counterargument on this point. Second: Thanks for the explanation there. Nobody had yet addressed that point, I guess it was poorly made. Third: "Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites." I have never seen anyone provide a logical basis for rejecting such infinities. It seems to me, and perhaps I simply don't know any better, that scientists reject the idea because it seems counter intuitive. What seemingly does not occur to physicists, is that the *intrinsically limited tools* of language and math we use to describe physics in and of themselves reveal the nature of reality. You will never have a perfect description of reality because language is finite, not infinite. The very fact that any mathematical or language-based description leaves infinite room for improvement in all circumstances demonstrates that the Universe is infinite. That is the point I was trying to make with the infinite precision and mandatory asymmetry principle I described in my first post. "Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesize a surface of sorts." We understand that time is relative, that there is or appears to be a Singularity before the Big Bang. Now, we can all agree I think, that if you survived a voyage towards a black hole, intense gravity would cause you to experience a much faster relative progression of time. An outside observer would never see you cross the event horizon, yet you would pass on into the relative future. So what's the issue here? The Singularity propels us from the past and pulls us into the future. That is what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us: That physics on all scales answers ultimately to the Singularity. The Planck Length, is no different than an event horizon. You are free to feel I am being belligerent, but I have yet to see any convincing explanation for why this is not so. Setting aside whether or not you think this is or can be proven, again, isn't that what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us *if* you are not automatically precluding the idea of infinite spacetime curvature and density? Admittedly, I consider myself a creature of logic, not mathematics. I was hamstrung a bit in school by going from Algebra 1 taught by an incompetent teacher who barely got us halfway through the material, to Algebra 2 taught by the biggest hardass in our entire school, the only class I ever came close to failing. I never progressed any further, but I am looking to revisit this area of my education in the near future. I happen to think philosophy is the natural basis of all science, but I appreciate the point you are making. To tell you the truth Studiot, your initial post comparing me to a twelve year old rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry for being petty.
  11. You are mischaracterizing my intent here. If someone makes it clear in their response to me that they didn't understand my point (whether it is my lack of perfect communication or simply their failure to understand) I am going to take the opportunity to clarify.
  12. You do understand that any accurate theory is initially born of speculation followed by discussion to weed out errors, right (that is the philosophical aspect of science)? I don't understand what your deal is, we are just having a conversation here. First, I am perfectly calm. I don't feel the need to qualify that statement. I will try to continue to moderate my speech to be as clear as possible. Second, I understand that redshift occurs due to expansion of space, I am trying to describe the mechanism by which this occurs, i.e. Dark Energy. Third, "at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed." What I am saying here, is that if we can only believe what we observe, then we can never believe that anything exists at any given moment, as our observations in any context are observations of the past, not the present. Fourth, I would like to return to a point I made in one of my original posts: Isn't believing the Universe could be finite a bit like believing the Earth could be flat? If you travel far enough will you hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the Universe? Imagine looking at a black hole, and measuring its radius. I contend there is an infinite Universe within that black hole governed by the Singularity, if we are to believe what General Relativity indicates. "Dark Energy" within that universe, can be described by the radius observed externally. From within that Universe, this will be viewed as a Singularity at the dawn of time, expanding exponentially in accordance with the externally observed properties. This is why we observe the accelerating expansion of space-time in our universe, and because time is relative this expansion occurs unevenly. Dark Matter on the other hand, is all of the matter in an infinite Universe exerting proportional gravity in any given context relative to proximity and mass. In other words, a Sun-like star a trillion light-years away exerts a much smaller relative effect on our observational sphere compared to our own Sun. The effect does exist however, because gravity is persistent. The Sun warps space-time, altering the gravitational composition of the Solar System, the Milky Way, on and on in an infinite causal chain. The effect of a star a trillion-trillion light-years away is so minuscule as to be barely measurable directly, but the cumulative effect of all matter beyond observation in an infinite universe is what we know as Dark Matter. And thanks for the arxiv link, I am checking that out. I understand that a reasonable person could struggle to see how the ideas I am sharing here are connected or even necessarily compatible. I would love to work out the details and learn where I am going wrong. I am admittedly a novice in this subject and am taking the time to learn. If I come across otherwise I sincerely apologize. I simply believe that even a novice has a right to an opinion, and I believe I am onto something important. Perhaps time will prove me wrong.
  13. R=(2MG/c^2)^∞ I know that is an oversimplification. Schwarzchild's radius describes the conditions necessary for a perfectly static black hole with no spin and no charge. What I am arguing, is that the properties of a black hole viewed externally, can be described internally as the physics of an infinite Universe. The mass, spin, and charge of any given black hole define the behavior of all matter and energy within. Therefore the physics of our universe can be used to describe the characteristics that exist beyond the Big Bang, the first observable moment of time, and the externally observed radius of our "black hole" universe describes Dark Energy. You start with an observed radius and expand exponentially to infinity. Every infinite universe spawns an infinity of black holes in turn due to the fundamental laws of physics on scales of infinity, resulting in an infinite continuum. Every reality in this continuum (which I would argue is really all one Universe, but that is a separate point) is shaped by its own unique physics and the choices of any perceptive lifeforms in turn. Contrary to the multiverse interpretation, the universe does not branch off infinitely with every choice. Every particle exists in an infinite "superstate" of every configuration possible in accordance with the laws of physics, constrained in observational terms by the very act of observation itself. Observation and choice are inseparably intertwined. To observe *is* to choose. At any given moment, I have to choose: choose to think or not to think, to move or not to move, eat or not to eat. Even choosing to do nothing to the fullest extent of my capabilities is a choice borne necessarily of observation. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and if I am not making myself clear that is hardly your problem. I think I am, but I would think that, wouldn't I?
  14. I mostly agree with your point, however I would counter that scientists can be some of the most overly sensitive and egotistical people out there. I would also add, that while you are right that people have a tendency to take corrections personally, it doesn't seem to me like you respect the fact that their perspective may lead them to feel legitimately antagonized. Not to stray off into politics, but as an example the primary reason for Trump's support and the corresponding anti-scientific sentiment is that people feel like they are being condescended to and antagonized. Your perspective doesn't seem to allow those who are poorly educated or less than supremely skilled in language into the conversation, so they go have conversations of their own. Someone I used to work with literally had a 2nd grade education... they aren't going to jump right into a strictly scientific forum and feel comfortable, so they find acceptance elsewhere.
  15. I am just asking questions and stating my opinions, you are the one who is all up in arms. Don't project onto me, I am not claiming victimhood. You are really angry for some reason, if you don't want to have this conversation just go away. Here is what I am trying to say: light redshifts as it moves through space, forward in time, right? It loses energy as time progresses. If you follow a single beam of light infinitely into the future, it will reach a place of infinitely low energy. Now, follow that same light backwards in time. It will blueshift as it moves through space, backwards in time. Follow that beam of light infinitely into the past, it will reach a place of infinitely high energy. You could never *actually* do either of these things, relative to observation. But the place of infinitely high energy really does exist, and the place of infinitely low energy really does exist. 2 infinite ends of the spacetime spectrum, and Dark Energy is the tension between them. And for the record I don't think I can do the math. Conceptually however I am quite sure I am on to something, and I feel like must of the points I make don't get addressed, maybe because people think I am an idiot or simply don't understand what I am trying to say. It seems to me however, that the biggest problem in physics today is the failure to truly grasp concepts of infinity. Space is infinite, time is infinite, the infinite past already exists and the infinite future already exists, yet at any given moment we still have the capacity to shape space and time in the present. If we can only "know" what we observe, here is what that ultimately implies: at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed. Therefore, according to mainstream scientific perspective, we can not know that the Universe is infinite, and we can not know at any given moment whether anything actually exists at all. Scientists talk a lot about proof yet seemingly ignore the logical implications of their own theories and conceptions.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.