BuddhasDragon23

Hi, some have already met me. Im interested in science, technology, mechanics and engineering. As an artist and environmentalist (policy and geography based) these are not a fields I am directly involved in. Might come across as a stubborn and opinionated, but I am, open minded and a nice person. Hope to learn much and be a positive member. Ps Not a Buddhist but I do love dragons.

Does this by any chance mean if all mass were converted to energy, there would be no gravity in the universe? Does this point towards gravity is emergent once conditions are met?

Thx for the link. I get it now, and i kinda worked out the probabilities of winning are improved by switching are improved by the initial choice effecting the outcome of the rule forced on the host and the door they open. in deal or no deal there is no rule on the host to reveal a box based on any choice of the contestant, so the conditions of the swap shouldn’t be effected except by how the game plays out. I think having the swap makes a difference as it is like having the choice to pick two boxes to keep till the end, not just the one box they originally pick. I think it might have an available effect as boxes are revealed, you could change the box you want to keep till the end, so if you say at start box 1 has top prize and 2 next keeping them to the end is best but if either of those amounts are revealed you know they are not, but then out of all remaining you still wont know where the 3rd, 4th, 5th best prizes are. Hmmm i think even having 2 out 20 if both unknown is no different as still comes down to 1 out of those two so still 1 out of 20.

Vote = should everyone in the world pull their eyes out with red hot tweezers or not. if you meant real issue, that would be different. I did say with a world of better educated people, or do you think the global populous will always be too ignorant (or other reason) not to make a good decision? The essence of the post was because there is a desire by some who don’t want governments to make decisions for us because of lack of trust, having informed themselves on the issues in question. Repeating the point on lack of education and knowledge of the subject. But you think it would be pointless, eso respect that.

I think the people who have been here a long time, have seen more types of math from a spectrum of people like you and I than we could imagine. Don't know this game, sounds like ‘deal or no deal’ in the uk. I would like to see the math though out of curiosity as not been here long

That prompted me check some info on acoustic shockwaves. I have found i think mathematically and physics wise I am at the level of getting to understand Differential Geometry. Though i was already aware there were mathematical models for this type of thing because of atlases etc I have never dealt with them in any academic way (or other) so i now have a library worth of things to get my noggin around. Oh, apologies from me are as rare as this person giving thumbs down, but i miss read something MigL wrote about the understanding of singularities neither the scientific community nor myself had any knowledge on. Even though that statement was and still is correct, (though i have not quoted it as written) i read that as the scientific community did have the understanding but i did not and took that as another dig at my ignorance. So sorry about that. Cant apologise for anything else though unless i realise i made a similar mistake elsewhere at some future point.

Sorry to be back so soon. If that simplest singularity is calculating a right angle triangle, is the resulting singularity a straight line? You could argue it is a triangle with a side of 0, but as the length of the other line is linked it has to be the opposite and be infinitely long? Something about that I like, as it occurs only 90, 270, 450 etc, it produces two infinites divergent from the point of 0 length. Now im guessing this has something to do with those magnetic poles as anything at the poles has a curvature of 0. Sorry that last bit was too intuitive, i will go check. Ok, so the rest is describing how a function breaks at a location in the output if curtain inputs are used. Nice way of expressing what has been repeated a lot. Top marks. Just popping back to my idea though :o to scientist, cosmologist and physicists, even though they can’t explain them, are black holes real and an actual singularity? The math predicted them before they were found and now we have evidence of something very significant in the universe that has at least one measurable property being mass that we calculate by the way stars and gas orbit them. So if a singularity doesn't exist just the broken math, or function, is the universe broken having black holes. Not like any math will make a black hole evaporate out of reality. Given the closest thing this side of classical theory, neutron stars and magnetars might be a good source of learning for me too.

Thank you, now you wont hear from me in a while as i got something to chew on :D

What math or theory in physics would express the expansion and contraction of spherical fields and their variable interactions at variable densities? I think i would need to work out by plotting the interaction between multiple spheres expanding from multiple points at equal to or greater distances than zero. I would need to also do the same for each sphere set at different densities greater than or equal to zero. Each set of calculations for each sphere would take each sphere as being of equal density at the start, and again these are repeated where spheres maintain equal density as they expand for each density. After this i would need to work the same for spheres that are collapsing from a point. Not found anything yet on how a point would collapse in upon itself, but i picture (best describe it as) like the pattern in fractals. Each of these sets would need to be repeated on multiple fields at 0 or greater distances on each access (being the x/y, x/z and z/y) but that is bases on a 3D space and here my minds eye fails me if it should be a 3d or even try multiple dimensions too. After that I would need to plot any interactions between all of the spheres at all calculated/plotted states and how these would interacts. And all the points thought the this process would be required to be subject to all previous calculation above From this I would need to identify any state exhibiting stability, identified with quantities reflecting an increase in density, and where they do not etc. Hopefully there will be some correlation with observable classical or/and quantum mechanics. Is this a closer interpretation of how I could build my theory, even though it is limited by the tools doing these calculations as they will get highly complex before and stability is likely to emerge? I would hope something akin to string theory emerges but would show the brains, fields and dimensions are emergent from the closest approximation of infinite density math can handle. Think i might need to look at how quantum computing calculates and if even that is enough. Oh ok, nice it took so long for that. Linear and non linear acoustics looks like it has some useful learning. Thx, i did ask for it.

Ok, i will no need to reply to you from now on. Thx for you input. Got that, thx So the interior Schwarzschild metric describes the gravity field within a spherical object taking equal density of that sphere? It does not however describe the actual fields within that sphere as the equations are based on an object orbiting the sphere and is the total mass of the sphere’s volume at its surface?

The challenge was unnecessary Question. Do all attributes of classical theory reach 0 at the same point when reaching/becoming/transitioning into a singularity. ie, mass, volume, time, momentum etc Sorry i meant to have answered this already. No you did not but it illustrates the general way the posts from members of this forum have been. I am not dealing with any one of you. You are a collective and as I reply to one of you, another chips in. Up to you how you do this but if i think any individual is being a twat i will call that individual a twat. If a group are being twats i will call each and all of them twats. I haven’t called anyone a twat. If i want to throw insults i can be a lot worse than that whether you deserve it or not. I don't want to insult, but if someones actions cause me to accuse you of something that illustrates twatish behaviour, then it is on the twat or twats giving cause to be called a twat(s).

If someone had a working theory of Quantum Gravity, are you saying it would replace all of classical theory, focus it to include the additional knowledge, or marry to it so the Classical remains and cannot be itself altered but becomes irrelevant at point where quantum gravity takes over? Sorry i doubt you can answer that as you don't know. No one has such a theory yet. I see speculation, that was the green flag to me.

What i have learned from studiot on topic… Axioms in Mathematics vs. Principles in Science Axioms in Mathematics are foundational, self-evident truths that are assumed without proof. They are the starting points from which all other theorems are logically derived. For example, in Euclidean geometry, one axiom is that "a straight line can be drawn between any two points." Heard the term but hadn’t checked up on the meaning. Think thats it. I have looked at this however and am still formulating some questions. I guess I have one if you are so in need of them yet…. In a Penrose diagram of a stationary non rotating singularity the diagram illustrates the path in time and space light takes falling into a black hole. The area between the horizon and the boundary is technically what happens between the light passing the horizon and reaching the boundary where time and space end? (to you, models break down, to me, they enter a superstate of relative infinities that smooth out to a point 0 which is the same 0 state of the singularity at the beginning of time and precursor to the big bang) Would it be possible with a new mathematic model able to illustrate such possible infinite relative differences to extend an area so there is a second horizon? Not sure the Penrose diagram would be a useful way to illustrate this. Is it ok to formulate untestable hypothesis, even though ideally they should be testable in the future? ie DaVinci obviously had a notion of flight being possible but lacked the technology, understanding of aerodynamics and gravity to build a working flying machine. If he had made a hypothesis would it have been valid but untestable. The deep end is the deep end, if i jump in a drown thats on me. You can argue i dont jump, you can try and throw me a lifeline, you may jump in and save me, or you may be able to teach me to swim. Only here do you even think you have the authority to dictate what I do or don’t. Banging your head on a brick wall mate. Quote from you of my quote.

Had a quick look. Not drilled into it so this might be a twist of what it meant to say but one thing pops out “Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe…” So maybe potential this might be something to build on, incorporate etc. And once again you seem to want to make something from this. If you want to offer up something constructive just do it. Im not gonna pander to asking what does that mean. Your 1+1=whatever was a pathetic attempt at questioning my intentions and implying I am doing something i am not. Like saying i think i am like Einstien, i did not, saying i have brought Buddism into this as some validation of my idea, i did not. These were examples to try to ask you to try to understand something, but you are wrapped up in trying to make your point, it is not constructive in any way now apart from to add pointless points to your account. Something i dont care about, -9 i think im at, please get me to the lowest - on the forum, still be in the top 8% of all members. I think I have said coming here was to question my idea, not to force it on anyone as fact. Everything in my original post was meant as a question. If this is the cause of the confusion, i thought i had explained this already. So everything in this conversation by me, that is to do with singularities and infinites are questions. Everything else about why i am here, what i am trying to achieve etc is a waste of time. If you offer something up i don't understand i will let you know, and either go away (on the point) till i do or ask for clarification. I do not expect your help, nor do i think you are here for my benefit and pander to me. So offer up info you think is relevant. If you don't want to go into details to explain because of my ignorance just say ‘i wont engage on this any more till you prove you understand’.

To you is there a singularity, no, to me possibly. Why possibly, because like in string theory the point 0 is where the other 7 dimensions (if i understand it right) exist that described in the theory, which again is (could be, or are to me) an approximation of the reality. Maybe you guyz are getting hung up on i use terms such as ‘is’, instead of could should or would? Maybe I should start a new conversation reframing the question. ‘Can you help device a mathematical system to cope with infinities and singularities as if they are real natural states of an infinite universe and not the breakdown of math’? That way you can say, no we can’t, we are not equipped, able or willing to do that sorry. At which point I will say, sorry to bother you and go until I can think of a something you can help with, but i doubt it will be in speculation. To the observer, a picture is a pattern of light that reaches their eye made up of waves of light that (or is it particles or both). This is an abstract thing as far as the light and universe are concerned, ie they dont/cant be concerned, but to us they still make up the picture. We need pictures such as the math describing the light. Accepting that what is passing between the surface of the picture (be it screen or reflection of light) are just waves does not change the validity of the image to the viewer, so both are true. My idea of singularities does NOT refute science as it has occurred, the observation or law and rules, it just defines them as the pictures used to understand the light of the universe. Yes but is that what I am doing. My intuition is saying it does successfully withstand contact with reality, i need to find a way to prove it. Thus I came here. Thanks for the Pinball, will check it out asap.

No i have not ignored it. I have not made reference to it as i don't think i am ready to. But if you insist i will intuitively have a stab at it. 1+1 is not 2 can probably be wrong in cases where 1 is an exact figure but in reality this is rarely (if ever the case) therefore 1+1 is unlikely to never equal an exact two which is itself unable to be exact. 1+1 is 11, or in binary is 3 I think this type of math is useful in science such as with a black body where emitting infinite ulta violet light as 1 there is no math able to cope with infinites, or at least a technology capable of handling them. The universe gets an advantage here, it had shit loads of infinity to do these calculations for it. Anyhoo, i think to resolve the black body theory, guy called Plank devised the unit used in quantum physics and is represented by or is a photon. So the math was able to work. But 1 the black body is a made up concept that doesn't exist as it was a result of the math breaking down with infinities. I have pondered this before, and the only black body i am familiar with is a black hole, but we could never know if a black hole emits infinite ulta violet light as that light can never escape the black hole. The only energy that could is hawkin radiation from what i have gathered but again no little of the math. Once again though this points to the math being used in science is an altered form designed to limit the math to make it handleable. It does not refute the original math but it does hold off the need to deal with infinities and singularities until we can formulate something else to describe the next level, or find a system able to deal with infinities.

No. Im not taking it personally. I saying you are echoing each other and repeating the same echo. Technically you are creating an interference pattern as the waves of repetition overlap. This is coming across bad and would have the opposite effect to what is meant to be going on here. I am trying to help you by pointing this out as you are reporting you are trying to help me understand the nature of this forum, of science and discussion here. Got it? Oo didn't know you could highlight some text and quote like that. My intuition told me i could. The scientist in me thought try it ‘Experiment’ and i learned i could. As this demonstrates, intuition helps don’t it. If it was just about discussing what we have already observed, I would just ask AI and not ask people in a science forum. That is a compliment by the way. Gotta ask something, is it scientific to totally dismiss something that can’t be proved yet? ie, im not religious and dont believe in any deities but I cant say they don't exist. Is ruling out singularities and infinites the same. It is not scientific to say they ARE fairytales etc, just we can only speculate on them? Not that the discussion of singularities or infinities is a topic you can discus in THIS forum group called speculation because you have rules, but 90% of this thread has not been about them, it has been about repeating the same message that has already been accepted.

Lol, you guyz kill me. Did you see the brackets (joke), did you read the part fanaticism based of unwavering logic and reason. Isn't that what a scientist should do? I am starting to think i was wrong. Hands up who suffers from aphantasia.

Ok, and I have already taken that on board within the first few posts which I think seems to have been missed by you. Sorry if that im my bad communication. Since then I have been busy with RL issues and have only reacted to posts. You have been here 20years, i have been here a few days. I have looked at some texts and teaching tools and realise how far from being able to formulate what I need to. I hope you don't expect me to learn it all in 1 night? No i didn’t think so. So kindly stop repeating yourself so i wont keep repeating myself. Even understanding you position on my position, it still wont change my intuition. I just hope in the future I will be able to post a beautiful set of math, with a air tight hypothesis and a concrete way to test and prove it correct. Till then I'm still gonna be able to trust my gut. You don’t like that, it frustrates you, i don’t know but neither is that relevant. The help you have given me is point towards some sources of information for me to learn and when I have I can learn more. In the mean time chill out, and if you really want to help beyond this (in no way do i expect you to), maybe, just maybe you might have some understanding of current theory development that you could say might help once I get up to speed, or is even tackling the same problem in some way. I would obviously point at string theory and see a lot of potential for this type of enquiry even though i still see branes, fields and strings differently. And yes I probably don't know the subject enough to dismiss it …. so i don’t. So while you might feel the need to speak up in fear I have not listened, better you listen yourself, or just don't bother as you do come across antagonistic.

Ooo you know how to twist things out of context dont you. Well done and re read. Said I don't believe i am right, in have an intuition i am. I wouldn't be here if i didn't respect science and those that dedicate their lives to it. As for you opinion of me and my ego, you don't know me do you. I happily don't give a fk about your opinion of me and my ego is only dependent on how lucky i am to be alive. I value scratching my butt equal to any concept of universal theory. Please don't try and imply different. That doesn't mean i devalue such theory, but i would put money on i appreciate and enjoy scratching my butt more than you would winning a Nobel prize.. never have i heard such a gratuitous use of the word but. geosynchronous orbit? I would rather put it work calculating how to use the mass of asteroids or other planetary bodies as gravity tractors to speed up the earth without creating too much jerk, snap crackle n pop to tear the planet apart or send the moon flying into space, and at a rate the expanding red giant that will become out sun wont burn the planet to a crisp (ps this is a backup if the natural migration of planet/s is not enough. If you had not realised im talking about increasing the orbit distance of the Earth from the sun.

what are they? Why do they differ from black hole singularities or the one at the centre of the universe. Are they still theoretical entities and if not why are their states different from BH etc that allow you to accept them. Do you mean quanta like photons? I got the time if you do. Ohhh, Errr quick change of topic, if allowed, but there are voids evident in the CMB, that have existed from inflation. Would dark energy be more abundant in these regions than in the voids in other denser regions, between the dark matter and matter making up the cosmic web, and therefore these areas of space would be expanding faster? Oops, centre of the universe that was in error, please i aware there is no centre

Twas a program from the late 70s I think, Mork was an alien who came to earth in an egg, played by ronin williams. Orson was his boss (a bit like the big head in 3rd rock from the sun) Robin Wiiliams I answered that as a genuine question, but I am also guessing the sarcasm you have exhibited is the true purpose. Ps, i like it

Testing testing, Mork calling Orson, come in Orson, come in #1990 this is quantum control. Studiot, you not all built your own quantum computers then? Wow, thought you guyz knew your sh*t. Willing to talk about singularities and infinities till the cows come home when someone finds them in the box where the cat was thought to have possibly been.

No they are not more coherent thoughts, they are the same, it is just I am learning how to discuss them with fanatics of the scientific method (ps joking), but tbh you guys do sound a touch like the religious fanatics (not joking) but unlike them your fanaticism is based on unwavering logic and reason. My world embraces both, and the truth is often found somewhere between two opposing factions that are so well entrenched. You wont like that will you. Oh well i said now and cant bring myself to delete it. i have heard of Cantor a d set theory but yeah the math is a big hurdle atm. why i think it hasn’t happened yet? Coz of the reasons you have stated, singularities and infinities are an inherent flaw in the math and understanding at this point in scientific theory. I disagree, and so am willing to try, you dont seem to be or are looking to answer it with the wrong tools.

So my hypothesis should be something like… if singularities or an infinite state are not just concepts, they should be measurable in some way. By formulating math able to cope with infinites and singularities, scientific methods could make predictions of how energy falling/fallen into a black hole become (i think this is the term)a superposition of states, or how in the case of the big bang a uniforms singularity can transition because of fluctuations and predict how such processes would result in the universe we can observe and measure…?