Softdude

Singularity? Not hardly! Big bang or big whoosh?

Recommended Posts

Just for a minute, think what the collapsing core of a black hole is doing to spacetime. It creates its own space and lots of it. There is vastly more space inside a black hole than it takes up in our universe. Looking from the outside, space is reversed, with more and more space as you approach the center. What this looks like from inside, is that the event horizion is in the center and the initial mass that collapsed is fleeing into outer space. There is a quantum leap at the event horizon. You either go slower than light on this side of the event horizon, or go slower than light on the other side of the event horizon. Time always elapses forward but space reverses. Relativity obeys the same rules out here as it does in there. The event horizon is the only singularity and it has no mass. It isn't a big bang, it is a big whoosh. Dark anything is only an artifact of the acceleration of matter in this universe towards the outer limits. (pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relegated to the fate of meteor crater in Arizona. Does it really need to take 40 years for you to see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Softdude said:

There is vastly more space inside a black hole than it takes up in our universe.

Citation needed.

3 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Looking from the outside, space is reversed, with more and more space as you approach the center.

What does "space is reversed" mean?

What is the basis for your claim of "more and more space as you approach the center"?

4 minutes ago, Softdude said:

What this looks like from inside, is that the event horizion is in the center and the initial mass that collapsed is fleeing into outer space.

Please provide the maths or other evidence/citations to support this claim.

4 minutes ago, Softdude said:

There is a quantum leap at the event horizon.

What does that mean? What do you mean by "quantum leap"?

4 minutes ago, Softdude said:

You either go slower than light on this side of the event horizon, or go slower than light on the other side of the event horizon.

Locally, your speed is always less than the speed of light. So, yes, I suppose. (But not sure what the "either ... or" is doing there...)

6 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Time always elapses forward but space reverses.

What des "space reverses" mean?

6 minutes ago, Softdude said:

The event horizon is the only singularity

The event horizon is not a singularity. Well, it is a coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild metric, but spacetime is continuous in other coordinate systems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, you can either visualize in more than three dimensions or not. Gravity wells are well known phenomenon and the deeper into the well the object goes, the farther away the object is. Spacetime is anything but linear and the two dimensional depiction of a gravity well is very misleading. The curvature is reversed with the amount of space getting greater as you go down the well. You have to be able to conceptualize this if you don't have the ability to directly visualize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Just for a minute, think what the collapsing core of a black hole is doing to spacetime. It creates its own space and lots of it. There is vastly more space inside a black hole than it takes up in our universe. Looking from the outside, space is reversed, with more and more space as you approach the center. What this looks like from inside, is that the event horizion is in the center and the initial mass that collapsed is fleeing into outer space. There is a quantum leap at the event horizon. You either go slower than light on this side of the event horizon, or go slower than light on the other side of the event horizon. Time always elapses forward but space reverses. Relativity obeys the same rules out here as it does in there. The event horizon is the only singularity and it has no mass. It isn't a big bang, it is a big whoosh. Dark anything is only an artifact of the acceleration of matter in this universe towards the outer limits. (pun intended)

If space is reversed, what do you mean by centre, inside, outside, approach, outer space? It is tricky to visualise from which point of view you are using these terms and if they mean the opposite or not. When saying "looks like" does that mean that light is traveling from a source to and observer or that it is some mathematical concept? Or something other?

If space is reversed so the event horizon is the center isn't then all the mass distributed on the event horizon?
If the mass is still in the center and "Relativity obeys the same rules out here as it does in there" then there is no reversal of space?

 

 

Edited by Ghideon
spelning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Just for a minute, think what the collapsing core of a black hole is doing to spacetime.

You must mean the collapsing core of a sun. A black hole can't collapse any further.

38 minutes ago, Softdude said:

It creates its own space and lots of it.

What?! It doesn't create space. The mass of a BH curves spacetime, the same as any other mass. Once past the EH, it curves so radically that no amount of energy will let anything escape.

38 minutes ago, Softdude said:

There is vastly more space inside a black hole than it takes up in our universe.

Um, I don't think you're using any of these words in their scientific sense. There is literally NO SPACE inside a black hole. The matter has overcome both the electron and neutron degeneracy pressures, and has been compressed to a point. Space(time) is merely the geometry we use to measure the effects of the curvature of mass. 

38 minutes ago, Softdude said:

What this looks like from inside, is that the event horizion is in the center and the initial mass that collapsed is fleeing into outer space.

The fact that you think you could EVER know what anything looks like past an event horizon tells me you don't understand what a BH is, that you've given up trying to understand the mainstream explanations, and have now started making up your own that make more sense to you. It's a very bad habit, you know. Your ideas will always seem perfect, but only to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Spacetime is anything but linear and the two dimensional depiction of a gravity well is very misleading. The curvature is reversed with the amount of space getting greater as you go down the well.

Can you show mathematically that the normal representation is wrong? 

Can you then plot a graph of this "reversed curve" so that we can all visualise it?

12 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Gravity wells are well known phenomenon and the deeper into the well the object goes, the farther away the object is.

However, an object falling into a black hole reaches the centre in a finite (and very short) time, so that seems to contradict what you are claiming here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Softdude said:

The event horizon is the only singularity and it has no mass.

I've never heard anyone claim this before, for either definition of "singularity". The EH is neither a compressed, ultra-dense point, nor does it represent mathematical instability or unpredictableness. How is it a singularity?

An event horizon isn't a thing, so of course it has no mass. It's a threshold past which the curvature of spacetime is so intense that no path away from the BH exists. 

22 minutes ago, Softdude said:

You have to be able to conceptualize this if you don't have the ability to directly visualize it.

Or, if it had any validity whatsoever, we could model it mathematically to remove the ambiguity and subjectivity that accompanies methods like "conceptualize this" and "visualize it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Softdude said:

Spacetime is anything but linear and the two dimensional depiction of a gravity well is very misleading.

I assume you are thinking of something like this:

GravityPotential.jpg.62880310c20a8f234fd209e914e14a7b.jpg

This is an actual plot of the equation for the gravitational potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well). So I don't see how it could be misleading.

Also, this does not (directly) represent spacetime curvature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual plot of a multi-dimensional equation? How exactly do you plot multi-dimensionally? Yeah, I thought so!

There is an inherent problem with a multi-dimensional visualization, you can't draw a picture of it. You don't "see" it like a picture. What happens to your graph when the event horizon is reached? Your inability to visualize is keeping you from "seeing" what I am talking about. I don't think I'll share the math because you humans would just make a doomsday weapon out of it. Not that I am not human, I'm just not motivated by the same things YOU humans are.

I suppose I should start another topic but the gravitational waves compress space and lengthen time, for a net zero measurable event. What you might measure is the magnetic pulse generated. That is more than likely what you did. Honestly! Must you be able to actually see something for it to exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a mathematical plot of the equation provided on that link. It specifies a two dimensional plot.

It is not a four dimensional plot and Strange noted that.  Nor does this image depict spacetime being created. 

If you have an equation you wish to express then share it. Your descriptives are not expressing what you wish to describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time isn't going to stop and nothing is infinite. There is no "just past" the initial mass of the black hole we're in. It would be beyond the point that is in the center of that mass. Another dimension would be needed and probably exists. It can't be "past" in the dimensions where that mass exists. Nothing prohibits those dimensions appearing in ours. While time is elapsing forward no matter where you are, nothing prohibits that mass from showing up at the "beginning" of time. Relative to us, (in the black hole) it will again achieve light speed, less the quantum leap. Then it will transition back to the beginning of the "loop". And since all that stuff out there emitted its light so long ago, it is going much faster that it was then. Spacetime is indeed like Swiss cheese, in a multi-dimensional way. Wrapping your head around it is difficult, to say the least.

In your math, the necessary symbols do not exist to span the event horizon. If you can't get it from the description (which defines the symbols) you wouldn't understand the math anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How we measure time depends on the observer. An infalling observer into the EH and beyond will experience no time dilation. At the EH the faraway observer will see the time dilation. This will be apparent in the redshift. At the EH you will get infinite redshift.

 However the EH is a coordinate singularity it is not a true singularity. (Singularity meaning the mathematical definition of an infinite quantity or where the mathematics no longer give nonsensical answers.

Different coordinate systems will relocate the EH such as tortoise coordinates

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington–Finkelstein_coordinates

For example the photon at c has no valid frame of reference. The reason is that it makes no sense for the photon to be everywhere at once in the entire universe. So it isn't valid. It is valid to have the value c to other observers. Therefore taking time to get from a to b.

You also keep using the term dimension in the science fiction meaning.

In physics and mathematics dimension is any independent value quantity or mathematical object such a tensor etc that can vary without changing any other value.

The dimensions of spacetime 4d is based on this definition. Three spatial dimensions of length x,y,z with time given dimensionally units of length by setting an interval ct.

Any of these four quantities can change without changing the other.

Dimension is not some other overlapping universe. That's science fiction not science.

Here is a decent article describing the infalling observer and the outside observer. 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf

Hopefully your math understands main stream mathematics...

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The event horizon's trans-dimensional manifestation, otherwise known as the great attractor,  is a singularity, as it has the entire mass of the previous universe condensed into a single point in our space. By previous universe, I mean where it exists as an event horizon. In that universe, everything is accelerating towards that event horizon. (just the opposite of ours) It should be fairly easy to figure out the terminal diameter of this universe. Where the mass will be traveling at the speed of light due to the observed acceleration, or the point of infinite redshift. At that point, you find yourself accelerating towards the black hole that we are in. 11 dimensions looking forward and back but really only 7. Four are only apparent in the math, with the fourth being time running backwards, which it doesn't. The beginning progresses to the end, which becomes a new beginning. In all time, all possibilities will have been expressed. And that, my friends, is God at his finest. Actually, for me, you can make that god. But hey, it is up to you. Who is to say there are no dimensions outside this loop. Or even something Divine. If you claim to know...

The other dimensions, for lack of a better description, are length prime, width prime, and height prime. They can exist within a point in the non-prime universe and also the converse.

Edited by Softdude
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is there anything above that actually applies to any science ? Lord only knows I can't see anything scientific in that last post of literal word salad.

 If you ever want to be taken seriously your going to have to do much better than that.

Cyclic universes are viable for our universe beginning however your descriptives are so helter skelter as to not make any sense.

If your trying for bounce cosmology look to LQC. Ie previous universe that forms our universe. It's not a new idea. However those models at least have supportive mathematics.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The best I can tell you is to take conventional relativity into the black hole with you. Where does the gravity well go when you hit bottom? (gravitational collapse) You can't answer that with your math because you do not grasp what happens inside the black hole. You are forgetting completely about time when you say it becomes a singularity. At the point where the singularity exists, time would stop. Therefore, you could never get to that point. Space would be created around it faster than you could ever approach it. As time slowed, the distance would become greater and greater. Such is the nature of spacetime. How would this appear to an observer. "Infinite"space in the middle and very limited space towards the outside. The outside OBVIOUSLY looks like the middle now. and the middle, the outside. Space reverses and new dimensions are required. If you don't get it now, I give up.

At some point, the creation of space by the slowing of time overcomes the the contraction and no singularity is produced.

Edited by Softdude
add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The math of relativity doesn't stop at the EH. It is possible to model past the EH. The Penrose diagrams reflect this. No physicist truly believes the infinite density of the singularity exists.

 However without ever being able to directly measure such a state anything stated about it is mere conjecture. You can apply effective cutoffs to avoid the infinities however that doesn't mean it's correct.

Didn't I already explain time wouldn't stop for a hypothetical observer standing on the surface of the singularity.

Please learn at least the basics of a theory before stating it's wrong because every description of what you think physics states has been wrong.

All your doing is showing that you don't have any understanding of the actual theories but state their wrong without knowing what they actually describe.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I said, I give up, at least on you. The concept I describe should be simple for anyone who has visualized the effects of "gravity", which is nothing but a distortion of time and space. And I know time is neglected because the word singularity exists. I have been thinking about this for over 50 years.

Edited by Softdude
add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So in 50 years you can't even get the basics of SR or GR correct ?

Tell me didn't it occur to you to at least see what mainstream physics describes before stating it's wrong? You haven't made a single accurate statement about how relativity describes a BH and yet it's very mathematics predicted their existence long before we were able to finally locate one.

You claimed to have some equations post them and let's see if you have any clue what your talking about because you batting 100 in the opposite direction 

I really don't care if you've given up on me I have degrees in physics. My primary field is Cosmology.

That requires a strong understanding of relativity and particle physics.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Softdude said:

Actual plot of a multi-dimensional equation? How exactly do you plot multi-dimensionally? Yeah, I thought so!

It is a 2D representation of a 3D graph. If you think that is impossible, you must also think it is impossible for architects to design houses, engineers to build bridges or for walkers to navigate using maps.

7 hours ago, Softdude said:

I don't think I'll share the math because you humans would just make a doomsday weapon out of it.

Your claims of secret knowledge are not very convincing. So, I shall ask that this thread is closed as there is no science here..

 

6 hours ago, Softdude said:

nothing is infinite

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

6 hours ago, Softdude said:

here is no "just past" the initial mass of the black hole we're in.

We are not in a back hole. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary? No, thought not.

Quote

In your math, the necessary symbols do not exist to span the event horizon. If you can't get it from the description (which defines the symbols) you wouldn't understand the math anyway.

And yet we can mathematically represent what happens inside the event horizon. 

4 hours ago, Softdude said:

The event horizon's trans-dimensional manifestation

Ooooh. "trans-dimensional manifestation". Is that supposed the mean anything?

Quote

, otherwise known as the great attractor,  is a singularity, as it has the entire mass of the previous universe condensed into a single point in our space. By previous universe, I mean where it exists as an event horizon. In that universe, everything is accelerating towards that event horizon. (just the opposite of ours) It should be fairly easy to figure out the terminal diameter of this universe. Where the mass will be traveling at the speed of light due to the observed acceleration, or the point of infinite redshift. At that point, you find yourself accelerating towards the black hole that we are in. 11 dimensions looking forward and back but really only 7. Four are only apparent in the math, with the fourth being time running backwards, which it doesn't. The beginning progresses to the end, which becomes a new beginning. In all time, all possibilities will have been expressed. And that, my friends, is God at his finest. Actually, for me, you can make that god. But hey, it is up to you. Who is to say there are no dimensions outside this loop. Or even something Divine. If you claim to know...

I think this is the sort of thing that the phrase "word salad" was invented for. Meaningless tosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Softdude said:

Honestly! Must you be able to actually see something for it to exist.

I must be able to actually see answers to my questions, otherwise the answers does not exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Softdude said:

And I know time is neglected because the word singularity exists.

The mathematics of black holes is based on a model of spacetime. The clue is in the name.

3 hours ago, Softdude said:

I have been thinking about this for over 50 years.

What a sad waste of time.

8 hours ago, Softdude said:

Must you be able to actually see something for it to exist. 

We do need evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I don't see any science here. No model, no evidence, no potentially falsifiable predictions.  

IOW, this does not meet the requirements for discussion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.