A scientific headfuck.

[steve25805 126,021]

Not sure if I'll get any response from this. Perhaps @spywareonya, maybe @Scot_Lover, maybe one or two others, it's hard to know.

Einstein's theory of relativity.

Amongst other things it dictates that the passage of time is not totally linear or constant but actually depends upon the situation an individual is in. Time can pass at different speeds for different people, dependent largely upon two things - the speed at which they are travelling relative to each other, and the strength of the gravity they are experiencing.

Any differences though are totally negligible unless travelling at super fast speeds approaching that of the speed of light, or experiencing exceptionally powerful gravity, as one might experience near a black hole.

To escape from the gravity of a planet or any other large object, something or someone needs to attain a certain speed known as the escape velocity. The greater and more compact the mass of the object, the greater it's surface gravity. And the greater the escape velocity needed to break free.

A black hole is a massive object - it could be a collapsed star collapsed into a small area a few miles across but containing the mass of several suns. Or it could be a giant behemoth of millions or even billions of solar masses, usually found in the centre of galaxies. Such a massive black hole sits in the centre of our own galaxy.

The reason they are called black holes is that as the force of gravity increases the closer you get, eventually at a certain point the escape velocity becomes so great that even light - travelling at 186, 000 miles per second, cannot escape. And because nothing can travel faster than light, nothing else can escape either. The point at which the escape velocity reaches and exceeds the speed of light is known as the event horizon. No light from closer in can escape, hence it's blackness. And because mass warps the fabric of spacetime - the greater and more compact the mass, the greater the warping - the heaviest and most compact objects such as black holes tend to warp it to breaking point, thus forming holes in the fabric of spacetime. Hence black holes.

The thing is, anyone falling into a black hole - assuming he could do so without being ripped apart by powerful gravity - would have his time slow down compared to an outside observer. Time would feel the same to him and he'd fall in quite quickly. But an outside observer would see him falling ever more slowly the nearer he gets to the event horizon. And no matter how long that outside observer watches, he will never quite see the astronaut reach the event horizon. The astronaut falling in however, looking out, will see time for the outside observer, and the entire outside universe, going by apparently ever faster the closer he gets to the event horizon.

And now I arrive at what seems like the logically obvious point that I have never heard anyone acknowledge. The closer the astronaut gets to the event horizon, the faster time appears to pass for everything he sees outside, so that at the point at which he crosses that horizon, the speed of the passage of time outside would have become infinite. It is the point at which the laws of physics governing spacetime itself break down.

Logical conclusion? As outside observers, even if we could live for trillions of years until the end of the universe, we would never quite see that astronaut fall in. The astronaut however would experience falling straight in, but in his final split seconds the passage of time outside would have become so rapid from his perspective that he'd see the end of the universe before he fell in.

All of which leads me to conclude the possibility that black holes themselves might in part be extra -dimensional, that they exist simultaneously as integral parts of the universe and can be created naturally within it, but have an existence beyond it. Perhaps black holes from earlier universes already existed when ours came into being? Perhaps the Big Bang itself was born of a pre-existing black hole, born in a previous other universe?

Just musings.

But I just find it amazing that the logic of relativity dictates that an astronaut falling into a black hole would see time outside accelerate so fast that he'd witness the end of time itself before finally falling in, whilst an outside observer would never quite see him fall in even if he could live til the end of time

Mind-boggling.

[spywareonya 37,961]

32 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

Logical conclusion? As outside observers, even if we could live for trillions of years until the end of the universe, we would never quite see that astronaut fall in. The astronaut however would experience falling straight in, but in his final split seconds the passage of time outside would have become so rapid from his perspective that he'd see the end of the universe before he fell in.

This is the core of magick opposed to book and philosophical pathetic magic and flamboyant dresses for rituals

 

Because logic must bow to practice

 

What you writes suddenly stops to be true passing Beyond a limit zone, which reaches the end of what you wrote and prevent the time-stretching from further enhancing. Reached a certain limit, the one who's sucked in will reach the limit Beyond which time will reach its maximum of acceleration, and he will likely see a lot of things in few seconds, and then he will simply burn in the Accretion Disk

Likely, from the outside, we will see him sloooooooow down his fall ever more: but at a certain point, he will simply burn.

 

 

Logic is only a instructions-manual explaining how things go, but fails to understand why things go the way they go, only crude knowledge can, and because of this, sometimes logic fails to see it coming when things suddenly stop acting like they did before. Because the universe works like that: it's a sinusoidal wave function, things look like they're going one way, and then suddenly they stop going that way and they start working exactly the opposite way, because its hidden mechanism were preparing such shift while an apparent limitless stretching in a single conceptual direction was going on

The best example?

You are born, and you become every day bigger and stronger, but after some decades, you stop getting taller and bigger and you suddenly start to become every day shorter and weaker and in the end you die

 

Ok, there are theorical living being who can live forever but I did not meant to negate that, I just wanted to to explain  that what you see is only the consequence of something which produced what you're currently observing, and maybe, while you observe it, is already preparing the surfacing of its opposite

 

This is the difference between Nous which in Greek means Inner mechanics, and the self-apparent manifestation, which for sure got a backspine of essence, but it's not its only son, as an opposite twin may be ready to surface

[F.W 5,734]

Dont really get this,but it sounds pretty interesting.

[spywareonya 37,961]

11 minutes ago, fannywatcher said:

Dont really get this,but it sounds pretty interesting.

Quantum physic can need 15 years to be mastered in its simple basics, and a lifetime to be only scratched on the surface

it's not that you don't get, it's that regardless how smart you are, this stuff is REALLY hard if it's not one's primary interest!!

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Hmmm. Never heard of the poor guy not falling in before, strange concept. The interpretation that I first ran into was that you would be stretched so thin, and over such a long distance, thin to the point of atoms over several thousand km, then you would just spiral in, like clean water down a drain. You wouldn't get that close though, the radiation from destroyed star stuff would fry you quite well from several light years away.

My main interest was a little closer to home, orbital mechanics had me interested when I was small. The moon is easy to get to, you just point the nose as it, and power up. Non trivial really, there in 12 hours. Working out how to get to Mars was a lot more interesting. For this one, you have to plot where Mars will be when you arrive in 2 years from the day you took off. Think of the plain of the ecliptic as an old lp record, with the tracks of the record being the planet orbits. To get to the next orbit out,  you have to increase speed, accelerate. The get to the next orbit in, you need to de-accelerate, put the brakes on. Pretty simple right?

Now the fun part, logistics. How much fuel do you need, and do you need to take it, or send something unmanned and hope it's there when you arrive. How much food and water would you need, with water being recyclable to a certain extent. Send food with the umanned probe?

The girls and I can talk this stuff for hours, lol. You've added something else to talk about.

[steve25805 126,021]

7 hours ago, Scot_Lover said:

 The interpretation that I first ran into was that you would be stretched so thin, and over such a long distance, thin to the point of atoms over several thousand km, then you would just spiral in, like clean water down a drain.

Yes, scientists have even invented a word to describe this - spaghettification - ie being stretched out like spaghetti.

This occurs because the difference in strength of gravity over even extremely small distances is so great that it literally stretches things apart.

Curiously though, the more massive the black hole, the less extreme the gravitational differences over short distances, and the less intense the spaghettification. Let's be clear here. The gravitational strength is utterly overwhelming, but the DIFFERENCE in strength over short distances is far less. For one of the largest supermassive black holes at the heart of a galaxy with perhaps the mass of billions of suns, it would be possible to fall in without being spaghettified.

Surviving the intense radiation, however, would still present a tremendous problem, lol.

[Potatoman 261]

I have another one 😅 theory I wrote at some time: possible explanation for black holes

for this, taking that the whole universe, the „empty“ room itself isn’t empty but made out of something, something that connects everything and is the substance of which every single particle in the whole universe is made of. 

So everything is connected in this „net“, moving is only something like a wave which does not transport mass but stayes the way it is, just moves the energy 

so when you walk, the particles are transported and „replace“ the air in front of you with your body then (of course every atom and substance of which are in energetic motion but you get the concept) 

so in that theory, a black hole could be an entanglement of this net, it normally doesn’t really touch but in that case it would create such a massive gravity that it goes beyond the speed of light or anything else in the rest of the universe, because it is something that isn’t supposed to happen and thus is unnatural 

 

makes sense? Any comments on that, things I didn’t think of or anything else are more than welcome 🙂 

[spywareonya 37,961]

19 minutes ago, Potatoman said:

makes sense?

It's quite like that indeed

Space doesn't exist, it's a multidimensional matrix of which we perceive just one edge

But it's a bit uncorrect to say a black hole is an entanglement, is more a mound compared to a flat desert, where there is more stuff than the rest

[steve25805 126,021]

Another scientific headfuck.

It was discovered a while ago now that galaxies are rotating too fast for the mass they contain. This does not seem to add up according to everything we currently understand about gravity.

Without the laws of physics having to be entirely re-written - which would be a huge problem because they so clearly and accurately fit everything else we observe - this only makes sense if galaxies contain a lot more stuff than that which we can actually see.

Some scientists are coming up with extra-dimensional theories or various versions of string theories - which I cannot pretend to understand fully at all - to try and get around this, but most accept the existence of a lot of additional stuff that has mass but which we cannot see, perhaps because it does not emit or reflect light. Scientists have dubbed whatever this is "dark matter". But they have no firm clues as to what it might be. Suggestions range from subatomic particles we have not yet detected, particles that do not absorb or reflect photons of light, neutrinos which hardly ever interact with other matter and have very little mass per neutrino but are thought to exist in vast numbers, even loads of as yet unknown black holes.

But in short, whether news laws of physics are needed, or new types of particles remain to be discovered, our understanding - or lack of it - at this stage seems to be on a par with a 16th century scientist's understanding of electricity and magnetism. They know that something is there to be explained. They can observe it's effects. But they have no clue as to what it is.

Interlinked with this is also a phenomenon that has been dubbed "dark energy". 

Scientists know of four major forces - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. The latter two are mostly associated with very small distances and are involved with holding atoms together and stuff like that. Electromagnetism - as it's name suggests - is associated with magnetic fields and electricity, and then there is gravity which can operate over vast distances.

But there is a problem. In recent decades scientists have discovered that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. This only seems to make sense if some force is acting as a repulsive force, pushing everything apart faster and faster. Problem is, the only force we know of that can act over such vast distances is gravity, which is an attractive force, not a repulsive one. And locally we see no sign of any repulsive force at all. Whatever it is seems only to be making itself felt when the distances are vast.

Scientists have reacted to this unexpected and seemingly inexplicable discovery in two main ways. Some have tried to modify the theory of gravity itself, assuming perhaps that over vast distances it reverts into being a repulsive force rather than an attractive one. But most just tend to assume there must be some new force - some new energy - that we have not yet discovered and which only really works over vast distances, and that this is powering the accelerating expansion. Scientists have dubbed this supposed new force as "dark energy". But again they have no real clue as to what it actually is.

Another problem is with the laws of physics themselves. Because over very large scales right down to our level, General Relativity Theory pretty much very accurately describes, and accurately predicts, almost everything we see. But on very small subatomic scales it doesn't work! Instead we rely on something called Quantum Theory, which is very accurate at allowing us to understand the universe on the smallest scales, and at the level of it's very building blocks. But Quantum Theory does not work on larger scales. So we rely on both these theories for an accurate understanding of everything and yet they are mutually incompatible. 

This tends to suggest that we still have a lot more to learn about the laws of physics themselves, that currently our understanding of them is less than complete, and we await a 21st century Einstein to come up with some totally new insight and theory that explains everything. A so called "theory of everything" which combines what we know at the Quantum level with what we know at the Relativistic one.

[steve25805 126,021]

23 minutes ago, Potatoman said:

I have another one 😅 theory I wrote at some time: possible explanation for black holes

for this, taking that the whole universe, the „empty“ room itself isn’t empty but made out of something, something that connects everything and is the substance of which every single particle in the whole universe is made of. 

So everything is connected in this „net“, moving is only something like a wave which does not transport mass but stayes the way it is, just moves the energy 

so when you walk, the particles are transported and „replace“ the air in front of you with your body then (of course every atom and substance of which are in energetic motion but you get the concept) 

so in that theory, a black hole could be an entanglement of this net, it normally doesn’t really touch but in that case it would create such a massive gravity that it goes beyond the speed of light or anything else in the rest of the universe, because it is something that isn’t supposed to happen and thus is unnatural 

 

makes sense? Any comments on that, things I didn’t think of or anything else are more than welcome 🙂 

I indeed believe there is a kind of energy that permeates the entire universe. I believe it is that from which spiritual entities are created and the stuff our souls were formed from, but that is heading well beyond the bounds of current scientific understanding.

I do suspect that black holes in some sense are the birthplaces of new universes, and that the Big Bang that began ours was created with a pre-existing black hole.

Certainly as physically and mathematically predictable entities, black holes stretch our understanding of the laws of physics well beyond breaking point. The laws of physics as we know them break down completely beyond the event horizon.

We have zero real clue as to what lies inside them, or what laws of physics or nature apply there. It certainly seems that whatever takes place in there is likely to be well outside our current ability to even guess at, let alone understand.

[spywareonya 37,961]

15 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

I do suspect that black holes in some sense are the birthplaces of new universes, and that the Big Bang that began ours was created with a pre-existing black hole.

The don't contain enough stuff

They look fascinating to us but are nothing more than a big mass of matter

Big Bang originated from pre-existing multidimensional Strings grinding together

[steve25805 126,021]

3 minutes ago, spywareonya said:

The don't contain enough stuff

They look fascinating to us but are nothing more than a big mass of matter

Big Bang originated from pre-existing multidimensional Strings grinding together

Possibly. We don't know.

Currently, theory seems to suggest that everything inside a black hole is crushed into an infinitesimally small single point, dubbed a singularity. The rest of the space between that point and the event horizon - inside which even light cannot escape - supposedly contains nothing, because everything that fell in is virtually crushed out of existence at a central point. The region surrounding that singularity out to the event horizon is nevertheless a region where our current laws of physics break down and make no sense at all. So we cannot really know anything about the conditions here.

[spywareonya 37,961]

8 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

Possibly. We don't know.

Currently, theory seems to suggest that everything inside a black hole is crushed into an infinitesimally small single point, dubbed a singularity. The rest of the space between that point and the event horizon - inside which even light cannot escape - supposedly contains nothing, because everything that fell in is virtually crushed out of existence at a central point. The region surrounding that singularity out to the event horizon is nevertheless a region where our current laws of physics break down and make no sense at all. So we cannot really know anything about the conditions here.

Singularity is un unreal concept

We should talk of almost-singularity

And an almost singularity keep the "quantum info" thus the amount of matter stands

This means that a black hole contain only a microscopical portion of the amount of matter that could build a Big bang

Also, a Big bang needs a deSitter space for itself to be ensufflated into, thus this means a 3-d universe can be born ONLY from an at-least 4-d string/membrane/universe, it cannot simply split from another 3-d universe

[steve25805 126,021]

3 minutes ago, spywareonya said:

Singularity is un unreal concept

We should talk of almost-singularity

And an almost singularity keep the "quantum info" thus the amount of matter stands

This means that a black hole contain only a microscopical portion of the amount of matter that could build a Big bang

Also, a Big bang needs a deSitter space for itself to be ensufflated into, thus this means a 3-d universe can be born ONLY from an at-least 4-d string/membrane/universe, it cannot simply split from another 3-d universe

Maybe, but I am uncertain.

Too much is unknowable at the moment so neither of us has absolute certainty or truth. We can only theorise. 

Some black holes are vast and may be destined eventually to swallow all the galaxy matter surrounding them. And maybe ultimately coalesce with others. The timescales could be vast - trillions of years. We just don't know.

And matter can be converted into energy, and energy into matter. Matter indeed is itself possibly best understood as energy in another form. Who knows under what circumstances vastly more matter might be created?

Let me say that whilst I suspect the way they exist beyond the known laws of physics leads me to suspect there is much more to these things than we know, and that they have a potential significance we don't yet grasp, I am not wholly convinced that they can be the birthplaces for new universes or that ours was born in one.  But I do not deny the possibility. Just as I do not reject other possibilities.

There is too much we don't understand for any real certainty here. 

Neither of us can know. We can just throw theories around which is basically all we are doing.

[spywareonya 37,961]

1 hour ago, steve25805 said:

neither of us

You are forgetting I was made privy to secret circles of scientists

Ihihihi!!!

But I don't wanna talk ex-cathedra

Yet believe me, I have been studying these things for ten years, many "mysteries" are not such, they look mysterious only because only a portion of the truth is disclosed on the web to non-scientists, and these little portions surely crash when they must face new levels

Yet the laws governing those new levels are alredy known and are marvellous, but not mysterious, nor related to "Impossible and Beyond"

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

5 hours ago, spywareonya said:

You are forgetting I was made privy to secret circles of scientists

Ihihihi!!!

But I don't wanna talk ex-cathedra

Yet believe me, I have been studying these things for ten years, many "mysteries" are not such, they look mysterious only because only a portion of the truth is disclosed on the web to non-scientists

Yet the laws governing those new levels are alredy known and are marvellous, but not mysterious, nor related to "Impossible and Beyond"

Just think, in 1936 it was believed that the sound barrier would never be broken, but it was just 11 years later. I think we will find a way around light speed problems, hasn't that LHC already found particles that appear to be faster than light?

I just want General Electric to get of their butts and release Mr Fusion to the world, just think of the difference to the planet that this one invention would make? Unlimited power just by throwing in your rubbish, solve two of the greatest world issues in one hit.

[spywareonya 37,961]

3 minutes ago, Scot_Lover said:

Just think, in 1936 it was believed that the sound barrier would never be broken, but it was just 11 years later. I think we will find a way around light speed problems, hasn't that LHC already found particles that appear to be faster than light?

I just want General Electric to get of their butts and release Mr Fusion to the world, just think of the difference to the planet that this one invention would make? Unlimited power just by throwing in your rubbish, solve two of the greatest world issues in one hit.

Faster than light particles requires the energy of a Sun to move a single molecule. No, it won't work. We'll never break light speed. The best we can do is learn to create wormholes but it requires a scientifical knowledge we'll not master before centuries.

 

For fusion, it already exists, it simply isn't deployed so to keep us all in slavery

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

2 minutes ago, spywareonya said:

Faster than light particles requires the energy of a Sun to move a single molecule. No, it won't work. We'll never break light speed. The best we can do is learn to create wormholes but it requires a scientifical knowledge we'll not master before centuries.

 

For fusion, it already exists, it simply isn't deployed so to keep us all in slavery

Hence the 'get off their butts' lol.

The Large Hadron Collider doesn't just run off a couple AA Batteries either 😊

There has been studies about a technology that basically creates a worm hole in front of a spacecraft, effectively removing the ship from 'local' space. It's feasible, but no one knows how to accomplish it, lol

 

 

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 minutes ago, Scot_Lover said:

Hence the 'get off their butts' lol.

The Large Hadron Collider doesn't just run off a couple AA Batteries either 😊

There has been studies about a technology that basically creates a worm hole in front of a spacecraft, effectively removing the ship from 'local' space. It's feasible, but no one knows how to accomplish it, lol

 

 

We need time

And we also need riches to stop impairing this all

[steve25805 126,021]

10 hours ago, spywareonya said:

You are forgetting I was made privy to secret circles of scientists

Ihihihi!!!

But I don't wanna talk ex-cathedra

Yet believe me, I have been studying these things for ten years, many "mysteries" are not such, they look mysterious only because only a portion of the truth is disclosed on the web to non-scientists, and these little portions surely crash when they must face new levels

Yet the laws governing those new levels are alredy known and are marvellous, but not mysterious, nor related to "Impossible and Beyond"

I have had a lifelong interest in scientific things too, but whilst I defer to your judgement on matters spiritual, I will always think for myself in other areas.

I hope you can respect that.

I continue to believe that there is much we do not know about black holes and have no clue about how the laws of physics operate beyond the event horizon. Only ideas and theories.

Any ideas and theories cosmologists might have regarding these things I'd be happy to hear and read.

If scientists understood these things they would share that knowledge with us in the form of scientific papers and publications. That's what scientists do.

The late Stephen Hawking was forever going on about black holes. He always shared his thoughts and theories and ideas with his fellow scientists and indeed the rest of us.

What I cannot really do is accept on faith claims to secret scientific knowledge. I need to see the science for myself and - more importantly - see it run by other scientists openly, and tested by their peers - to accept it. Science is never something I can accept on faith alone, but needs to be based upon openly shared and discussed knowledge.