Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #695110 > unrolled thread

Deep Thought

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-22 14:26 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-23 16:43 +0200
      Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 18:08 +0200
        Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-23 21:45 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-24 11:42 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:52 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-25 22:31 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-25 23:36 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:00 -0400
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 11:23 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 19:45 -0400
                Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:56 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:00 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-07-27 17:01 +1000
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-27 10:38 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-28 10:38 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:29 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-07-27 16:22 -0700
                        Gravity is residual eXergy. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-07-27 16:34 -0700
                        Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-02 15:36 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-28 12:00 +0200
                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 14:44 +0200
                  Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 15:59 -0700
                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-12 16:15 -0700
                      Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 21:20 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 23:42 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-14 00:36 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 21:19 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 13:04 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 03:36 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 22:44 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:05 -0400
    Re: Deep Thought Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-07-23 10:47 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought "C. Deifir" <cdf@dfr.net.inv> - 2018-07-23 21:18 +0100
    Re: Deep Thought "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 18:05 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-23 21:04 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 13:44 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 16:49 -0500
    Re: Deep Thought "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:45 -0700
      Re: Deep Thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-26 11:36 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#695110 — Deep Thought

i always thought the earth
was at the center
 of the universe..
but i just had a
deep thought!

I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!

if i look up
i see the universe
if i point right
there is the universe
to my left is the universe
but..below my feet
IS THE UNIVERSE!


I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!


wat do i do now, do i write a book????

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#695163

Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
> i always thought the earth
> was at the center
>   of the universe..
> but i just had a
> deep thought!
> 
> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
>

What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is 
called in relativity 'past light cone'.

This is meant as our own past light cone, in which we are in fact at the 
center.

This is so, wherever we go and whoever we are.

> if i look up
> i see the universe
> if i point right
> there is the universe
> to my left is the universe
> but..below my feet
> IS THE UNIVERSE!
> 
> 
> I AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> 
> wat do i do now, do i write a book????
> 

Well, writing a book is certainly a possibility. But to go swimming or 
watching tv is also possible.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695171

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> i always thought the earth
>> was at the center
>>   of the universe..
>> but i just had a
>> deep thought!
>>
>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> 
> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is 
> called in relativity 'past light cone'.

No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.

For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695327

On 7/23/2018 9:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> i always thought the earth
>>> was at the center
>>>    of the universe..
>>> but i just had a
>>> deep thought!
>>>
>>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
>>
>> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
>> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
> 
> No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
> 
> For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
> distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
> the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and its
> remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
> 

<sci-fi>
I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger 
universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally 
merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single 
pixel in the following rendering:

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
(a zoom...)

</sci-fi>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695335

Am 24.07.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 7/23/2018 9:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> i always thought the earth
>>>> was at the center
>>>>    of the universe..
>>>> but i just had a
>>>> deep thought!
>>>>
>>>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
>>>
>>> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
>>> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
>>
>> No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
>>
>> For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
>> distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
>> the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and 
>> its
>> remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
>>
> 
> <sci-fi>
> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger 
> universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally 
> merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single 
> pixel in the following rendering:
> 
> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> 
> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> (a zoom...)
> 
> </sci-fi>

Nice pictures!

I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little 
world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.

To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the 
underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).

Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the 
event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#

This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look 
like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.

Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such 
'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.

Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new 
'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not 
universal at all.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695374

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 24.07.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> > On 7/23/2018 9:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>> i always thought the earth
> >>>> was at the center
> >>>>    of the universe..
> >>>> but i just had a
> >>>> deep thought!
> >>>>
> >>>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
> >>>
> >>> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
> >>> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
> >>
> >> No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
> >>
> >> For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
> >> distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it (i.e.
> >> the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star and
> >> its
> >> remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
> >>
> >
> > <sci-fi>
> > I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
> > more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much larger
> > universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
> > merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
> > pixel in the following rendering:
> >
> > http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> >
> > http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> > (a zoom...)
> >
> > </sci-fi>
> 
> Nice pictures!
> 
> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
> 
> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
> 
> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
> 
> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
> 
> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
> 
> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
> universal at all.
> 
> TH


dat doesn't make any sense at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695449

On 7/24/2018 2:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.07.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> On 7/23/2018 9:08 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 22.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> i always thought the earth
>>>>> was at the center
>>>>>    of the universe..
>>>>> but i just had a
>>>>> deep thought!
>>>>>
>>>>> I AM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!
>>>>
>>>> What we call 'universe' is not that universal. Actually it is what is
>>>> called in relativity 'past light cone'.
>>>
>>> No, it is not.  That is just your fantasy, as you have be told before.
>>>
>>> For example, if a star goes supernova but due to universal expansion the
>>> distance of it to me increases so fast that I will never observe it 
>>> (i.e.
>>> the supernova is or becomes a spacelike-separated event), the star 
>>> and its
>>> remnants are *still* a part of my/the universe.
>>>
>>
>> <sci-fi>
>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much 
>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all 
>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be 
>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>
>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>
>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>> (a zoom...)
>>
>> </sci-fi>
> 
> Nice pictures!

Thank you. :^)

> 
> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little 
> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.

Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load 
of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single, 
crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following 
online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained 
within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/

Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically 
create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then 
click a couple of points within the parametric square.

Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.

> 
> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the 
> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
> 
> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the 
> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
> 
> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look 
> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
> 
> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such 
> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own space.
> 
> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new 
> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not 
> universal at all.

Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling 
that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will 
continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I 
just have a little feeling.

Sorry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695564

Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

>>> <sci-fi>
>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing 
>>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much 
>>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all 
>>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be 
>>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>>
>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>>
>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>>> (a zoom...)
>>>
>>> </sci-fi>
>>
>> Nice pictures!
> 
> Thank you. :^)
> 
>>
>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little 
>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
> 
> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load 
> of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single, 
> crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following 
> online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained 
> within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
> 
> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
> 
> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically 
> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then 
> click a couple of points within the parametric square.
> 
> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.


Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could 
possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions 
(complex four vectors).

I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.

(btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )


>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the 
>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
>>
>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the 
>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
>>
>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look 
>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
>>
>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such 
>> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own 
>> space.
>>
>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new 
>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not 
>> universal at all.
> 
> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling 
> that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will 
> continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I 
> just have a little feeling.

https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142

The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually 
split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to 
nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what 
apparently does not happen).

That would be a creation out of nothing.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695643

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> 
> >>> <sci-fi>
> >>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
> >>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
> >>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
> >>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
> >>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> >>>
> >>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> >>> (a zoom...)
> >>>
> >>> </sci-fi>
> >>
> >> Nice pictures!
> >
> > Thank you. :^)
> >
> >>
> >> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
> >> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
> >
> > Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
> > of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
> > crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
> > online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
> > within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
> >
> > http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
> >
> > Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
> > create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
> > click a couple of points within the parametric square.
> >
> > Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
> 
> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
> (complex four vectors).
> 
> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
> 
> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
> 
> >> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
> >> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
> >>
> >> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
> >> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
> >>
> >> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
> >> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
> >>
> >> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
> >> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own
> >> space.
> >>
> >> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
> >> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
> >> universal at all.
> >
> > Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
> > that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
> > continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
> > just have a little feeling.
> 
> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
> 
> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
> apparently does not happen).
> 
> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> 
> TH

nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.


In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".


So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695685

On 7/26/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>
>>>>> <sci-fi>
>>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
>>>>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
>>>>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
>>>>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
>>>>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>>>>> (a zoom...)
>>>>>
>>>>> </sci-fi>
>>>>
>>>> Nice pictures!
>>>
>>> Thank you. :^)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
>>>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
>>>
>>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
>>> of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
>>> crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
>>> online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
>>> within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
>>>
>>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
>>>
>>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
>>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
>>> click a couple of points within the parametric square.
>>>
>>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
>>
>> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
>> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
>> (complex four vectors).
>>
>> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
>>
>> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
>>
>>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
>>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
>>>>
>>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
>>>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
>>>>
>>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
>>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
>>>>
>>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
>>>> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
>>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
>>>> universal at all.
>>>
>>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
>>> that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
>>> continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
>>> just have a little feeling.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
>>
>> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
>> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
>> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
>> apparently does not happen).
>>
>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
>>
>> TH
> 
> nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
> 
> 
> In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
> 
> 
> So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
> 
That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.
You are STILL an idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695731

benj wrote:
> 
> On 7/26/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> >>
> >>>>> <sci-fi>
> >>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
> >>>>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
> >>>>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
> >>>>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
> >>>>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
> >>>>> (a zoom...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> </sci-fi>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice pictures!
> >>>
> >>> Thank you. :^)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
> >>>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
> >>>
> >>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
> >>> of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
> >>> crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
> >>> online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
> >>> within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
> >>>
> >>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
> >>>
> >>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
> >>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
> >>> click a couple of points within the parametric square.
> >>>
> >>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
> >>
> >> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
> >> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
> >> (complex four vectors).
> >>
> >> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
> >>
> >> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
> >>
> >>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
> >>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
> >>>>
> >>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
> >>>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
> >>>>
> >>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
> >>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
> >>>> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own
> >>>> space.
> >>>>
> >>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
> >>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
> >>>> universal at all.
> >>>
> >>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
> >>> that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
> >>> continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
> >>> just have a little feeling.
> >>
> >> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
> >>
> >> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
> >> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
> >> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
> >> apparently does not happen).
> >>
> >> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
> >
> >
> > In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
> >
> >
> > So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
> >
> That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.



There is nothing scientific about nothing since physics is about the properties of...something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695796

On 7/26/2018 2:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
>>
>> On 7/26/2018 2:36 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>>>
>>>>>>> <sci-fi>
>>>>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be nothing
>>>>>>> more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a much
>>>>>>> larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all
>>>>>>> finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be
>>>>>>> a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>>>>>>> (a zoom...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </sci-fi>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice pictures!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little
>>>>>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% load
>>>>> of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a single,
>>>>> crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the following
>>>>> online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, contained
>>>>> within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically
>>>>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, then
>>>>> click a couple of points within the parametric square.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
>>>>
>>>> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could
>>>> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions
>>>> (complex four vectors).
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
>>>>
>>>> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
>>>>
>>>>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the
>>>>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the
>>>>>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look
>>>>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any such
>>>>>> 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its own
>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new
>>>>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not
>>>>>> universal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange feeling
>>>>> that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always there, will
>>>>> continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure at all! I
>>>>> just have a little feeling.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142
>>>>
>>>> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually
>>>> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to
>>>> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what
>>>> apparently does not happen).
>>>>
>>>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> nothing doesn't exist..there will always be something where there is nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words...you cannot "creation out of nothing" since 'creation' means..."bring *something* into existence".
>>>
>>>
>>> So, something comes from nothing...(using your own words 'creation')
>>>
>> That is a really deep scientific thought, faker.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing scientific about nothing since physics is about the properties of...something.
> 
By your own "logic" nothing is something and thus a proper study of 
science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695650

On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> 
>>>> <sci-fi>
>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be 
>>>> nothing more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within a 
>>>> much larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes 
>>>> all finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big bang 
>>>> could be a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>>>> (a zoom...)
>>>>
>>>> </sci-fi>
>>>
>>> Nice pictures!
>>
>> Thank you. :^)
>>
>>>
>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our little 
>>> world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
>>
>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% 
>> load of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a 
>> single, crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the 
>> following online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, 
>> contained within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
>>
>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
>>
>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically 
>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, 
>> then click a couple of points within the parametric square.
>>
>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
> 
> 
> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could 
> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or bi-quaternions 
> (complex four vectors).

This fractal uses 2d vectors

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ just uses 2d

with the following main generating function:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L2nRCOyN45E/discussion
(read all...)

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/test_formula.html


> 
> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
> 
> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )

Will do. Thanks.

> 
> 
>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the 
>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
>>>
>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at the 
>>> event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
>>>
>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look 
>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
>>>
>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any 
>>> such 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its 
>>> own space.
>>>
>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new 
>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not 
>>> universal at all.
>>
>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange 
>> feeling that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always 
>> there, will continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not sure 
>> at all! I just have a little feeling.
> 
> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 
> 
> 
> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually 
> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to 
> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what 
> apparently does not happen).
> 
> That would be a creation out of nothing.

Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695653

On 7/25/2018 11:56 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 25.07.2018 um 01:52 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>
>>>>> <sci-fi>
>>>>> I have always had a little feeling that the big bang might be 
>>>>> nothing more than a local hyper massive explosion contained within 
>>>>> a much larger universe. Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black 
>>>>> holes all finally merged together. Wrt a larger universe, the big 
>>>>> bang could be a single pixel in the following rendering:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17379
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=17386
>>>>> (a zoom...)
>>>>>
>>>>> </sci-fi>
>>>>
>>>> Nice pictures!
>>>
>>> Thank you. :^)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think, the universe is actually a very large fractal and our 
>>>> little world is nothing but a 'chapter' in a much larger story.
>>>
>>> Think of a fractal where branching points are the result of a shi% 
>>> load of hyper massive black holes finally merging together into a 
>>> single, crazy massive black hole. Well, think if each branch in the 
>>> following online 2d vector field simulation of mine was a universe, 
>>> contained within a black hole centered at the point of bifurcation:
>>>
>>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/
>>>
>>> Now, if this works for you, one can click on a point to dynamically 
>>> create a new attracting point. Let it run for a couple of minutes, 
>>> then click a couple of points within the parametric square.
>>>
>>> Fwiw, I am working on an interactive OpenGL 3d version.
>>
>>
>> Fractals require complex numbers (in '4D') and the universe could 
>> possibly be based on something similar to quaternions or 
>> bi-quaternions (complex four vectors).
> 
> This fractal uses 2d vectors
> 
> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ just uses 2d
> 
> with the following main generating function:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L2nRCOyN45E/discussion
> (read all...)
> 
> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/test_formula.html 

Fwiw, division by zero can possibly occur, so test out the value of the 
denominator before performing the division. Take a look at the following 
code of mine:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ct_field.js

Notice the following function:
______________________
ct_field.prototype.calc_point = function(p, npow)
{
     var g = [0, 0, 0];
     var imax = this.m_pts.length;
     var ESP = 0.0000001;

     for (var i = 0; i < imax; ++i)
     {
         var e = this.m_pts[i];

         var dif = [e[0] - p[0], e[1] - p[1], e[2] - p[2]];

         var sum = dif[0] * dif[0] + dif[1] * dif[1] + dif[2] * dif[2];

         var mass = Math.pow(sum, npow);

         if (mass > ESP && ! isNaN(mass) && isFinite(mass))
         {
             g[0] = g[0] + e[3] * dif[0] / mass;
             g[1] = g[1] + e[3] * dif[1] / mass;
             g[2] = g[2] + e[3] * dif[2] / mass;
         }
     }

     var dis = Math.sqrt(g[0] * g[0] + g[1] * g[1] + g[2] * g[2]);

     if (dis < ESP) dis = ESP;

     g[0] = g[0] / dis;
     g[1] = g[1] / dis;
     g[2] = g[2] / dis;

     return g;
};
______________________

Focus on:
______________________
         if (mass > ESP && ! isNaN(mass) && isFinite(mass))
         {
             g[0] = g[0] + e[3] * dif[0] / mass;
             g[1] = g[1] + e[3] * dif[1] / mass;
             g[2] = g[2] + e[3] * dif[2] / mass;
         }
______________________

This ensures that no divide by zero can occur...

Sometimes, I dream about a divide by zero error creating something out 
of nothing. ;^)


> 
> 
> 
>>
>> I'm actually following this idea and it looks quite promising.
>>
>> (btw - you may have look at my 'book' here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6  )
> 
> Will do. Thanks.
> 
>>
>>
>>>> To understand the idea of big bang, you need to think about the 
>>>> underlying axioms of big-bang theory (which are - of course - wrong).
>>>>
>>>> Big-bang is based on a single universal time-line, that starts at 
>>>> the event called big-bang and ends (for instance) here.#
>>>>
>>>> This cannot possibly be true. One reason: the universe does not look 
>>>> like an expanding two-dimensional sphere.
>>>>
>>>> Better solution: there are multiple timelines possible and to any 
>>>> such 'axis of time' belongs a different 'time domaine' which has its 
>>>> own space.
>>>>
>>>> Such a space could pop out of nowhere and subsequently build a new 
>>>> 'universe'. But that 'universe' is just a local impression and not 
>>>> universal at all.
>>>
>>> Imvvvvho, it did not pop out of "nowhere". I just have a strange 
>>> feeling that it was, perhaps never created at all! It was always 
>>> there, will continue to be, and will never pass away. Humm... Not 
>>> sure at all! I just have a little feeling.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.de/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142 
>>
>>
>> The theory of Prof. Peter Rowlands was, that nothing could actually 
>> split into opposite directions. The one side could add to the other to 
>> nothing again, if these sides would ever combine to again (what 
>> apparently does not happen).
>>
>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the "big-bang"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695840

Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
> On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

<Snip>

>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
> "big-bang"?

The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came 
from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The 
Big Bank!!
-- 
Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695905

Daniel60 wrote:
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
> > On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> >> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> >
> > Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
> > "big-bang"?
> 
> The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
> from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
> Big Bank!!
> --
> Daniel


i don't understand, didn't you learn anything? i explained everything already..

before the big bang the universe became over populated with ...stars.

Here is an illustration:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.


It's very simple...'it's no longer a question', i answered it already.



(it's not my fault you got stupid teachers in skool)


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#696058

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Daniel60 wrote:
> >
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
> > > On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > >> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> > >
> > > Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
> > > "big-bang"?
> >
> > The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
> > from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
> > Big Bank!!
> > --
> > Daniel
> 
> i don't understand, didn't you learn anything? i explained everything already..
> 
> before the big bang the universe became over populated with ...stars.
> 
> Here is an illustration:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.
> 
> It's very simple...'it's no longer a question', i answered it already.
> 
> (it's not my fault you got stupid teachers in skool)
> 
> The Starmaker


The progress yous people are making in the 'scientific community zipcode area) is sooooo slow that
i have to hold back information because ...it's just...beyond your comprehension.

Number One, yous seem unable to think before (or even imagine) before the big bang...

How can I go further? For example..what about After the thing yous call 'Heat Death'?

Which is just really not death but Cold.


Here is where yous have a problem...beyond the 'heat death'.

But, i already explained it...


it went from cold to hot...and the big bang is from hot to cold.


yous go one step further...

it goes from cold to hot.


I don't even know if yous have a name for it yet...yous are too slow.


It's like the back of your science text book...it has a blank page.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695944

On 7/27/2018 12:01 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
>> On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
>>
>> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
>> "big-bang"?
> 
> The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came 
> from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The 
> Big Bank!!

I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally 
merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the 
resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has 
many children.

I also wonder if there are male and female "class" black holes within 
said super cluster that finally merged together into a single entity. 
Almost like fish spawning within a liquid.

All sci-fi of course. I simply cannot prove any of it.

Well, it does kind of seen like the "edge" of the universe might 
resemble an event horizon of sorts. It kind of hints that we might be 
totally contained within a black hole residing in our parent universe.

Sound even a tiny bit Kosher? ;^o

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695957

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 2:29:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 7/27/2018 12:01 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
> >> On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > 
> > <Snip>
> > 
> >>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
> >>
> >> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
> >> "big-bang"?
> > 
> > The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came 
> > from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The 
> > Big Bank!!
> 
> I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally 
> merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the 
> resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has 
> many children.
> 
> I also wonder if there are male and female "class" black holes within 
> said super cluster that finally merged together into a single entity. 
> Almost like fish spawning within a liquid.
> 
> All sci-fi of course. I simply cannot prove any of it.
> 
> Well, it does kind of seen like the "edge" of the universe might 
> resemble an event horizon of sorts. It kind of hints that we might be 
> totally contained within a black hole residing in our parent universe.
> 
> Sound even a tiny bit Kosher? ;^o


This big external black hole is such a hard thing to visualize or get the mind around.  But I do believe that Hawking theorized that if one were falling into a black hole, it would appear as though everything else was accelerating away from you!  Isn't that just how we see our universe?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#695959 — Gravity is residual eXergy.

MrAA wrote:
> But I do believe that Hawking theorized that if one were falling into a black hole, 
> it would appear as though everything else was accelerating away from you!  
> Isn't that just how we see our universe?

I doubt he actually said that because the known Universe has no center,
whereas black holes definitely do.

You can't understand gravity unless you understand thermal dynamics,
such as entropy and exergy.    Gravity is residual eXergy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web