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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#696784

On 7/27/2018 4:22 PM, Double-A wrote:
> 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?

Not sure if we can even reach the border. Perhaps we are locked within 
the blackhole.

Think if our parent universe created new child universes contained 
within some of its various black holes. This "special" breed is crazy 
giant and formed from super clusters of black holes merging together 
into one unit within our parent universe.

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

#696020

Am 27.07.2018 um 23:29 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> 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.

We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.

Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x' 
direction).

Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of 
relativistic shrinking.

The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform, caused by high 
velocity and a changing axis of time.

If we would apply a Lorentz transform to a large piece of space, the 3d 
version off length contraction would look like a black hole.

There the axis of time points away from our world and sucks everything 
in reach into a timelike future.

Then the stuff sucked in pops out of nowhere in a different world, which 
we cannot see and whoms inhabitants cannot see us.

They would call the process of creation 'big bang', while we would call 
it 'big crunch'  or 'super-massive black hole'.

Both views are in fact wrong, since actually we would only experience 
the usual behavior of the axis of time.

TH


..

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

#696031

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 27.07.2018 um 23:29 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> 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:
>>>>> 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.
> 
> We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.

But that would be “not even wrong”.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x' 
> direction).

Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
−x direction.

> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of 
> relativistic shrinking.
> 
> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,

No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.

> caused by high velocity

By ANY NON-ZERO RELATIVE velocity v.  The Lorentz transformation
of the coordinate of space in the direction of relative motion is

   x' = γ (x − v t)    (1).

We consider two spatially separated events

  e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁')
  e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂').

By application of (1) and the assumption of linearity regarding uniform
motion and the passage of time, it follows trivially:

  x₁' = γ (x₁ − v t₁)
  x₂' = γ (x₂ − v t₂)

  ∆x  = x₂  − x₁
  ∆t  = t₂  − t₁
  ∆x' = x₂' − x₁'

→ ∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)

When we measure lengths we measure the distance in space between end points
AT THE SAME TIME:

   t₁ = t₂
→ ∆t  = 0

→ ∆x' = γ ∆x
  ∆x  = ∆x'∕γ

  γ  := 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) > 1 if v ≠ 0.

→ ∆x  < ∆x'                if v ≠ 0. ∎

> and a changing axis of time.

There is no “changing axis of time”.  You have STILL not even understood
SPECIAL relativity.

Once again (how many more times do I have to explain that to you?):
In a Minkowski spacetime diagram –

  time
  ^
  :
  :
  :
  :
  :
  :
  '-------------> space

–, the axis of time (with coordinates t') of a frame of reference that is
moving parallel to the axis of space of a chosen rest frame (with
coordinates x) has to be skewed compared to the axis of time of that rest
frame (with coordinates t) because the x-origin of the moving frame
(x' = 0) is moving relative to the rest frame, and in the moving frame, too,
proper time has to be measured:

    t      t'
    ^      ^
    :     :
    :    :
    :   :
    :  :
    : :
    ::
    :-------------> x
   :
  x' = 0

The x-axis of the moving frame (with coordinates x') is skewed compared to
the axis of space of the rest frame because of the RELATIVITY OF
SIMULTANEITY (t₁ = t₂ = t₁' → t₂ < t₂') that is a consequence of the
isotropic speed of light (c = const.):

  t      t'
  ^      ^
  :     :
  :    :
  :   :        _> x'
  :  :     _.-'
  : :  _.-'
  ::.-'
  +-------------> x
  :\
  : \
  :  x' = 0
  :
  x = 0

As a result, because we define length as the distance in space between two
end points in space AT THE SAME TIME, lengths in the rest frame (t₁ = t₂)
are shorter than the otherwise same lengths in the moving frame (t₁' = t₂').

                          t₂'
                 ∆x' _.-:
                 _.-'   :
             _.-'     . :
  t₁, t₁'  -'-----------' t₂
          x₁     ∆x     x₂

  ∆x'² = ∆x²  + (t₂' − t₁)²
  ∆x²  = ∆x'² − (t₂' − t₂)²

→ ∆x²  < ∆x'²    [all lengths are positive, so: ]

  ∆x   < ∆x' ∎.

    [Yes, the Pythagorean theorem.  Special relativity is that simple.]

> If we would apply a Lorentz transform to a large piece of space, the 3d 
> version off length contraction would look like a black hole.

No, it would not.  Black holes are a consequence of GENERAL relativity,
where spacetime is CURVED in the presence of (non-zero) energy–momentum density.

> [more nonsense]

Your posting this in rec.arts.sf.written was appropriate because it is
PURE FICTION.  (Your amok-crossposting was inappropriate.)

Pass Physics 101 first.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#698199 — Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

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

Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy" 
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).

Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.

Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.

Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us 
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
   is the most likley outcome.

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

#698200 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> creation out of nothing.
>>
>> Where did the matter come from?
>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> 
> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> 
> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> 
> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> 
> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
>     is the most likley outcome.
> 

Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a 
black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg 
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from? 
Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive star that went 
ultra, hyper nova? If so, what the heck created it, and what created the 
intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?

Was GOD every truly alone?

Argh!

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

#698203 — Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris asked:
> Where did the first black hole originate from? 

Exergy is always diminishing ( i.e. entropy is increasing );
whether we think it's a lot or little is a matter of opinion.

> Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive 
> star that went ultra, hyper nova? 

There's a beginning, and an edge, to "The Known Universe";
outside of that is "the random universe", 
where anything can happen.

> If so, what the heck created it, and what created the 
> intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?

Intrinsically, nothing is random.
Randomness is just ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

The 4 dimensional TimeScape is static, immutable, eternal;
it is, at once, everything _ and nothing.

We call ourselves "consumers" and the GDP measures our progress.
We're "robot aliens" ( consumption machines ), exploiting a niche,
(poorly) programmed by nature to take the LessBad "option".

> Was GOD every truly alone? Argh!

Mother Nature is God; she is everything and nothing.

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

#698362 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >>> creation out of nothing.
> >>
> >> Where did the matter come from?
> >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> >
> > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> >
> > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> >
> > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> >
> > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> >     is the most likley outcome.
> >
> 
> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?


The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang. 

Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.

In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die. 


The Starmaker

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

#698381 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > >>
> > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > >
> > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > >
> > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > >
> > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > >
> > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > >
> >
> > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> 
> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> 
> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> 
> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> 
> The Starmaker


I mean...i thought i explained all this already..

the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.

In other words, just the right amount of stars.


The Starmaker

I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars. 

Too many stars is what caused the big bang.


i even already provided an illustration:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.


for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.

Do you need a list?

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

#698383 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > > >
> > > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > > >
> > > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > > >
> > > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> >
> > The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> >
> > Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> >
> > In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> I mean...i thought i explained all this already..
> 
> the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.
> 
> In other words, just the right amount of stars.
> 
> The Starmaker
> 
> I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.
> 
> Too many stars is what caused the big bang.
> 
> i even already provided an illustration:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.
> 
> for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.
> 
> Do you need a list?




To put it simply, the universe was ...different. 

It used to be different.

And the way it is today is because

it didn't work very well before..

So new laws of physics had to be made.

Before, when the universe was different...stars didn't die.

They didn't burn out.

Which caused a problem..

with so many new stars being born...

it simply ran out of space.

Now, you have plenty of space.



The question is, why is it so hard for yous to understand this?

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

#695390

[Please do not crosspost without Followup-To.  F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> <sci-fi>

Yes, it is, for the most part.  And it appears to have little to do with my
posting.

> 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.

A common misconception.

Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion.  Keep
in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*.  The name stuck,
therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.

The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
happened/happens everywhere in our universe.  Regarding the event, because
our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
that is what our universe is.  The theory says that spacetime began with
the Big Bang event:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
|
| […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
| empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]

> Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally 
> merged together.

An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
that it is correct).  IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
of a supermassive black hole (see also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).

Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question

,-<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3453>
|
| Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
| is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
| created?

after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:

| A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
| about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
| universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
| from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
| the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.

This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
general relativity) by a professional physicist.

> Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single 
> pixel in the following rendering:

Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe.  The “larger universe” would
be the multiverse.

IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation.  However, it appears to have
been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release.  The final
dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#695398

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> [Please do not crosspost without Followup-To.  F’up2 sci.physics.relativity]
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > <sci-fi>
> 
> Yes, it is, for the most part.  And it appears to have little to do with my
> posting.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> A common misconception.
> 
> Contrary to what the term implies, the Big Bang is NOT an explosion.  Keep
> in mind that the term was coined by Fred Hoyle in order to *mock* adherents
> of the now-confirmed theory of universal *expansion*.  The name stuck,
> therefore we call it the Big Bang theory today.
> 
> The Big Bang as an event was not local in any sense of the word, but as an
> event was and as a process is global in every sense of the word: It
> happened/happens everywhere in our universe.  Regarding the event, because
> our universe was infinitesimally small back then; regarding now, because
> that is what our universe is.  The theory says that spacetime began with
> the Big Bang event:
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space>
> |
> | […] The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an
> | empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere […]
> 
> > Perhaps a cluster of ultra massive black holes all finally
> > merged together.
> 
> An interesting idea that might be difficult to disprove (which does not mean
> that it is correct).  IIUC it is a distinct possibility – and not
> science-fiction – that what we think is our universe is actually the inside
> of a supermassive black hole (see also:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).
> 
> Dr. Lawrence Krauss answered to the question
> 
> ,-<https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=3453>
> |
> | Q: […] If quantum fluctuations are able to actually produce universes […],
> | is there ever a chance we might actually observe another universe being
> | created?
> 
> after his (great) 2009 talk “A Universe from Nothing”:
> 
> | A: […] But interestingly enough – and this is one of the wonderful things
> | about general relativity ­– if a baby universe got created, an inflating
> | universe like the one we think we began in, it’s really weird: Because
> | from the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially; from
> | the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole.
> 
> This answer has puzzled me since I have heard it, and I would appreciate
> an explanation in simple terms (I have not yet a full understanding of
> general relativity) by a professional physicist.
> 
> > Wrt a larger universe, the big bang could be a single
> > pixel in the following rendering:
> 
> Not the Big Bang, but our observable universe.  The “larger universe” would
> be the multiverse.
> 
> IIUC, this is the theory of eternal inflation.  However, it appears to have
> been disproved by the “Planck” space probe’s 2015 data release.  The final
> dataset of the mission was just released, which might indicate something
> else; I have not had time to look at (analyses of) it.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation>
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



More nonsense!

It's like a disease!!!!

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

#695456

The Starmaker amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> More nonsense!

Unfortunately.

> It's like a disease!!!!

  Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
    -- Terry Pratchett

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#695488

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > More nonsense!
> 
> Unfortunately.
> 
> > It's like a disease!!!!
> 
>   Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
>     -- Terry Pratchett
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



for heaven's sake!!!


How many exclaimination points are reqired when you say
for heaven's sake!!!

1
2
3
or 4?


Learn English!



and...get your stupid fuckin quotes right, i don't like it when people post wrong, inaccurate and untrue information on the internet!



“Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” -- Terry Pratchett
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51665-five-exclamation-marks-the-sure-sign-of-an-insane-mind



Learn to quote, learn to count. I see only four of my exclimination points.  It's like a disease!!!!




Don't mess with the lion's tail.

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

#695167

On 7/22/2018 5:26 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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????
> 
Hey deep thinker, exactly HOW do you know you are at the center of the 
universe. For most of us here from our reference frame you are more than 
just a little bit off center!

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

#695189

On 2018-07-22 21:26:15 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> 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????

*
Please don't.

earle
*

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

#695210

The Starmaker wrote:
> 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????
> 
--------------

Mankind must be some kind of centre.

God created the universe, then He created mankind
and He revealed to him the unknowable.

So mankind must take these things to the edges.

cd

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

#695301

On Sunday, July 22, 2018 at 2:26:26 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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????

Human brain has to look out from the universe's center.That way it has a reference point.Bert

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

#695322

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> has a 
reference point in ------- Glazier's Dossier -------
e.g. <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker>
and <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-de-Minting> by
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
 of <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent>

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

#695568

Are you comparing yourself with a computer Roy Masters?
I thought you were a monkey brain... that beats the
AI...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#695767

On 7/25/2018 3:44 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Are you comparing yourself with a computer Roy Masters?
> I thought you were a monkey brain... that beats the
> AI...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

so Roy Masters has a monkey brain, but only with ARTIFICIAL (not real)
Intelligence.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web