Another Brick for a Wall...An origin of time and space

[Scott Mayers]

If at the side of the infinitely large, I asked if we could reach, observe, touch ...The Universe's Wall, this question is to whether we can have a time and spacial origin point, a Singularity?

I think that everything should be explicable at the origin. I don't think that the origin is singular since singularity is inexplicable. The origin however should be unstable, therefore you don't need a mover.

Now try to define, "unstable".

There is no difference to some 'mover'. How can this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something it is not? [ie, "stable"]

I propose only the nature of exhaustion of all possibilities. The 'pattern' of those sub-worlds in totality that have the pattern to maintain 'stability' (a mere concept of consistency) that contrasts to contradiction. I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'.

[Scott Mayers]

By the way, the link of those pictures has an interesting story on the some of this. ...and note the similar problems the astrophysicists see as the problems of the Big Bang theory. Here it is again: Goodbye Big Bang, Hello Hyper Black Hole: A New Theory on Universe's Creation

So what are the limitations of the Big Bang theory? The singularity is one of them. Also, it’s hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost uniform temperature, because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time — as far as we can tell — to reach a temperature equilibrium.

Most cosmologists say the universe must have been expanding faster than the speed of light for this to happen, but Ashford says even that theory has problems: “The Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on.”

[-1-]

The pictures you posted are artists' renditions of black holes.They are not the real thing.

The first picture really stinks. It has these... outbound rays? WTF are those? These are only seen in places where there is an atmosphere... the outbound-rays are typically an interaction of a point-like light source, shadow-causing agents, and the atmosphere with various dust particles or steam to reflect light and the lack of it (in the path of a shadow). The artist should be fired, and the physicist who told her what to draw ought to be hanged.

[bahman]

If at the side of the infinitely large, I asked if we could reach, observe, touch ...The Universe's Wall, this question is to whether we can have a time and spacial origin point, a Singularity?

I think that everything should be explicable at the origin. I don't think that the origin is singular since singularity is inexplicable. The origin however should be unstable, therefore you don't need a mover.

Now try to define, "unstable".

Unstable: It is about to fall.

There is no difference to some 'mover'. How can this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something it is not? [ie, "stable"]

I propose only the nature of exhaustion of all possibilities. The 'pattern' of those sub-worlds in totality that have the pattern to maintain 'stability' (a mere concept of consistency) that contrasts to contradiction. I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'.

I cannot understand what you said here.

[bahman]

Goodbye Big Bang, Hello Hyper Black Hole: A New Theory on Universe's Creation
That if it is true explains how you could have extra universe from a star and black hole. It doesn't explain when things has started.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't believe tiny blackholes are possible,

How big is a black hole, actually? In its material expanse.
How big is an average black hole, anyway?

A "Black Hole" is just a description of the phenomena of an unseen object that is inferred by the kind of eclipse it makes on the background of stars behind it.

If it's black, and / or never been seen, then we don't know how big it is. Ergo, you can't rule out that it's tiny.

The expanse of blackness that we observe in the backdrop of a starry heavenly bode, may be not the size of the black hole, but the spere of influence where it captures light (due to its gravitational force on light).

If by 'tiny' you are meaning small by volume, this is counter to our understanding of "massive". While you CAN increase mass/volume, this density would still be the same but is more speculative of those preferring to see some option open for "worm holes" which are just magical dreams. The actual mass would still require the quantity of substance of a collection of stars...something we could not do here in some lab.

It is also a pipe dream to think that actual fusion might get to some degree of energy that it all of a sudden breaks the general laws we already know to have some 'escape' point that permits perpetual energy. The black holes are only the combined masses of many stars that compress the center of it enough to make the probable event of collisions impossible NOT to form perfect fusion. But this doesn't get lost. The final escape for what matter was will lose its energy at the poles in such extreme high frequencies that approach infinity. We see this effect in similar ways to neutron stars where they 'pulse'. For galaxies, the perpendicular plane to the center has energy shot out at the poles.

[I'm guessing there may be more than one black hole such that they may combine such that the poles of these extras are lined up with the plane of the galaxy instead. It may then permit the formation of the arms of those spirals. Rather than those spiral arms to be thought of pulling in mass towards the center, these may be paths of extra black holes' poles shooting out mass. This would likely explain how and why the speed of the outer arms are not 'slowing down' as is witnessed.]

The pictures you posted are artists' renditions of black holes.They are not the real thing.

The first picture really stinks. It has these... outbound rays? WTF are those? These are only seen in places where there is an atmosphere... the outbound-rays are typically an interaction of a point-like light source, shadow-causing agents, and the atmosphere with various dust particles or steam to reflect light and the lack of it (in the path of a shadow). The artist should be fired, and the physicist who told her what to draw ought to be hanged.

See this article for the point about why most images of black holes are artistically developed and compare to the real pictures there: Most images of black holes are illustrations..

And not that most images of space are just as often touched up artistically for color and sparkling effects for demonstrating their beauty.

[Scott Mayers]

I think that everything should be explicable at the origin. I don't think that the origin is singular since singularity is inexplicable. The origin however should be unstable, therefore you don't need a mover.

Now try to define, "unstable".

Unstable: It is about to fall.

This doesn't fit with the root of the word's meaning though. "un- ..stable" references something assumed 'stable' is aimed for and is only a post-hoc assumption to express why they think we don't have perfect symmetric reality. If reality were perfectly symmetrical, AND our universe is the only one, then the question becomes why do we not have everything not already balanced?

There is no difference to some 'mover'. How can this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something it is not? [ie, "stable"]

I propose only the nature of exhaustion of all possibilities. The 'pattern' of those sub-worlds in totality that have the pattern to maintain 'stability' (a mere concept of consistency) that contrasts to contradiction. I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'.

I cannot understand what you said here.

Extending the point about symmetry, if we have some apparently unique world, the rational explanation that might explain why we have a unique universal history may be because all options exist but in distinct universes. (or multiple worlds)

Instead of thinking of reality as having actual 'forces', you can think of all the possibilities in Totality to simply exist. The variant combinations of each possible set of the same elemental factors then act as real universes in themselves. There then is no actual 'cause' but for classification of worlds. Our particular world would be those patterns of possible sets that have some consistent form and so our 'causal' explanations are just the means of explaining the patterns just as math demonstrates patters from a formula.

[Scott Mayers]

Goodbye Big Bang, Hello Hyper Black Hole: A New Theory on Universe's Creation
That if it is true explains how you could have extra universe from a star and black hole. It doesn't explain when things has started.

In the article they raised the points that this very thread is raising about the problems of origins that threaten the Big Bang version of the story.

For a non-Big-Bang theory class of explanations, they think of our universe as a part of a set of other worlds that recycle information back through black holes. Many string-theories are like this. So there are an infinity of 'beginning' states by the article. I only pointed it out for its point about the problem of the theory in Big Bang that I share, not about their potential alternative explanation.

[-1-]

If by 'tiny' you are meaning small by volume, this is counter to our understanding of "massive".

Not really. The atomic boundaries of repulsion (that determines the size of atoms) can be crushed by gravitational force. Therefore where one atom occupies X space, in the same volume more than one crushed (invardly imploded) atoms can be fitted.

[-1-]

And not that most images of space are just as often touched up artistically for color and sparkling effects for demonstrating their beauty.

(I think you wanted to write "And note that most images...")

The artistically enhanced images still ought not to be anti-scientific like the rays coming out from behind this unfortunately depicted black hole.

[-1-]

It is also a pipe dream to think that actual fusion might get to some degree of energy that it all of a sudden breaks the general laws we already know to have some 'escape' point that permits perpetual energy.

This may or may not be true, but at any rate it's a Strawman argument as a reply to my post, as I never proposed such an energy source as you describe.

It is actually slightly insulting to me to have you insinuate that I have "pipe dreams" which I never voiced. Condescending and a Strawman.

[-1-]

There is no difference to some 'mover'. How can this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something it is not? [ie, "stable"]

I propose only the nature of exhaustion of all possibilities. The 'pattern' of those sub-worlds in totality that have the pattern to maintain 'stability' (a mere concept of consistency) that contrasts to contradiction. I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'.

I cannot understand what you said here.

Scott, the problem of not understanding you does not lie in some inferior IQ by us. It lies in your style of writing.

Take this paragraph, for instance:
There is no (1) difference to some 'mover'. How can (2)this be anything but something that has some mystical willpower to be something (3) it is not? [ie, "stable"]

1. Difference between what and what?
2. You used a demonstrative pronoun, "this" without any defined or implied or clearly referenced antecedent.
3. You used a personal (in this case also acting as a demonstrative) pronoun that has no defined, implied, or clearly referenced antecedent.

I wish writers would stop using pronouns in a manner that is clear to them, but only to them, that is, to the writers, but not to the readers.

Another example for why we don't understand you may be this:

"I use the word "contradiction" to reference the idea without some actual "desire" to be 'stable'."

So... you negatively defined contradiction. You gave no indication what it may mean, you only gave an indication what it does not mean. But that leaves an undefined and huge number (in the millions) of what you could mean with "contradiction", and you leave your readers in the dark. In a semantically close paraphrasing, you wrote "I redefined the word "contradicion", and in my new definition "contradiction" means something which I won't reveal to you; let it suffice to say it does not mean that it (antecedent, by the way?) has an actual desire to be 'stable'."

I don't think you can fault your readers for not understanding you.

[Scott Mayers]

It is also a pipe dream to think that actual fusion might get to some degree of energy that it all of a sudden breaks the general laws we already know to have some 'escape' point that permits perpetual energy.

This may or may not be true, but at any rate it's a Strawman argument as a reply to my post, as I never proposed such an energy source as you describe.

It is actually slightly insulting to me to have you insinuate that I have "pipe dreams" which I never voiced. Condescending and a Strawman.

I wasn't referring to you! I was referring to the actual experiments going on to attempt to make fusion feasible as some potential energy source.

[Scott Mayers]

If by 'tiny' you are meaning small by volume, this is counter to our understanding of "massive".

Not really. The atomic boundaries of repulsion (that determines the size of atoms) can be crushed by gravitational force. Therefore where one atom occupies X space, in the same volume more than one crushed (invardly imploded) atoms can be fitted.

You accept that all 'matter' can exist at one point? Prove this happens locally (and thus empirically.)

The concept of 'matter' to exist at a point with no space undefines matter as "that which occupies space." If it can have mass without space, then mass is NOT that which occupies space. Why would you think we should presume some odd nature of a black hole rather than something less weird by default?

[Scott Mayers]

And not that most images of space are just as often touched up artistically for color and sparkling effects for demonstrating their beauty.

(I think you wanted to write "And note that most images...")

The artistically enhanced images still ought not to be anti-scientific like the rays coming out from behind this unfortunately depicted black hole.

Yes, the word was "note".

I'm guessing the first image I showed was demonstrating gravitational lensing that occurs, not rays.

But if you are saying it is anti-science, are you saying artistic rendering of Nature is blasphemous like drawing a picture of Mohammad?