Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Deist Objectivist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Interesting... perhaps I will look at it in more detail later.  These fringe theories don't strike me as particularly sophisticated.

 

What I have noticed, is that certain individuals who dispute relativity, end up with a concept of an absolute ether or some such filling all of space... I find it hard to distinguish in causal or consequential terms the difference between someone asserting existence of "absolute space": a thing filling the universe, and someone asserting "space" itself is relational BUT there is this other thing called "ether" filling the universe...

I'm not sure what you are referring to as a fringe theory.

If it is circular time theory, the reference document was removed from the thread prior to my discovery of this forum.

It may have been Dr. Binswanger that mentioned Miss Rand referenced it in a conversation, and that he wished he had asked her more about it. It is a "secret" she took with her.

 

As to space, there is no universal Cartesian coordinate system. Both "space" in your first sense, and "ether" in the second  are treat as "things" as you aptly prefaced them with. How does this differ from taking two abstractions "space" and "time", hyphenating them together into "space-time" and then treating them as if they can be "bent", "dilated" etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

vickster:

 

 

Do black holes in their current theoretical form conserve all physical quantities other than "information" as such?

 

If so why was something theorised to exist in a particular way which violates conservation of physical quantities?  What permitted such theorization?

 

I am basing my own work and ideas on "rational universe" theory.  Here is a precise definition, it was only inferred to within my argument.

 

Rational Universe:  Is a perceivable universe fully understandable by a sapient being without requiring a sapient being to commit certain suicide in effort to gain further knowledge. By "fully understandable" I am referring only to all physical laws, forces, and properties that govern a perceivable universe.

 

As for the rest of your question, it is a bit of a mess, and arguably I am closer than anyone to figuring it out (knocks on wood "please do not be an irrational universe").  I listed a great deal of information already in other responses.  I will just touch on that which I find noteworthy without retelling the entire story of mans accumulation of knowledge since the beginning.

 

Things are a bit slippery so please interpret my attempts at giving a fair response as sincere and not evasive.  I have created an argument and theory based on a theoretical construct.  When I was 12 years old I read a Brief History of Time and was unwilling to accept Hawkings take at that point.  Not enough observation and evidence had yet been collected to support his conclusions at that time.  His best guess was excellent.

 

Regarding the argument for black holes:  I cannot get you fully caught up... you need to read "A brief history of time", "Black Hole War", and a bunch of other stuff.  With that and a complete history of black hole theory under your belt, consider the following answer.

 

Assuming the following: There is a an unknown state of matter degeneracy, with an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light that is not infinite.

 

The first response to your first question is, Yes, otherwise black holes would have no mass.  As far as entropy, physical information, and radiation go, there are other standing theories, and while there remain unknowns, I am clearly planting my flag with Susskind in favor of information conservation.  The trick now is figuring it out, how does the universe do it.... it does keep me awake at night and I have collected myself quite the gallery of haters...  There is a possibility that a few theories together yield the answer.  It is also possible that I may be bat shit crazy wrong but I inspire another person to fight the correct answer.

 

The answer to the second question is, theoretical physics involves making a best guesses at any given time within the confines of limited knowledge.  The theoretical aims to push the barrier with nothing really to loose except for ones own individual time spent.  Black Holes have been theorized as best they could progressively over time.  While black hole theory developed many unknowns remained.  Some models harbored potentially contradictory properties, this is what inspired Susskind to take on Hawking.  Everything modeled within a perceived reality IS a best guess.  "What permitted such theorization?"  Mankind's desire to know the truth regarding reality even if it required making a best guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know no way to transfer meaning from from the context "information" was formed in, to the context it is here being used, without denying its contextual roots. Unless one is simply recycling a word with an established connection to a specific set of referents and using it in a context completely unrelated and living with the confusion it creates. However, my read is, the adherents simply fail to apply a valid reduction and contextual analysis of "information" and accept a usage without knowledge of its origin and without guidance from a normative epistemology. The result is an attempt to resolve "paradoxes" ad hoc, caused simply by bad epistemology.

I realize you currently don't agree and I'd be interested in any sources you think would convince me of the inference that information does not involve a mind to be informed.

 

It is all here if you dig around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

"Physical information" is referring to specifically the "quantum evolution operator" or "unitary evolution operator". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are most likely no such things as black holes.

 

First, the idea originates in an extrapolation of known physics into an unknown context so it is not an ironclad deduction but just a speculation without hard evidence.  

 

Second, the idea actually postulates the real existence of a singularity, the point of infinite density at the center of a black hole.  There are philosophical objections to actual infinities.

 

Third, the idea contradicts other known principles of physics.  Within physics the theory of gravity and theory of quantum mechanics are not integrated together and they cannot both be true for the case of black holes.  For example the Pauli exclusion principle forbids two fermions to have the same quantum state but in a black hole singularity only one quantum state would be possible. 

 

Fourth, mathematical analysis of the physics of black holes has led to the exploration of thermodynamics of black holes.  If black holes are considered as having finite entropy then it turns out there cannot more entropy within its volume than can exist entirely upon its surface (the Bekenstein Bound).  As entropy or information can only exist in the form of mass or energy then this implies that there is an upper limit on the possible density of a finite quantity of mass and energy.

 

Extremely massive gravitational objects exist, such as at the center of our galaxy and others,  but they do not reach infinite density.  Extreme gravitational redshift would make any emissions very hard to detect, so there is that similarity to the 'invisibility' of a black hole.

 

I love when people put black holes in a box, because they actually take the form of a sphere....  the big bang is nothing more than another fat ugly step sister and she is now showing the pain of having worn the glass slipper for far too long.

 

Reply to number 1, no degeneracy pressure known greater than that of Neutrons to halt massive star core collapse.

Sgr A. is confirmed at 600x (240 AU) the theoretical Schwartzschild radius with G2 coming ~130 AU or closer.  It is too bad we have no idea what G2 is...

http://astrobites.org/2013/04/25/the-infamous-galactic-center-source-g2-gas-cloud-or-star/

 

Reply to number 2, my black hole does not have an infinite dense singularity or infinitely approaching infinite singularity.   My black hole has a "Rambo" which is an object of unknown mass density that is NOT infinite with an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light.  I listed 2 possibilities that require detection of gravitational waves (which have not been detected) to detect my process, and a 3rd which I am working on now... that being, all wave forms for all particles are gravitational waves and within them lay the secrets to modeling Singulosynthesis and everything.

 

Reply to number 3, back in the 80's there were 2 kinds of guys, those who thought Mr. T was bad and those knew Chocolate Mousse could trash him.

 

Regarding black holes, there is no quantum theory of gravity yet :) and the truth is... our concept of time may be far more screwed up than ever.  Black holes in my work strip duality away and eventually reassign it.  There is a great deal that needs to be accounted for in this process.

 

Reply to number 4, my black holes harbor an unknown spacial separation between the horizon and the Rambo.  Just as stars have a layered system for performing stellar nucleosynthesis, I suspect my black holes strip away duality in a sort of layered process in reaching a final state of timeless degeneracy.  Galactic jets might be some kind of crazy information overload fail safe to prevent black hole firewalls from destroying information, I am not ruling anything out at this point.

 

As for the rest, I drank the Koolade a long time ago and now I am mixing up my own batch.  The universe has to have produced more hydrogen since its birth, there are a few other elements on the old periodic table that have to macro process to account for them either.  Everyone else has dozens of problems unable to account for and dozens of contradictory paradoxes to solve, I have one hard problem to solve and the rest will be the greatest mathematical Rube Goldberg in history.

 

Or, I have had the best bad idea in history!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to number 1, no degeneracy pressure known greater than that of Neutrons to halt massive star core collapse.

Sgr A. is confirmed at 600x (240 AU) the theoretical Schwartzschild radius with G2 coming ~130 AU or closer.  It is too bad we have no idea what G2 is...

http://astrobites.org/2013/04/25/the-infamous-galactic-center-source-g2-gas-cloud-or-star/

No degeneracy pressure known greater than that of Neutrons, therefore ... what? "We don't know therefore it does not exist" is invalid reasoning.

100x the theoretical Schwartzschild radius is quite an error margin. It is such a large error margin that observations of Sag A do not necessitate the conclusion that Sag A is a black hole.

 

Reply to number 2, my black hole does not have an infinite dense singularity or infinitely approaching infinite singularity.

Then your "black hole" is not a black hole at all. It is an alternate theory without a proper name, and has competitors such as gravastar theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick few question re. the physics of a collapsing giant star...

 

1. An event horizon can form once enough mass occupies a small enough sphere, at some point in time the even horizon can be at a larger radius from the center of mass than a finite radius of "most" of the collapsing star. 

 

Do the "information" related physical properties of this "event horizon" as such (formed by a collapsing still finite sized star) differ from those of an "event horizon" surrounding an already "collapsed" or formed blackhole?

 

2. What do you mean by information "in" or "of" the event horizon as such, as to be distinguished from the physical states and information of the matter and energy of collapsing finite star within the event horizon and the matter and energy outside of the event horizon?

 

3. At what point during this collapse does physical information per se (any physical information) become threatened with disintegration, i.e. when, how, and why?

 

4. Mass and energy once within the event horizon of the collapsing star become trapped but on the whole, the universe is understood to conserve mass and energy.  If information is likewise trapped is it not reasonable to assume on the whole, it is also conserved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick few question re. the physics of a collapsing giant star...

 

3. At what point during this collapse does physical information per se (any physical information) become threatened with disintegration, i.e. when, how, and why?

I can only attempt to answer 3 off hand.  

Hypothetically speaking, information would not be lost during the creation of an event horizon or falling into one but much later during the long lifetime of the object as it evaporates due to Hawking radiation. You see, black holes are not perfectly black but emit Hawking radiation in a (not coincidentally) black-body spectrum. Loss of that energy subtracts from the mass of the black hole until eventually it no longer exists. When the black hole no longer exists is when the Hawking paradox is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No degeneracy pressure known greater than that of Neutrons, therefore ... what? "We don't know therefore it does not exist" is invalid reasoning.

100x the theoretical Schwartzschild radius is quite an error margin. It is such a large error margin that observations of Sag A do not necessitate the conclusion that Sag A is a black hole.

 

Then your "black hole" is not a black hole at all. It is an alternate theory without a proper name, and has competitors such as gravastar theory.

 

I hate playing the "master of the obvious card" but the key word in that sentence is "known" which implies in itself there are always unknowns.  Had I said "no degeneracy pressure greater than that of Neutrons exists to halt massive star core collapse" you could then play the invalid reasoning card and I would agree with you.  If I had worded the statement as such it would invalidate what I am advocating.  The TOV limit is still not pinned down, Quark degeneracy remains theoretical and Quark stars remain unobserved. Could such a state of degeneracy exist?  Even within the core of a Neutron star itself?  Of course it could or some other unknown for that matter.

 

I agree that 100x is a large margin of error for confirming a dark mass as a black hole, however it is better than 600x but not as good as 0.  It is my hope that within my lifetime they can get it to less than 50x.

 

Frankly, the term black hole has been hijacked by the singularity crowd and my "black hole war" is for the very term itself with a great deal on the line.  Aside from rhyming with Nucleosynthesis, do you not find my choice in naming of the process Singulosynthesis to be a greater act satire than that of ignorance?  The concepts behind "Rational Universe Theory" have for some time been consciously or sub consciously assumed or even accepted by many without needing to be considered or clearly defined.  This has not been the case with black hole singularities and cosmological singularities, my greater war is an attempt to return the permanently unknowable back into the realm of the knowable.  To fight a war against an army of irrational consensus does not require an army to begin fighting or to win, it does require a growing militia around rational ideas.  There is currently a fairly big gun reviewing my work and I am awaiting his review and response.  He is the only big gun who has responded to me privately.  If I can convince this enemy of my enemy to be my friend we would make fine allies.  Whatever his response, I will continue my work with the gratitude that someone took the idea seriously.

 

I was in all honesty unfamiliar with Gravastar's until I looked them up and they seem to have entropy constraints.  It is a good sign that other minds are coming up with ideas.

 

While it is absolutely possible black holes do not exist, anything beyond the following definition of a black hole is unnecessary speculation:

 

A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole, there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. The hole is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.

 

A formal naming system for theories involving horizon bearing objects and their properties has never really been necessary.  Moreover, any sub category of a theoretical horizon baring object should require a "prefix" to the term "black hole" accompanied with a list of known properties, unknown properties, theorized properties, indirect observation methods, and verification methods.

 

Singularity black hole: mass density = infinite or infinitely approaching infinity, model description of the horizon and the parent mass = Schwartszchild Radius, thermal dynamic properties = many theories still unknown, information conservation properties if they exist =  many theories still unknown, best theoretical method for indirect detection = indirect gravitational influence on orbiting bodies, captured bodies, or gravitational waves (if they exist), other possible properties = unknown, verification methods = indirect horizon radius confirmation, take one giant leap for mankind through a horizon, detect black hole coalescence ring down (if gravitational waves exist), detect hawking radiation

 

Gravastar black hole: mass density = unknown (but great enough to form a horizon), model description of the horizon and the parent mass = unknown, thermal dynamic properties = entropy and physical information properties are limited to the maximum theoretical which can be preserved within a horizon, best theoretical method for indirect detection = indirect gravitational influence on orbiting bodies, captured bodies, or gravitational waves (if they exist), other possible properties = unknown, verification methods = indirect horizon radius confirmation, take one giant leap for mankind through a horizon, detect Gravastar black hole coalescence ring down (if gravitational waves exist)

 

Rambo black hole: mass density = unknown (but great enough to form a horizon), model description of the horizon and the parent mass = unknown, thermal dynamic properties = entropy and physical information are maintained by unknown methods, best theoretical method for indirect detection = indirect gravitational influence on orbiting bodies, captured bodies, gravitational waves (if they exist), or by particle waves which are actually gravitational waves (remains unknown), other possible properties = Single Rambo black holes remove duality by an unknown process, two Rambo black holes restore duality based on their mass at the relativistic binary orbital velocity of the speed of light by way of Singulosynthesis (theoretical process in the works), verification methods = indirect horizon radius confirmation, take one giant leap for mankind through a horizon, NON detection of Rambo black hole coalescence ring down (if gravitational waves exist), simulate Singulosynthesis using gravitational wave observations (assuming gravitational waves exist), simulate Singulosynthesis using particle wave data assuming particle waves are gravitational waves.

 

I am sure this list has errors or not complete in some way, but you get the idea.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only attempt to answer 3 off hand.  

Hypothetically speaking, information would not be lost during the creation of an event horizon or falling into one but much later during the long lifetime of the object as it evaporates due to Hawking radiation. You see, black holes are not perfectly black but emit Hawking radiation in a (not coincidentally) black-body spectrum. Loss of that energy subtracts from the mass of the black hole until eventually it no longer exists. When the black hole no longer exists is when the Hawking paradox is complete.

 

Assuming hawking radiation exists, it is still a mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

The full list of possible solutions to the paradox currently excludes my ideas and work at this time.  The idea that physical information is preserved only to be reassigned later under very specific conditions.

 

On another level, it really depends how gravity centric ones model of the universe is and if you really think the universe is expanding or just appears that way.  On one had you have plasma cosmologists and on the other you have the Penrose types.  The bottom line is, if the universe did indeed start all in one place - time zero up to 10–43 seconds = WTFville

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

And is why a quantum theory of gravity is so badly needed... it will help determine what kind of universe we are in... because we really do not know space time very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale%C2'>

 

Right now, if any theoretical structure in the universe could give us a clue or even a possible way to emulate - time zero up to 10–43and beyond, it would be by 2x Rambo black holes performing Singulosynthesis based on their mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider what I am advocating for in terms of the following:

1. Big Bang cosmology is shackled to the Metallicity schedule it predicts, the observed Metallicity of the young universe is low by a factor of up to 50 percent when compared to the model.

2. The level of homogeneity necessary to make the big bang feasible renders it impossible to create large scale structures as we have observed in ancient quasar super clusters.  Essentially, there is no structure nor efficient means by which to create structure fast enough.

3. The pesky G dwarf, M dwarf, and K dwarf problems continue to plague Astronomers.

4. 68.3% of the mass of the universe is a modern version of Aether known as Dark Energy.

5. Galaxies that deviate drastically from the M-Sigma relationship are very troublesome for the Big Bang Cosmologists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10

6. Objects such as this are found nearly every month: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924141701.htm

 

7.  How can stars of varying masses form a spherical hydrostatic equilibrium of plasma from a localized thermonuclear fusion ignition without ejecting the very fuel in the process of ignition?  The more massive the star, the bigger the problem becomes.  This problem has a beautiful solution in accretion, but first thing is first.

 

8. Consider what I am arguing from the context of the Faint young Sun paradox.

9.  I could go on for days listing paradox's whereby solving one by any method, you render many if not all others impossible to solve.

 

And again....

 

I wrote my original paper last May and this was released to the public in late July:

http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/07/swirls-afterglow-big-bang-could-set-stage-major-discovery

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find the concept of Hawking radiation as such that farfetched; only the randomly foamy spacetime it's built on. If black holes do radiate then there must be a pattern to it.

this whole undertaking could be replaced by looking for the hidden variables in hawkings math, although neither is sufficient reason for deism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Vickster, could you address questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 separately and concretely (albeit succinctly) as posted in my post of September 26, 2013 (post #84)

 

I am curious to know what you think.

 

I just posted another paper that touches on complications regarding simulated star core collapse.  It will become clearer why we need to simulate 2 eggs making a chicken before we can start killing chickens...  I have a model for generating a simulation down to the sub Planck scale in all the places that matter with technology that already in existence.

 

I am trying to edit this other paper but the site won't let me... I was writing at 4am and thoughts did not transfer to text as gracefully then as they are now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find the concept of Hawking radiation as such that farfetched; only the randomly foamy spacetime it's built on. If black holes do radiate then there must be a pattern to it.

this whole undertaking could be replaced by looking for the hidden variables in hawkings math, although neither is sufficient reason for deism.

 

A level of dismissiveness only exceeded in its lack of imagination.  If our universe can only be fully understood through a computer simulation what would that imply?  Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just posted another paper that touches on complications regarding simulated star core collapse.  It will become clearer why we need to simulate 2 eggs making a chicken before we can start killing chickens...  I have a model for generating a simulation down to the sub Planck scale in all the places that matter with technology that already in existence.

 

I am trying to edit this other paper but the site won't let me... I was writing at 4am and thoughts did not transfer to text as gracefully then as they are now.  

 

Vick it would help me a lot if you could directly and briefly answer the questions.  To me these are fundamental if I am to make sense of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, Vick? You think noncausal, truly random events are creative?

I call "random" nothing more than an excuse for mental laziness. Whatever you explain as "random" you've declined to explain at all.

So perhaps you should define this "lack of imagination".

And to clarify the other, someone else was criticizing the theory of relativity and I was pointing out one of the unexamined, from-the-hip assumptions behind it.

Speaking of imagination; Albert Einstein. Relativity yes, copenhagen no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, Vick? You think noncausal, truly random events are creative?

I call "random" nothing more than an excuse for mental laziness. Whatever you explain as "random" you've declined to explain at all.

So perhaps you should define this "lack of imagination".

And to clarify the other, someone else was criticizing the theory of relativity and I was pointing out one of the unexamined, from-the-hip assumptions behind it.

Speaking of imagination; Albert Einstein. Relativity yes, copenhagen no.

 

Sorry if I got a little hot, I am jumping between people ruthlessly attacking me like rabid wolverines and others having completely disingenuous discussions to waste my time....  my other thread has a few updates added, a synopsis and something we need to look for....

 

Where exactly am I promoting anything "noncausal" and random precisely?  I have come up with a framework deterministically reproducing everything we perceive, but it must be simulated from a sub plank environment up, my other thread has an update.  There is something to indirectly look for...

 

So, my inability to make a scale simulation of the universe to date via my process is your version of laziness?  Interesting concept.

 

The Hubble constant represents the rate at which the universe has converted temporal mass to non temporal mass through Singulosynthesis.

 

Yes, the assumptions regarding energy mass equivalence are greatly limited by our perception and other assumptions regarding time....

 

I honestly had to start shotgunning my work out prematurely.... There have been many important observations made in a short period of time and I asked the wrong people too many right questions, essentially giving my hand before quietly figuring it all out.  In a sense, if I didn't pump stuff out prematurely I would have ended up in an uneven fight for my own ideas.  Doing what I have done was meant to start an intellectual riot.  An uneven fight I know I cannot win, but in a riot I think I can hold my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vick it would help me a lot if you could directly and briefly answer the questions.  To me these are fundamental if I am to make sense of your posts.

 

What questions do you have?  I just posted some new stuff under the other thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What questions do you have?  I just posted some new stuff under the other thread...

Quick few questions re. the physics of a collapsing giant star...

 

1. An event horizon can form once enough mass occupies a small enough sphere, at some point in time the even horizon can be at a larger radius from the center of mass than a finite radius of "most" of the collapsing star. 

 

Do the "information" related physical properties of this "event horizon" as such (formed by a collapsing still finite sized star) differ from those of an "event horizon" surrounding an already "collapsed" or formed blackhole?

 

2. What do you mean by information "in" or "of" the event horizon as such, as to be distinguished from the physical states and information of the matter and energy of collapsing finite star within (inside the sphere of) the event horizon and the matter and energy outside of the event horizon?

 

3. At what point during this collapse of this star does physical information per se (any physical information) become threatened with disintegration, i.e. when, how, and why?

 

4. Mass and energy once within the event horizon of the collapsing star become trapped but on the whole, the universe is understood to conserve mass and energy.  If information is likewise trapped is it not reasonable to assume on the whole, it is also conserved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's alright. And I was referring, specifically, to Hawking Radiation. I'm not sure if you are suggesting some uncaused existent.

To be clear, anything random is explanatory laziness; I don't know whether this applies to your theory.

SL: Brilliant insight on 3 and 4!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...