Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Deist Objectivist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"Physical information" is referring to quantum determinism and reversibility in the form of the quantum evolution operators via some as yet undiscovered form of quantum gravity.

 

By "physical information" are you referring to some hypothetical entities which would serve as the "hidden variables" alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Or are you referring to "physical information" as a measure of entropy?

 

Don't get me wrong; if it's the former then I wholeheartedly approve (although I'm not sure how that would work).  But they're two distinct things and, within the context of black holes, I think you're using them interchangeably.

 

If black holes preserve information in their horizons it would be in a constant state of change. Material is constantly being added to a black hole so the horizon would always be preserving new physical information over time. Meaning all black hole horizons are utterly unique entities based on the black holes mass.

 

But if this physical information is a black hole's mass (and resultant event horizon), and if each fundamental particle is identical to every other particle of its type, then it would be completely possible for two or even many black holes to have an identical mass and identical information.

 

If you want a measure that's completely unique to every entity, that's spatial position at any given instant.  Mass is by no means necessarily unique.

 

In the long version of my argument I make it clearer that either God exists or we exist in a simulation, since the process I am advocating for can only be simulated due to limits of our perception.

 

P:  this happens

p:  we can never observe nor infer this happening

C:  either God exists or we exist in a simulation

 

At this point I imagine you're rather frustrated that I threw inference in there, with percepton.  Can one infer the truth or falsehood of this theory based on empirical evidence of some sort?

If so then it's a non-issue.  Human beings are still quite capable of making accurate inferences about all sorts of unobservables (such as atoms), God is still a logical impossibility and this simulation is still quite real to us.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:  I'm not aware of any actual physical law that states that physical information must be conserved.  I understand why you assume it does, and I agree; you're trying to defend causality, in your own way.

Because if something's "information" can be created or destroyed then there would be a disconnect in that part of the universe; no possible way to know what did or will happen there (which is the distinctive mark of "randomness" or acausality).

 

So I agree that "information" can't be destroyed, but I think you should be careful what you apply this to; it would be very easy to use just such reasoning to declare that conscious beings can never end.

And on that topic I think position and speed would be far more likely to be conserved, via interactions and mutual alterations between entities.

---

 

2:  Now you've taken 1 (which can't be relied on to justify theories, on its own) and applied it to the collisions of black holes, with the premise that their "information" is in their Mass.

 

Why their Mass?  Honestly, they aren't supposed to have hair, but there are always other attributes.  Furthermore, if two black holes collided they would conserve their masses quite nicely under conventional mechanics, wouldn't they?

 

I agree with 1, in general (although I say again it isn't its own evidence), but how you arrive at 3 is beyond me.

---

 

3:  Black holes can now never collide, but evaporate instead (ala Hawking Radiation. . . of whole atoms)?

 

If so then we could observe such events quite easily; they would shine in the night sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah!  The conservation of physical information in a black hole's event horizon (which is dictated exclusively by its mass) falls under the conservation of matter and energy!

There's already a solution to this artificial problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I have been away... things are kind of a mess... the optimum requires simulating how duality is assigned and stripped away.  I have taken my thought experiment to the furthest limit I can take it within my current ability.  I had to put my stuff out prematurely.

 

Yeah!  The conservation of physical information in a black hole's event horizon (which is dictated exclusively by its mass) falls under the conservation of matter and energy!

There's already a solution to this artificial problem.

 

I am referring only to the "Unitary Operator", which is the "Time Evolution Operator" or propagator, of a closed quantum system.
 

In the madness of this you will find it under the Schrödinger equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29
 
Black hole horizons are gravitational and temporal boundaries from our perspective.  What happens to the time evolution operator of a particle once it crosses this horizon?  Does it matter?  Should it matter?  Who cares? 
 
That is all one has to have in mind when considering the Black Hole Information Paradox.

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

Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.
 
Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.
 
(It is worth noting, that in the list of "main approaches to a solution to the paradox", my solution is not listed.  That being, information is preserved within the horizon via an unknown and undiscovered mechanism only to be reassigned later.  Objective observations of gravitational waves will allow us to gather data and model it within a computer.)
 
I do not know where to start or end the references on what I am working on... my library is extensive, here are my web links...
 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/10/lightweight-galaxy-is-smallest-ever-found/
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaOvhZwsbAQ
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro233/symp06/symp06.pdf
http://astrobites.org/2012/02/15/and-now-theres-a-problem-with-m-dwarfs-too/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Paradoxes
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dwarf-Galaxies-Can-House-Supermassive-Black-Holes-177092.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924141701.htm
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2143-ukirt-discovers-impossible-binary-stars
http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/09/primordial-magnetic-field-may-permeate-universe?rss=1
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/1699-ssc2006-22b-Brief-History-of-the-Universe
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/5593-ssc2013-05a-Bubbles-Within-Bubbles-annotated-
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/4938-sig12-002-Finding-Bubbles-in-the-Milky-Way
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/4932-ssc2012-04a-Orion-s-Rainbow-of-Infrared-Light
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2
http://miqel.com/space_photos_maps/galactic_info/galactic-central-black-hole-sun-party.html
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163662-hubble-telescope-solves-the-mystery-of-600000-light-year-long-gas-stream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
http://www.space.com/17596-most-magnetic-giant-star-discovered.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009111111.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411144326.htm
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12-441/DE-GENNARO-DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=2
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showforum=43
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/science
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/forum_thread.php?id=1026
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9317
http://www.thescienceforum.com/introductions/36138-hello-binary-black-holes-restore-entropy-universe.html#post428109
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=150443&p=14247889#p14247889
http://cs.astronomy.com/asy/general_discussion/f/27.aspx
http://www.evcforum.net/Threads.php?control=tf&f=2
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?app=core&module=global&section=register
http://www.princeton.edu/physics/people/display_person.xml?netid=staggs&display=faculty
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/forum_forum.php?id=11
http://www.meetup.com/Quantum-Physics-Meetup-Group/messages/boards/
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science/
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=12
http://vixra.freeforums.org/physics-f3.html
http://www.cloudynights.com/classifieds/showcat.php?cat=11
http://skynewsmagazine.proboards.com/index.cgi
http://www.cosmologyathome.org/forum_forum.php?id=11
http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
http://arxiv.org/html/gr-qc/9911053v6/thermo.html
http://www.springer.com/astronomy/book/978-4-431-54200-1
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://www.johnagowan.org/Susskind.html
http://www.johnagowan.org/index.html
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0009/G1000145/002/Keppel100305.pdf
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HubbleConstant.html
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/24/cp-violation-and-the-informationanti-information-asymmetry/
http://www.amazon.com/Thomson-Reuters-5226-EndNote-x6/dp/B00006I02V/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373139135&sr=8-1&keywords=endnote
http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/gravity/research/numrel.htm
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/veltran.html
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1854/1335.full
http://www.mrelativity.net/RelEscapeVelocity/Relativistic%20Escape%20Velocity.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html
http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/news_gravitational_waves_and_dark_matter_aps_april_meeting_2013-109194
https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/lscdatagrid/resources/data/index.html
http://www.ligo.org/magazine/LIGO-magazine-issue-2.pdf
http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/
http://admdbsrv.ligo.caltech.edu/roster/ligo_roster.htf
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/lisa_exhibit.html
http://www.lisascience.org/
http://mode.obspm.fr/IMG/pdf/mode2013_hello.pdf
http://cgwa.phys.utb.edu/
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravWav
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
http://www.scitizen.com/cosmology/gravitational-waves-from-the-big-bang_a-8-354.html
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave_spectrum.html
http://www.space.com/7156-lack-gravity-waves-puts-limits-exotic-cosmology-theories.html
http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2011/07/gravitational-waves.html
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0006/P0900255/004/P0900255-v4BW.pdf
http://www.universetoday.com/102011/hydrogen-clouds-discovered-between-andromeda-and-triangulum-galaxies/
http://saoastronews.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/highmetallicitydistantgalaxies/
http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/01/huge-supply-of-pristine-gas-around-modern-galaxies-found-2453122.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/11/29/69371.htm#.Ua53MJwsbAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Velocity_Clouds
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/ism_gas/ism_gas.html
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2011/11/Found%20-%20pristine%20gas%20from%20the%20Big%20Bang.aspx
http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/59582-pristine-gas-from-early-universe-discovered
http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/research/klessen/current/pom/index.shtml?lang=en
http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast9/handouts/Age-of-universe.PDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0023
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Henry/Henry5.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306130
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2007/1/thesis.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1073v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9609196.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/566/2/993/pdf/0004-637X_566_2_993.pdf
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?74565-Evolution-of-Galaxies-amp-Metallicity

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo1103c/
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml
http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~bureau/early-types.html
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/35/aa11756-09/aa11756-09.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101101161907.htm
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~flack/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0348%2B0432
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/degeneracy/NeutronStarSize.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/why-are-quark-stars-so-strange.htm
http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/publist/Ofek_ApJ_662_1129_2007.pdf
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112914997/smoking-gun-reaction-from-gamma-ray-burst-080413/

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=black+hole&mid=E1F0CAAF50E7CBBD7803E1F0CAAF50E7CBBD7803&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7
http://wn.com/black_hole_entropy

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20690/what-happens-to-information-when-black-holes-merge
http://www.space.com/12790-monster-black-hole-cannibal-galaxy-collisions.html
http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~gary/BH,Entropy,Info.pdf
http://www.space.com/533-surprising-black-hole-milky-center.html
http://nyabingimanni.blogspot.com/2011/03/black-holes-entropy.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/black-hole-unleashes-supermassive-belch-130108.htm
http://student.physics.ucdavis.edu/kiskis/phy9b_11/entropy_info.pdf
http://www.black-holes.org/explore2.html

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/strange-supernova-remnant-harbors-milky-ways-youngest-black-hole/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7438/full/nature11938.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/061108_sjcrothers.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
http://prac.us.edu.pl/%7Eztpce/QM/CMPhawking.pdf
http://www.astronomycast.com/2007/01/episode-18-black-holes-big-and-small/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole_information_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_system_of_units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf#cite_note-osln-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_constant.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-sigma_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_known_stars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/beginners-guide-run-linux-like-any-other-program-in-windows.html
http://virtualboximages.com/ScientificLinux+6.3+x86_64+Desktop+VirtualBox+Virtual+Appliance
http://scientificlinuxforum.org/index.php?s=5c56b933ad5a1eec08058c6cdd398f51&showforum=16
http://www.linfo.org/command_line_lesson_1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/13/comet-2013-among-brightest-ever-seen/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/22/scientists-search-for-unparticle/
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/27/whoa-mini-supernovas-discovered/
http://myhome.spu.edu/ddowning/astr/camp_casey_telescope.html
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?11-Astronomy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vOU6-1yNZs
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/space-photo-of-the-day-2/?pid=7113
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9651782/NASA-SP2008565-Columbia-Crew-Survival-Investigation-Report-298870
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134508.htm
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a/format/zoom/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Relativity.html
http://www.1728.org/escvel.htm
http://adorio-research.org/wordpress/?p=453
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-tycho-supernova-remnant-evidence-supernovas.html
http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/archive_821.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNR_0509-67.5
http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/SH/SH2004/tycho.html
http://www.livescience.com/23583-brightest-star-explosion-lonely-supernovas.html
http://www.1728.org/reltivty.htm
http://www.relativitycalculator.com/fundamental_constants.shtml
http://www.relativitycalculator.com/index.shtml
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/5938.full
http://pleiades.physics.wsu.edu/users/ghosh/ghosh.htm#!
http://www.amazon.com/Numerical-Relativity-Einsteins-Equations-Computer/dp/052151407X
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)
http://theconversation.com/new-theory-of-general-relativity-casts-doubt-on-dark-matter-16446
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/space/Universe+expanding+after+research+suggests/8807717/story.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-gravity-a-particle-or
http://www.astronomycast.com/about/
http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2012/09/new-approach-to-cosmic-lithium-in-the-early-universe-2445886.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/07/swirls-afterglow-big-bang-could-set-stage-major-discovery
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57599377-1/a-star-is-born-literally-and-its-stunning/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=083fSbguKh8
http://www.brucegary.net/ISON/
http://sci.esa.int/lisa/42592-mission-summary/
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discoveries-planck-rethinking-universe-began.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-planck-reveals-universe.html#inlRlv
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-4c2930-black-hole-powered-jets.html#inlRlv
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100217093251.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121003132117.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327093608.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327093608.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323134800.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110109184020.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120215123945.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510075523.htm
http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_products/index.php
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1242/
http://www.google.com/sky/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/the-milky-ways-black-hole-like-cookie-monster-loses-more-than-it-eats/
http://www.de-regt.com/Astronomy/RhoOphiuchi.htm
Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a particle's wavefunction crosses the event horizon, one would assume it collapses into a very rapid downwards streak.

If wavefunctions are determined nonlocally (De Broglie Bohm) then this would exert a minuscule force on every other particle in the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a particle's wavefunction crosses the event horizon, one would assume it collapses into a very rapid downwards streak.

If wavefunctions are determined nonlocally (De Broglie Bohm) then this would exert a minuscule force on every other particle in the universe.

 

:)

 

All our thinking is from the wrong side of the fish bowl.  I take for granted whatever gift in perception I have rather painfully developed.  Human perception is easily duped, you need not look any further than a pub to see who a tipsy attractive person ends up going home with at the end of the night...  It is very hard to get even a theoretical scientist to step out of the consensus to even consider what I am saying.  That is why the idea could never have come about from within ANY establishment and likely never would have.  I chose in 1997 to figure things out on my own, completely self taught, because I saw the danger in the consensus that was developing.  I am perfectly willing to be wrong, the trouble is the people paid to be right have a very rational fear, they know a chunk of what I am arguing has to be right. 

 

I knew the answers or even a path to them did not exist and had to be found.  When I did finally get the light bulbs of a few people within the establishment to go off they became very angry and to quote them "you did not deserve to think that", the good news is there is not yet a formal thought police.  But there are powerful thought police establishments and they are hard at work now.  How dare I not go through the proper channels to get my own ideas!  While others of honest genius are now a little shocked....  The establishment fears exposure of the hubris of institutionalized consensus more than the beauty of truth being known and figured out.  This is an old battlefield for man that has been fought on many fronts.  The mind can be so close to the answers yet so far away at the same time.  The key to breaking the barrier exists within the mind of the individual and their freedom to think.  The great irony in all of this I cannot get over is the serendipitous role of magnetism in it all.

 

Cosmic scale gravitational lensing is the bending of light by the temporal space horizon of non temporal mass (currently known as dark matter).  Temporal mass conversion to non temporal mass is the creation of temporal space.  The universe is a nested series of progressively magnetized space bubbles created by non temporal mass.  I am trying to see if my initial geometry is close, I know how it is created though.  The non detection of gravitational waves aside from particle waves to date is a good sign, there are some very strong arguments out there that if they existed they should have been detected already.  Advanced LIGO could be the greatest failed experiment in history OR it will have already detected the answers and it is buried in the existing data and nobody has an idea what to look for.  One of 4 things will soon happen, gravitational waves will be detected independent of particle waves, someone will pretend they figured out gravitational waves are particles waves themselves, or a magical consensus that never existed before will suddenly emerge that gravitational waves are particle waves, or a consensus will develop that some "Joe Blow" dared to rationally argue and suggest to the Pro's that gravitational waves are all particle waves and a new consensus will form around that idea.  This will determine a great deal regarding how I chose to proceed.  

 

A black hole is a temporal horizon which is governed by some rules.  From the temporal side of the horizon there physical information and entropy boundary at the gravitational radius.  Once a black hole entropy and physical information boundary fills up there is an overflow mechanism likely based on the bekenstein bound at the planck length (this ideally should be simulated to pin down the three way process).  From the non temporal side of a black hole horizon the horizon ignores physical information and entropy that exists on the temporal side, it will accept mass regardless of what is going on.   Our side of the perceived temporal horizon has entropy and physical information horizon which determines how duality is stripped, storing physical information and entropy, how physical information and entropy are reassigned during an overflow state, or reassignment to duality by the Singulosynthesis process mechanism.  Relativistic jets offload the difference in what the horizon cannot handle in terms of physical information and entropy.  Singulosynthesis will process existing horizon physical information and entropy by establishing or re- establishing duality (ideally need to be simulated).  But once Singulosynthesis is done and the reassigning of physical information and entropy is finished, the temporal horizon will remain over the non temporal mass (perceived dark matter).  A temporal black hole gravitational horizon will always accept temporal mass or reassign non temporal mass through Singulosynthesis, a non temporal mass with no entropy or physical information horizon (temporal space) will no longer accept mass.  It is this conversion of temporal mass into non temporal mass that we perceive as the expansion of temporal space. 

 

I have a plan for doing this, a model is made with a reasonable starting point and known byproducts, I will share my ideas with those who give me credit for my talents, and as I will in kind give due credit for theirs.  I have saved every reference to everything I have ever read.  I have copyrighted the argument, variables, and only reasonable method for simulating the engine of the universe, if the universe can be fully understood without requiring one to commit certain suicide in effort to gain further knowledge.  I can chose to destroy my ideas, give them away, advance them on my own, or exchange them for equally good ideas.  Organizations of institutionalized mediocrity are now fighting to keep me from even giving my ideas away.  It has been strongly suggested in other forums that I leave it to the "Pros" and that they will "take it from here".  I sense that without directly threatening me, this is the best they can do for now.  Every message I type here is a further declination of this offer.  I am turning to you all as I attempt to figure it out all the way.  You get the privilege of seeing my mistakes along the way. 

 

Those who could not get to possible answers alone now think they can go beyond what I thought without me, I wish them luck.  I tried to share some ideas in effort to entice an exchange, but the existing institutions are not designed for such commerce.  Now people are falling over themselves trying to censor me or make me look like a fool while simultaneously trying to develop what they could never have conceived alone, again I wish them luck.  The funny thing is, while you can get close to a final solution, you do need to ultimately simulate it to prove it completely.  I have given away parts of my simulation idea, there are more in the works.  It is in that sense what I have given away to date is everything and nothing.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little something something that occurred to me... and further evidence of how pervasive big bang cosmology is... big bang cosmology starts with no magnetism, zero, zip, none and they really have no idea where it comes from, just that it is really important....

 

It was my own false assumption that my own cosmological model must follow this no magnetism at the beginning "rule"... simply because the big bang has a non magnetism at the beginning rule, my brain forced me to assume something I had not yet completely considered on my own... how do you form stars without magnetism?  You don't... that is part of how I even came up with my idea that they needed to be simulated....I assumed magnetism had to come after the 1 generation of stars, which creates the population chicken and egg problem the big bang has with forming them...  i

 

Increasing magnetism is a property of converting temporal mass into non temporal mass in the form of space.  The temporal horizon of our universe, the CMBR came with some space or non temporal mass, it was completely presumptive to assume our early universe had no magnetism based on my own cosmology.  Even when it had to have existed with some magnetism if you follow the reasoning.  In a sense I had no yet overcome my own self imposed contradiction based on an assumption.  Our universe is a just another bubble within something much bigger outside the temporal horizon we call the CMBR.  The original non temporal mass of our universe (temporal space) came with some magnetized space in which stars could form.  I am not going to let the eggs out of the basket just yet... I need to be a little more sure of a few things.

 

Simon Singh wrote a book Big Bang:  The Origin of the Universe

 

In this book Singh creates a comparison sheet between Big Bang and Steady State Cosmology.  By means of a comparison scoreboard throughout the book, Singh makes clear to the reader how the Big bang won out over Steady state cosmology as a the dominant theory.

 

I will make a similar comparison sheet... The Big Bang vs Theory of Cosmic Respiration (the Singulosynthesis Universe) (Note: There are people who like using the term "Cosmic Respiration" to describe a cosmology that is incapable of it which is in itself a paradox...)  As I uncover and quantify more ideas, explanations and predictions will be made.  The ugly stepsister wearing the glass slipper will be revealed for what she is.

 

Anyhow... working on ironing out some more numbers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnetism cannot exist without some physical and magnetic thing; that would be like sound in a vacuum. Ergo there wasn't any prior to the big bang, at least as we know it.

Non temporal mass would be matter which doesn't move through time, which would be eternally static mass; an immovable object.

If such matter existed, which is a massive "if", it could do nothing.

---

Entities have attributes and properties; physical objects. Entities cause changes in other entities. Everything scientific is concerned with entities and their qualities, alone.

There's more reification going on here than at a seance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little something something that occurred to me... and further evidence of how pervasive big bang cosmology is... big bang cosmology starts with no magnetism, zero, zip, none and they really have no idea where it comes from, just that it is really important....

 

 

There is no quantum or particle for magnetism, but there is for electric charge.  All magnetic fields are derived from moving electric charges, so the real problem is generating electric charges and space for them to move through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vickster339, on 19 Oct 2013 - 5:15 PM, said:snapback.png

Just a little something something that occurred to me... and further evidence of how pervasive big bang cosmology is... big bang cosmology starts with no magnetism, zero, zip, none and they really have no idea where it comes from, just that it is really important....

 

 

"no idea where it comes from"?? really?

 

In second year electrodynamics/special relativity Vickster you should have actually done the derivation / calculation showing the magnetic force is a result of relativistic effects of moving electric charges.

 

Do you even have a physics degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Querying into magnetic fields in the early universe is still a good question.  The early universe was incredibly dense, a magnetic field requires motion by an electric charge, so how does anything move in such a super dense medium as the postulated early universe.  Magnetic fields must have been weak or nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I moved, have been busy studying, and working on improvements to my argument and model... special thanks to Google for some free helpful stuff...

 

 

Doing my best to not get scooped... The LISA satellite launch has been postponed until 2016.  I am pretty sure they are waiting for advanced LIGO to detect anything the way they expect to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

vickster339, on 19 Oct 2013 - 5:15 PM, said:snapback.png

 

"no idea where it comes from"?? really?

 

In second year electrodynamics/special relativity Vickster you should have actually done the derivation / calculation showing the magnetic force is a result of relativistic effects of moving electric charges.

 

Do you even have a physics degree?

 

I assume you agree with the chronological history of the universe listed here give or take? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

Everything preceding recombination is a concoction of man that poorly describes everything that follows, even if you throw in the mysterious dark energy and dark matter.

 

Without telling my life story I will explain simply why I do not have a physics degree and why I really did not want one.  In 1996 I switched undergrad majors to physics only to find a school filled with irrational close minded demagogues.  Old men supporting old ideas who reacted with complete dismissiveness toward good questions based on observation. (particularly hubble space telescope observations being made at that time).  A dismissive elitist professor was not a service I was willing to pay for nor the kind of person I wanted to risk becoming myself.  So, I am an outsider with a rather extensive library and the internet has been invaluable.

 

Good observations make for good reasoning, good reasoning can lead to good questions, good questions can lead to good problems, and good problem can lead to good math, and good math can lead to a better model.  Assumptions at any point along that path will lead to contradiction and disaster.  I sought ultimate answers to ultimate questions and after 30 years I now have a problem worth solving.  I might be wrong, I might get scooped, but I assure you that the 8th possible solution to the black hole information paradox is on the correct path to a correct ultimate answer.  The other 7 possible solutions are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox if you do not recall what they are.

 

When I tried to share my ideas the demagogues of irrational consensus they did not attempt to refute my arguments or ideas, they performed an disingenuous inquisition.  Perhaps that is all my ideas were worthy of at this stage.  When not attacking me personally, my lack of credentials were highlighted as if that were grounds for one not being allowed to have good ideas.  This is among the weakest forms of refutation possible.  By the end, I was inspired me to create a diagram to depict how low the demagogues were willing to go  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c97_1375592171

The advantage of being an outsider is that I can "Just Do It" while the disadvantage is that nobody of perceived power has to listen to or acknowledge my ideas.  The funny thing is, there is no escaping truth and in that sense I know I have laid a perfect trap.  Assuming others are capable, they will need to do what I suggest to get the ultimate answers being sought.  Outsiders are never correct about anything ever right?

 

In my philosophical argument I use words in effort to put black holes into a philosophical context where they can be fully understood by a sapient life form.  Arguing a new context for certain terms is my method for arguing for a new way of thinking about a problem.  There are instances where I have used terms that are clear to me but I have poorly defined them for others.  A good example of this is my use of the term "duality".  I use "duality" to describe anything observed temporally from a non infinite temporally perceived gravitational radius. 

 

There was quite a bit a hype regarding the gas blob interacting with Sagitarius A last year, nothing has been reported for months... I wonder if what is being observed matches the animations of predicted behavior...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a layman, it seems that Vicksters determinism implies a creator and some other complicated things have implied that the corollary axiom, identity, doesn't always apply.If I mischaracterized it I apologize. If I got it right then I disagree on the philisophical grounds that my volitional consciousness has been proven to exist (thereby negating determinism) and leaving the creator issue as an arbitrary assertion (thereby no response is necessary), and you can't disprove existence (identity) without accepting it as a premise in your argument (thereby contradicting oneself).

If trying to prove determinism (and therefore deism), and that some things have no identity, is what that great mind is being used for, he's wasting his time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have been away awhile, been working on stuff... I suppose I am techically a Simulationist as opposed to a Objectivist Diest.  Just more stuff to figure out as I go..

 

Take the CMBR map and apply it to a sphere. Distort the sphere until the thermal gradient reaches an equilibrium. The shape revealed is the geometry of non temporal mass when temporal energy states are assigned.  Improved mapping of the CMBR should lead to a better model and unification with the Higgs Field.

 

Mature eliptical galaxies should have only one dominating parent super massive black hole at the glactic core. If a new black hole were to form anywhere within the sphere of its non temporal mass influence, it would not be around for long.  Why?  Black holes are temporally neutral states of mass at temporally perceived infinite gravity simultaneously representing non temporal mass which is not governed by the inverse square law.  This is due to the fact that non temporal mass being represented by the temporally neutral black hole and is outside our temporal horizon.  Non-temporal mass occupying a temporal volume and temporally neutral state of mass represented by the black hole are also both reflections of one another.  Tidal or some other interaction between 2 non temporal masses will be reflected in the temporally neutral horizon of the black holes represented. 

Sufficient distortion of the temporally neutral horizon will lead to temporally perceived singularity failure and the synthesis of all elements currently attributed to primordial big bang Nucleosynthesis.  Non temporal mass is the force we perceive as magnetism occupying a volume of vacuum space and eventually gets compacted into a star core dynamo.  While temporally neutral mass is represented by 2GM/c^2 = Rs (Schwarzschild Radius), the non temporal mass mass reflection is 2GM/c = Rv (Vick Radius).

 

If any gravitational lensing were to occur, it would be created by the non temporal mass being represented and not the temporally neutral horizon at the gravitational radius.  That is your glactic scale dark matter and the temporally perceived effect of dark energy is the result of the universe consuming temporal mass.  Another bit of creepiness, vacuum space seems to be able to tell the difference between temproal and non temporal mass whereas we are observers cannot.

 

The question now becomes, how much distortion can a temporally neutral horizon handle?  The answer is in the CMBR map.

 

And in other news...

 

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

 

To shut me up, just find a single eliptical galaxy with indirect evidence that more than one black hole is present anywhere within it.  OR... If anyone is bored, I could use a gamma ray burst event list and count where the proginator galaxy is an eliptical.  I need event duration and everything.  The supermassive black holes mass can be scrounged up later.  There are many other exercises that could done along these lines if one is willing to consider what I have been arguing for seriously.

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is a spiral galaxy with twin black holes: NASA's Chandra Finds Nearest Pair of Supermassive Black Holes

 

The article describes a possible finding of an elliptical galaxy with twin xray sources that could be black holes, but no identifier is given so followup search is needlessly made more difficult.

 

edit:  Julie Comerford, University of Colorado Boulder

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Regarding the coordinates for SN1006 listed above, there is something especially telling at 4850MHz.  Being it is a double progenitor deflagration event, can anyone here tell me what might be so special about this emission?

Edited by vickster339
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is a spiral galaxy with twin black holes: NASA's Chandra Finds Nearest Pair of Supermassive Black Holes

 

The article describes a possible finding of an elliptical galaxy with twin xray sources that could be black holes, but no identifier is given so followup search is needlessly made more difficult.

 

edit:  Julie Comerford, University of Colorado Boulder

 

I have noticed recently that many specifics that I could find useful have been getting left out of such articles... particularly a rough mass calculation...  I have two models on the table now and observations greatly influence which geometry I should be going with.  Right now I am sticking with intuition...

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...