The Singularity of the Past

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
You left an important part out, it is rotating, and very high speed I might add. Fast enough that it has a large amount of energy just in rotation, like a fly wheel. Those little details matter in science, ignore them and you get sucked in and killed.
Yes, but sometimes, we eliminate factors in order to simplify. Just like Earth's gravitational pull. The constant was measured by removing the factor of air resistance. Removing that factor is very dangerous, it could kill someone who needs to use a parachute. Yet, Henry Cavendish removed the factor of air resistance when he measured the gravitational constant. And now, Gravitational constant is used almost everywhere - like maintaining Satellite orbit around the Earth.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
This is not elimating a factor to simplify. Over simplification is another way to say you loose, and you are wrong. If I eliminate values of parts on a schematic to simplify it it is useless. If you leave out critical details of any process this is not a simplification. It is simply wrong.

Welcome to the world of real science, where air pressure and resistance are not ignored, but caluculated in.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
Actually, I thought that time is not space but actually time is relative to space and vice versa. One cannot exists without the other (like Hellboy 2: The Golden Army's Nuada and Nuala, they're relative to each other and can't exist without the other)
They are not relative, time and space are the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Fantisy books, no matter how entertaining, don't really apply. The word you are looking for is analogy.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
They are not relative, time and space are the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Fantisy books, no matter how entertaining, don't really apply. The word you are looking for is analogy.
Actually, they are relative to each other. Thus the title Theory of Relativity. See the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. They just combined space and time in a single manifold to simplify it. But it doesn't mean they're just one, but one cannot be described without relating to the other. Like Nuada and Nuala, you cannot kill or remove Nuada without killing or removing the existence of Nuala and vice versa. Like coins, you cannot remove the front face without removing the back face - but it doesn't mean that the front and back face is just one face.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
This is not elimating a factor to simplify. Over simplification is another way to say you loose, and you are wrong. If I eliminate values of parts on a schematic to simplify it it is useless. If you leave out critical details of any process this is not a simplification. It is simply wrong.

Welcome to the world of real science, where air pressure and resistance are not ignored, but caluculated in.
Yes, but we remove the factor because we don't need it right now. Our discussion, if you refer to the original post, is about the presence of singularity outside of a black-hole.

And that singularity is what is important in my original post - not the velocity of the rotation of the black-hole, not the number of planets it swallowed, not even its color. Yes, they have these factors but the rotation is simply not critical to my theory. It might be important to those getting swallowed in there, but not our discussion. Since my theory does not argues the possibility that the whole universe is rotating. Maybe if we talk about the rotation of the universe then we shall bring that 'important' factor up.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
A title does not science make, and you totally misread the title. Relativity referrers to the fact that many of the things we take for granted is relative to the observer, not how time and space relate to each other.

A man going near away from earth near the speed of light has a different time flow relative to the man who stays on earth. It is all about point of view relative to each location.

Or, in the three body equation, you have two objects approaching earth 180° apart. Each location sees different speeds and attributes, and this is relative to each other.

You haven't put the reading in you need to. I've had an active interest in such material since I was a preteen. I don't claim to understand everything, but I have put a heck of a lot of thought into it. Analogy doesn't yield good science either, though it can help beginners grasp concepts.

A rotating black might not swallow anything, and the singularity is a circle. False premise can lead to false results, and ignoring inconvenient truths can get you killed.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
A title does not science make, and you totally misread the title. Relativity referrers to the fact that many of the things we take for granted is relative to the observer, not how time and space relate to each other.

A man going near away from earth near the speed of light has a different time flow relative to the man who stays on earth. It is all about point of view relative to each location.

Or, in the three body equation, you have two objects approaching earth 180° apart. Each location sees different speeds and attributes, and this is relative to each other.

You haven't put the reading in you need to. I've had an active interest in such material since I was a preteen. I don't claim to understand everything, but I have put a heck of a lot of thought into it. Analogy doesn't yield good science either, though it can help beginners grasp concepts.

A rotating black might not swallow anything, and the singularity is a circle. False premise can lead to false results, and ignoring inconvenient truths can get you killed.
Ahh yeah, not saying black holes are rotating can get me killed... look, I'm not saying these factors are not there. It's just worthless trying to add them to the picture if we don't need it.

Summarizing what Einstein did with space and time:

wikipedia said:
By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
Please don't make your attacks personal. You don't know how much I've read about the topic so it is fallacious to make assumptions based on what you don't know and compare it to your own historicity. Besides, reading is different from understanding. Jeeezz

Einstein didn't state that Space-Time is one, he just combined it into a single manifold to simplify a large number of physical theories. Please re-read his work and give me the page where he said it is just one, then I will concede that point. But please don't give me a quote that's taken out of context. Besides, even if space-time were hypothetically one, then it doesn't change that inside a black-hole there's a singularity.

My theory simply state that there is a singularity outside of a black hole. Keep the discussion on topic, please.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
Sorry, I am not trying for personal.

You are still approaching science from a skewed angle though. Science is not about allegory, it is about information, facts, and exceptions. One skewed fact is enough to derail entire theories, this one has held up in spite of a lot of tweaking. There are cracks showing though, but it is still holding. Newton's Laws got us to the Moon, but it had exceptions that required a new approach.

We get a LOT of pseudo science here, people trying to validate their personal theories and opinions and wrap it up and call it science, even though it isn't. Over unity (creation of energy from nothing) is a common theme, as well as perpetual motion. A common denominator is the systematic ignoring of facts and other inconvenient details. It got so bad it was banned. The same arguments kept being repeated over and over.

If you want to discuss an issue in science this crowd is willing (I just happen to be the spokesman of the moment). Keep it factual, if someone points out exceptions be prepared to either acknowledge it or step around it. Don't think that analogies are proof, they aren't. Exceptions are also part of the system, and need to be acknowledged. A simple statement that the exception isn't what you want to talk about isn't valid.

Another point of relativity and black holes. To the observer safely stationed outside the black hole someone falling into a black hole time slows and stops as the individual falling is enveloped by the event horizon, to stay that way eternally. To the observer falling in they fall faster and faster, and are ground up into subatomic and beyond, and die, extremely quickly. If the hole is big enough they aren't stretched into the constituent molecules, then atoms, then quarks as they fall into the black hole event horizon, but it will happen from their point of view. What happens is relative to the observer and their location.

Another theory I read about in a black hole Space and Time reversed you can go back and forth in time, but your direction in space is fixed. Given the fact you can not get out it is moot, and could be wrong. It is out there however.

You want sources, no problem. A quote from Wikipedia using spacetime as the search...

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
This is pretty close to my personal interpretation. You want some good reading, there is a very old book I read a very long time ago, "The Universe and Dr. Einstein". There are reams of books on black holes, they are fascinating reading.

When space is bent by a gravitational field, so is time. What started all this was there was a measured discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury that Newton Law's couldn't explain, about 2% variation. Dr. Einstein's theories did, right on target. There was a new article in physorg.com on measuring the puny time dilation effect on earth using quantum clocks with as little as 33 cm distance.

Poetry goes for allegory and comparisons, but if you want to talk science you have to stick with facts.

I mentioned cracks in the system. Read up on Quantum Mechanics as it applies to physics, there are some very strange things coming out. One of the early things was small black holes evaporate, while larger ones also do it will take longer the the life of the universe.
 
Last edited:

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
What u don't realize that time does not exist in space. It's there but it does not apply.
Of course you all will say time is measured in light years in space but it's a figure to which we can apply logic. Human brains only tend to believe in logic. We always afraid of what we donno and tend to apply hostility to things we are not familiar with.

I did not know we are in a black hole. I though we in a solar system. If we are in a black hole, why do we exist and why do we see outside our galaxy. What u say does not compute. Black holes are a theory someone derived to explain what he does not understand. To tell us what we cannot see. Of course it is a black hole, cause it appears so to our eyes. We will never know what lies in it. Cause we are never meant to venture there. It might be simply another universe. It might be another universe with another earth in it. Simply like us. Left to test their souls. Another form of "humans". A being more beautiful than us. We humans cannot imagine anything beautiful than us. But their are somethings that our eyes cannot look away if we saw them.

So to say, we can only tend to imagine what is out there. yet in truth

we cannot imagine anything beyond what we cannot see.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,647
Hmm, Rifaa, there is an old saying, that which can not be proved to not exist must exist somewhere. They were speaking about math and physics. The effects of black holes have been observed, either with the xrays caused as they absorb matter around them, the jets of really large black holes eating being expelled at the poles (where matter has been accelerated to relativistic speeds), or the extremely fast orbits of stars near the center of our galaxy.

Actually our understanding is deeper than you seem to credit. We are seeing this phenomena, it isn't theoretical. It is true there is much we do not understand, but your view is an extreme one. Black holes were concieved the moment the speed of light was pinned down.

The point being made about us being in a black hole is it is the universe, all the galaxies seen and not, all we perceive, that is the black hole that is the universe. I don't know if it is true or not, but there have been some hints that it might be so.

Time not only does exist in space, they are the same thing. This is pretty much the basis of the theory of relativity, all else follows from this assumption. So far relativity holds up on the macro scale very well, with the micro scale there are some issues. Time dilation has been proved over and over again by observation, as well as warped space/time near our sun, and to a smaller extent, near the earth.

Just curious, do you follow the experiments at the Cern laboratory? Do you disbelieve their physics or observations? It is all of a picture. I don't follow all of it myself, I'm not that smart, but we have a lot of data and facts, more than any one person can assimilate, and it has been pretty consistent.

Cause we are never meant to venture there. It might be simply another universe. It might be another universe with another earth in it. Simply like us. Left to test their souls. Another form of "humans". A being more beautiful than us. We humans cannot imagine anything beautiful than us. But their are somethings that our eyes cannot look away if we saw them.

So to say, we can only tend to imagine what is out there. yet in truth
You are talking religion, not science. Historically the two don't mix well, especially when religion tries to trump observed facts (which is what science amounts to, along with theories to try to explain the observations). Examples where light was created on the way to pin the universe down to 6,500 years old don't stand up to scrutiny (something local fundamentalist Christians tend to push in these parts), but every part of the world has its own preconceptions.

As for us not being "allowed", technologically we are a young race. There is much we can do now that we were not meant to do 100 years ago. Only the future will tell what we can't do. I don't think the human race will ever stop learning unless we kill ourselves off. I'd like to think we have billions of years ahead racially speaking.

Ever watch the British Sci-Fi series Dr. Who? His space craft is larger on the inside than on the outside. This was fantisy, but black holes have this characteristic according to the math, they could be very large indeed on the inside, as in universe large. Near stars, where space time is warped, light takes longer to get around the star than away from it, in other words there is more distance around a star (and through it) due to the warping. This has been observed too.

These theories are based on observed facts, it is important to note that. As more observations come to light the theories may be scrapped or tweaked, but there are reasons they exist, and that is based on observations.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
What u don't realize that time does not exist in space. It's there but it does not apply.
Of course you all will say time is measured in light years in space but it's a figure to which we can apply logic. Human brains only tend to believe in logic. We always afraid of what we donno and tend to apply hostility to things we are not familiar with.

I did not know we are in a black hole. I though we in a solar system. If we are in a black hole, why do we exist and why do we see outside our galaxy. What u say does not compute. Black holes are a theory someone derived to explain what he does not understand. To tell us what we cannot see. Of course it is a black hole, cause it appears so to our eyes. We will never know what lies in it. Cause we are never meant to venture there. It might be simply another universe. It might be another universe with another earth in it. Simply like us. Left to test their souls. Another form of "humans". A being more beautiful than us. We humans cannot imagine anything beautiful than us. But their are somethings that our eyes cannot look away if we saw them.

So to say, we can only tend to imagine what is out there. yet in truth

we cannot imagine anything beyond what we cannot see.
You have a point. I can't resist but I have to point out that light year is not a measure of time but distance. I share the belief that these mischievous physicist that invented the term really want to confuse us.

Black-holes have been proven already to exist. The disappearance of a star and its consequential birth of a giant black rotating hole that emits radiation is enough proof that it does exist. Of course we can't physically prove what lies inside of a black-hole but if physicist like Steven Hawkins is right and his model of a black hole is correct, then we can safely assume that there indeed is a singularity inside of a black-hole.
 

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
We are encouraged to find what is around us and learn from it.
Humans will never stop at that, eventually it will destroy us too.
 

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
You have a point. I can't resist but I have to point out that light year is not a measure of time but distance. I share the belief that these mischievous physicist that invented the term really want to confuse us.

Black-holes have been proven already to exist. The disappearance of a star and its consequential birth of a giant black rotating hole that emits radiation is enough proof that it does exist. Of course we can't physically prove what lies inside of a black-hole but if physicist like Steven Hawkins is right and his model of a black hole is correct, then we can safely assume that there indeed is a singularity inside of a black-hole.
it did not take long to disprove Darwin's theory.
I laughed my guts out at first when I heard of it, I did not believe it for a second. How ignorant he was. yet there were so many believed it.

As for hawkins, there are few I do not believe about his assumptions.

As for black holes, I will wait till they come up with a better finds.
I see what they show us, as they showed that man walked on moon.
 

Thread Starter

BestFriend

Joined Sep 22, 2010
31
it did not take long to disprove Darwin's theory.
I laughed my guts out at first when I heard of it, I did not believe it for a second. How ignorant he was. yet there were so many believed it.

As for hawkins, there are few I do not believe about his assumptions.

As for black holes, I will wait till they come up with a better finds.
I see what they show us, as they showed that man walked on moon.
Well, do you believe in the big bang theory? If it's ok, may I know what religion you belong to? :)
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
This topic is quite interesting. Though, I believe, we should probably keep religion aside. As for Darwin, Evolution is a fact. Just for your information, I recently watched a documentary on the BBC with the title "The End of God? A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion". It discussed much about evolution, advances in technologies and medical science, and gave an insight about the large hadron collider. If you try google it, you might be able to download the video or watch it on BBC iplayer if you are in the UK.
 
Last edited:

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,751
I'm a Muslim and proud a proud one at that. I do respect other religions and every one in it.
I believe in science. What science says now are things we know far longer than any of you.
I am some one who look into the stars and wonder what it would be like to travel through space and am always fascinated about the stars.

I never question what is left for us.
But for me, earth is where we belong. And it is where we all will die.
No question abt it.
There is no other planet inhabiting or planet migration.

For me science and faith are same. But not for you.

And who says we evolve. If evolution is possible than why did it stop at humans.

And I believe universe is created from nothing. Matter came from nothing. Which is the big bang sates.

And there was this big bang and everything sprung up from no where.
For you who do not believe in how that happened, think again.
I believe man can fly, I believe man can travel time. But not us and not in this life time.
May be some other time where anything is a wish away.
What do u think.
 
Last edited:

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
Bestfriend said:
psychology is the science and art of explaining and changing human mental processes and behaviors. I believe that this forum post does not describe in any way human mental processes and behaviors.
You just about made me fall out of my chair laughing at that post, you really have no clue, you think there is any science in this thread at all?! Not one single macroscopic iota of it.
The scientific method is simple.
Posit a theory that is testable, test it and then analyze the data and see if any correlation can be made to the theory, or if (and this ALWAYS happens) the theory in fact needs to be revised and new experience performed.

I have not seen one single experiment suggested, no data of any kind, nothing but the hollow words of a panicked flock of conscious individuals increasing the noise floor of this forum. I've seen posts like this hundreds if not more times, none of them end, they just putter out as the posters lose the vitality to continue to respond to the inane text and utter lack of science.

Psycology isn't a hard science it doesn't work based on math, it is however heavily based on experimentation and results, and it's well developed, it's not for manipulation although that is possible (that's what shrinks are for) it's science is by large and far simply to understand the human mind itself, because our perceptions of what occurs around us is a distorted shadow at best of reality.

I'll never change your opinion based on anything I've said, and I don't mean to even try, it does however make me sad that some human minds can be so fuddled that they aren't even aware of their manipulation of their own minds, and worse they have no conscious understanding of the human mind and how it works in the first place.
 

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
And who says we evolve. If evolution is possible than why did it stop at humans.
We've always been humans, but in different forms capable of adapting to the different environments. Many people misunderstand the concept of evolution, and very often, critising evolution as a concept that says, crudely: "we come from monkeys".

Maybe you could try read more about evolution and you may find that it as having no negative impact on your belief. At no point does evolution attack religion, but rather explains the process of how living organisms adapt to their local environment, a continuous process that requires a very long period of time.

Discussing evolution further will cause digression from the main topic.
 
Last edited:

sceadwian

Joined Jun 1, 2009
499
We've always been humans, but in different forms
How were we always human? There has to be some dividing line between to the start of our existence. What this means that at some point the the past the genetically traceable material we're made of was considered non-human. These boundries are very fuzzy, and nearly impossible to functionally declare. Evolution is analog, scientific names for species are static, but what's really occurring is shallow snapshots of an ever evolving form. We are always life, we were not always human, after there is no human there will still be life more than likely.
 
Last edited:

Nanophotonics

Joined Apr 2, 2009
383
We've always been humans in the sense that we've always been of a specific kind of species, e.g., we are not dogs, cats, fish, etc.

I can say two things for certain, we were not always 'human' and we will not always be 'human' over biological time.
Call it whatever you like. We presently do not know what we will evolve into but to observe. And I would still be using the word 'human'.
 
Top