Re: Time

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:17 pm

makc wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:It is unable to describe what happens as you cross an event horizon.
what do you mean?

I mean that there is no current, well supported theory that can be used to describe the interior of a black hole. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, GR is probably invalid. Certainly, the tools used for manipulating GR concepts stop working (most mathematical tools fail at singularities). So people exploring the behavior of black hole interiors, as well as other physical systems that theories see as singularities (the beginning of the Universe, for example) need to develop other theories. And they are doing that, but these theories are currently weak because they haven't been tested (some are really weak because nobody can even figure out a conceptual approach to testing them).

Loco · Post by **Loco** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:35 pm

makc wrote:
Loco wrote:If all men were created equal, why did the beholders of self evident truth embrace slavery?
slaves were considered to be different from men, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

I suppose it would be easy for the merchant class armed with weapons of mass destruction like flintlocks to say "these creatures which will make good slaves are not men." But in any case, such is not of cosmology, so should be discussed further only when space travel gets to the point where we could return ships full of slaves from the newly subjected worlds.
Membership applications to Local Ottawa Cosmos Ottawa are now being accepted.

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:37 am

Chris Peterson wrote:Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, GR is probably invalid. Certainly, the tools used for manipulating GR concepts stop working (most mathematical tools fail at singularities).

mother wiki wrote:The apparent singularity at r = rs is an illusion; it is an example of what is called a coordinate singularity. As the name implies, the singularity arises from a bad choice of coordinates or coordinate conditions. By choosing another set of suitable coordinates one can show that the metric is well-defined at the Schwarzschild radius. See, for example, Lemaitre coordinates, Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates or Novikov coordinates.

p.s. here is what it looks like when you cross event horizon.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:18 am

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Mark said
Hi harry..

Scroll to the bottom of the link i provided.. And it says This: At the center of the black hole is a singularity, a point of infinite of curvature, where space and time as you know them come to an end. http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

What else does this mean? This is just one example. As they describe space Falls to the singularity ..But if the BB was also from a singularity Why is the out come Different?

You can think along that line, or choose to think along reality, think along the lines of communication with EMR and what effects it speed.

Hello Loco

Smile,,,,,,,,,, Shooting or falling star has the same meaning.

As for slaves, and equality. We all need slaves but equality we will never have. That's why I have a wife. If I change my religion I can have 16 wifes.

I just finished reading these papers, they maybe of interest, but I'm not posting these papers to prove a point, they are just what they are interesting papers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4492
Time, Incompleteness and Singularity in Quantum Cosmology

Authors: Philip V. Fellman, Jonathan Vos Post, Christine Carmichael, Alexandru Manus, Dawna Lee Attig
(Submitted on 27 May 2009)

Abstract: In this paper we extend our 2007 paper, Comparative Quantum Cosmology: Causality, Singularity, and Boundary Conditions, arXiv:0710.5046 to include consideration of universal expansion, various implications of extendibility and incompleteness in spacetime metrics and, absent the treatment of Feynman diagrams, the use of Penning trap dynamics as explained by Ferdandez and Velazquez to describe the Hamiltonians of space-times with no characteristic upper or lower bound and to compare the above with Peter Lynds' conjecture on the specialness of initial conditions in inflationary theory in quantum cosmology.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5046
Comparative Quantum Cosmology: Causality, Singularity, and Boundary Conditions

Authors: Philip V. Fellman, Jonathan Vos Post, Christine M. Carmichael, Andrew Carmichael Post
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: In this review article we compare the recent work of Peter Lynds, "On a finite universe with no beginning or end", with that of Stephen Hawking, primarily "Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory, and the Anthropic Principle", and two foundational works by Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen, "Does Inflation Provide Natural Conditions for the Universe" and "Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time", in order to evaluate their comparative treatments of the nature and role of causality, time ordering, thermodynamic reversibility, singularities and boundary conditions in the formation of the early universe. We briefly reference Smolin and Kauffman's recent arguments with respect to possible processes of "evolutionary selection" in early universe formation as an alternative explanation to key elements of Hawking's earlier "M-Theory", and its attendant anthropic principle. We also briefly excerpt a short section of Smolin's recent work on topology in quantum loop gravity, simply as an illustrative example of the type of complex quantum topological transformation which he offers as a theoretical alternative to string theory in quantum cosmology.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:39 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:I mean that there is no current, well supported theory that can be used to describe the interior of a black hole. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, GR is probably invalid. Certainly, the tools used for manipulating GR concepts stop working (most mathematical tools fail at singularities). So people exploring the behavior of black hole interiors, as well as other physical systems that theories see as singularities (the beginning of the Universe, for example) need to develop other theories. And they are doing that, but these theories are currently weak because they haven't been tested (some are really weak because nobody can even figure out a conceptual approach to testing them).

I do not think these theories will get that far. Sooner or later something they find in the cosmos will point directly to the answer. Which will force scientists to look on our universe in a different way.

Hypothetically: This will happen if they find a black hole or anything else that breaks the rules. I think this is more likely than solving the current problems that there are in understanding past the event horizon.

Mark

Loco · Post by **Loco** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:15 pm

harry wrote: As for slaves, and equality. We all need slaves but equality we will never have. That's why I have a wife. If I change my religion I can have 16 wifes.

A good wife will certainly make a husband feel superior to her (while ensuring her footprint is firmly stamped on planet Earth.) Are you thinking of changing to the Hebrew or Islamic religion? Both those institutions had men (Kings of course) with hundreds of wives.

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:33 pm

semitic religions are out of fashion now, turn Pastafarian!

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:41 pm

... and try that new Jamaican-Italian restaurant, Rasta Pasta.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:56 am

G'day

Maybe an oil field will do.

Than I pay for the slaves.

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:00 am

This is what happens to you when you strike oil.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:21 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Where did you get my picture from?

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:27 am

It's actually a picture of makc that I photoshopped.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:28 am

apodman wrote:It's actually a picture of makc that I photoshopped.

Great job, Doesn't look photoshopped at all

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:50 am

Practice makes perfect.

Along with the latest upgrade.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:32 am

G'day from the land of oz

This paper may interest someone, I think.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9812180
Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Space-Times and the Persistence of Ultraviolet Divergences

Authors: M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Presnajder
(Submitted on 20 Dec 1998 (v1), last revised 13 Apr 1999 (this version, v3))

Abstract: We study properties of a scalar quantum field theory on two-dimensional noncommutative space-times. Contrary to the common belief that noncommutativity of space-time would be a key to remove the ultraviolet divergences, we show that field theories on a noncommutative plane with the most natural Heisenberg-like commutation relations among coordinates or even on a noncommutative quantum plane with $E_q(2)$-symmetry have ultraviolet divergences, while the theory on a noncommutative cylinder is ultraviolet finite. Thus, ultraviolet behaviour of a field theory on noncommutative spaces is sensitive to the topology of the space-time, namely to its compactness. We present general arguments for the case of higher space-time dimensions and as well discuss the symmetry transformations of physical states on noncommutative space-times.

Notice the words compactness.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:15 am

Hi harry

harry wrote:Notice the words compactness.

What does this tell us?

Is there not an Object pointing the way to an eternal universe? If there rules break down in a billion points .. The door maybe opening to our beginning. And the truth.

Mark

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:17 am

BMAONE23 wrote:Great job, Doesn't look photoshopped at all

What are you talking about, I can count few dozens of pixels that are completely off, looks totally fake. better luck with ms paint next time

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:38 am

G'day mark

You said

Is there not an Object pointing the way to an eternal universe? If there rules break down in a billion points .. The door maybe opening to our beginning. And the truth.

Our origin as humans or our solar system has an origin.

The universe has no origin, it is never ending, the parts within keep on recycling one way or another.

We see it today in star formation and galaxy evolution in local galaxies and deep field images.

What is the truth?

Can we stand for the truth?

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:58 pm

Now all you have to do Harry,,, is explain with your own mind and your own words why you think the universe is like you describe.(no links) But remember,, standard theories are pretty much factual.. Like the fact we can not see all the universe because light has not had time to reach us. In a never ending universe this would not be the case. or does what you describe as our universe resemble a spark in what the universe actually is? If so.. I like idea that the universe that we can see is insignificant to what it really is.

Mark

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:09 pm

mark swain wrote:explain with your own mind and you own words why you think the universe is like you describe.(no links)

second that

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:12 pm

This discussion is out of control. More than a dozen consecutive posts that are either completely unrelated to the topic, or consist of nothing but pseudoscientific/philosophical babble. And in any case, its size is becoming unwieldy. Time to shut it down and move on?

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:32 pm

Chris

Do you understand why i was talking about time travel? To dispute a theory you must first embrace it..

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:This discussion is out of control. More than a dozen consecutive posts that are either completely unrelated to the topic, or consist of nothing but pseudoscientific/philosophical babble. And in any case, its size is becoming unwieldy. Time to shut it down and move on?

(My bold.) No "becoming" about it. This topic started off "out of control". It was officially disrespected by two moderators in the fifth through seventh replies and thereby declared to be a free-for-all circus. There was no integrity to preserve from the start. Anyone (including myself) who posted anything serious did so with full knowledge that it would be lost in the mix. What better repository is there for frivolous posts? It might help save some other more serious topics from their interference. Personally, I prefer pure and honest crap to pseudoscientific or philosophical babble and try to maintain a favorable ratio. Of all the non-canonical non-linear topics in this forum, this one is relatively good-natured and easily read - long may it flap in the breeze. Or not.

The Code · Post by **The Code** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:52 pm

Harry,,, Watch this . It may interest you...

Every trillion years in time? Awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfgKJFSWR14

Mark

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:26 pm

mark swain wrote:Harry,,, Watch this . It may interest you...

Every trillion years in time? Awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfgKJFSWR14

Mark

Not a terrible video for soft science for the masses. But ...

The trillion year cycle is pure idle conjecture without a shred of evidence, so not science at all. Sure it's possible, and it makes good imagery for daydreams, but it's just an idea with no anchor in observation.

Launching gravity sensors is fine, mapping CMBR is fine, and reconstructing the past 13.7 billion years is fine, but using CMBR measurements to infer an image of what preceded the Big Bang is hogwash. The waves-in-a-bucket analogy might be okay for the past 13.7 billion years, but it can't tell you what happened before the bucket was made or filled. I have a deck of cards that has been shuffled very many times. If I had enough echoes of the past to examine, I might be able to determine the order of the cards at any time back to their origin in a sealed package - but the creators of this video would have you believe I could tell what order they were in before the prior paper was recycled and the deck was manufactured. I don't buy it.