They are not "holes" where the hell did you get that idea?
A black hole has no more "reach" than the mass it originated from, they are not used in any way to "explain shortcomings", that is a grave misconception.
It's not like that when a star collapses into a black hole that it suddenly gets ore massive. The mass stays the same, so the total amount it warps spacetime (and thus how much gravity it exerts) stays the same. It just gets more concentrated.
No "information" can travel faster than C, but the gravity field (warp in spacetime) created by a massive object can be seen as an extension of the object itself so it does not violate SRT. If the object "dissapears" the distortion in spacetime/gravity field dissapears with it so there is no violation.
This is one of those creationist's arguments that sounds halfway logical but it's really a stupid thing to say. You don't know that there was absolutely nothing.
Between 12 and 15 Billion, but there are no stars older than this. Evidence please.
Another possibility exists: there is no explanation possible.
Exactly that. What we perceive as reality and can test is not rational at all. There are endless contradictions, virtually impossible relationships, and aspects that can not be connected properly.
What does this tell us?
It says that things are NOT what they appear to be at all.
The very idea that some sort of abstract (and simple at that) series of numbers or equations could fully describe everything can be seen as problematic in and of itself.
The rationality of "the universe" is merely an assumption upon which the investigation proceeds. Is it warranted??
_-_-bear
Exactly that. What we perceive as reality and can test is not rational at all. There are endless contradictions, virtually impossible relationships, and aspects that can not be connected properly.
What does this tell us?
It says that things are NOT what they appear to be at all.
The very idea that some sort of abstract (and simple at that) series of numbers or equations could fully describe everything can be seen as problematic in and of itself.
The rationality of "the universe" is merely an assumption upon which the investigation proceeds. Is it warranted??
_-_-bear
If the universe is one big illusion, it does seem to follow a set of rules. It doesn't matter if it's an illusion or not if we find out what those rules are.
For instance, if the designer of your old cathode ray tube monitor or TV that you may own or have owned had not factored in the relativistic effects of the speed of the electrons, then your picture would be fuzzy because the focal point would be wrong.
So illusion or not, we need these laws to make stuff.
For instance, if the designer of your old cathode ray tube monitor or TV that you may own or have owned had not factored in the relativistic effects of the speed of the electrons, then your picture would be fuzzy because the focal point would be wrong.
So illusion or not, we need these laws to make stuff.
Yes, i think that we must begin to understand the deeper nature of things:
gravity
electricity
mass-matter-energy
spacetime.
This last, in my opinion, is the only and the deeper element that with different structures and dimensions generates the others above.
But how this work?
Francesco
Last edited:
The existence of 'the universe' (as opposed to, say a universe for each observer, a 'multiverse') is another one of the assumptions which lies prior to the assumption that its rational. In the cases where our predictions work, it makes sense to hold to the assumption that its rational, but this must always be provisional.
Multiverse theory not convinced me much.
I exist now in this universe and i not thinking that i now can exist in others infinite universe. Each time that i assume a decision, i not think that i am going to splitting in different universe.
I can decide to run with my machine to north street or to south street, but when i decide to go to one street then i not go in a different universe if i have gone in the other street, as the theory tell me.
In other words this theory tell me that exist a different universe for each decision a can do, or there is a different copy of mine that go in different universe, one for each event i can do.
I think is enough one copy of me and one copy of universe.
Multiverse Theory is a "Theory of decisions" but facts are different.
Schrödinger cat can be indifferently live or dead until you not decide to open the box. But when you have decided to open box then there is one only possibility for the cat.
Also for a particle as electron: it is at the same time particle and wave, but if you decide to measure or to view it then one only aspect is real.
Francesco.
Last edited:
Check out decoherence. The hapless feline can't be in a superimposed state for that long - its impossible to isolate it sufficiently from the rest of the universe.
The smart ones might ask 'Is that one of the universes where hyperinflation came along a few years earlier than this one?'.
Last edited:
It's quantum mechanics experiment, not Einstein Relativity as you know.
You are going to tell me that also quantum m. is wrong?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.