Trillions of tons of matter compressed so much that the space it occupies doesn't even have dimensions, isn't nature magical..
What is inside a black hole ? This is what I found:
We have to imagine that anything in a black hole, even an entire planet, is compressed to a single point, which has no time.
We have to imagine that anything in a black hole, even an entire planet, is compressed to a single point, which has no time.
Last edited:
Singularities like parallel universes are unavailable to be examined or experimented upon and so our understanding of them must remain speculative in nature.
Considering the huge forces involved, there is nothing magical. Orbiting electrons around atomic nuclei have a finite centrifugal force. Once, that is cancelled out, the attractive electrostatic force between electrons and nuclear protons takes over. To make neutrons out of electrons and protons, energy is required. In such violent events this energy is copiously available. So, we end with neutrons, but how do these react to the huge forces involved? Do they disintegrate into more basic particles, that can withstand the forces in a yet unknown state of matter?
The impression that a black hole is a tightly closed black box, whose interior does not react to external stimuli, is somewhat discouraging. Do black holes react to external simuli in other ways besides gravitationally? Is the event horizon a perfect sphere, implying a point mass at the centre?
OK, I've done my homework and will offer it here for you to mark and point out any remaining mistakes. 🙂
To calculate the time the GPS signals take to arrive, the GPS receiver needs to know the time very accurately. Rather than have to install an expensive atomic clock within the receiver itself, a signal from a fourth satellite is used by the receiver to solve an equation that lets it determine the exact time.
If the GPS receiver is only able to get signals from 3 satellites, you can still get your position, but it will be less accurate. The GPS receiver needs 4 satellites to work out your position in 3 dimensions, including altitude. If only 3 satellites are available, the GPS receiver can get an approximate position by making the assumption that you are at mean sea level.
The big bang is just a theory.
It could be the big bang wasn't the first big bang.
Maybe it was just a super massive black hole exploding ?
Maybe black holes have a size threshold over which they become unstable and explode ?
Maybe time has gone on forever, no start and no end ?
Why should there be something where there was previously nothing ?
A vacuum still has a volume so there is still something there.
GPS. Why 4 satellites !
You have got the main point. The clock accuracy at the receiver.
Note that 1nano second at the speed of light is 1 foot.
With 1nS wrong you have distances from all satellites too short or too long by 1 foot.
With a drift of 1nS every second an accuracy of 10^-9, distances are all wrong within a minute.
This accuracy is very good for a wrist watch or wall clovk 1nS per second drift is 0.03 second over one year, not good enough for GPS.
As said you need an atomic clock accuracy at the receiver and you cannot afford it.
The trick is to obtain this accuracy from the four satellites.
This comes as a result of the triangulation in a 4 dimensions space X,Y,Z,T.
Here Einstein chimes in: We are in a 4 dimensions space this is why we need 4 satellites giving 4 distances.
Saying the 4th satellite gives time is so to speak; As a matter of fact all 4 participate equally in the calculation.
Calculation that gives you your location and a free atomic clock.
You have got the main point. The clock accuracy at the receiver.
Note that 1nano second at the speed of light is 1 foot.
With 1nS wrong you have distances from all satellites too short or too long by 1 foot.
With a drift of 1nS every second an accuracy of 10^-9, distances are all wrong within a minute.
This accuracy is very good for a wrist watch or wall clovk 1nS per second drift is 0.03 second over one year, not good enough for GPS.
As said you need an atomic clock accuracy at the receiver and you cannot afford it.
The trick is to obtain this accuracy from the four satellites.
This comes as a result of the triangulation in a 4 dimensions space X,Y,Z,T.
Here Einstein chimes in: We are in a 4 dimensions space this is why we need 4 satellites giving 4 distances.
Saying the 4th satellite gives time is so to speak; As a matter of fact all 4 participate equally in the calculation.
Calculation that gives you your location and a free atomic clock.
Thank you for the additional information!
Earlier I illustrated trilateration with reference to three intersecting spheres.
In fact, as illustrated in the attachment below, you need four intersecting spheres to exactly pinpoint your location.
An oversimplification perhaps, but it may be helpful to those who can't get their heads round Einsteinian four dimensional space!
Attachments
A early algorithms to find location and time from 4 satellites distances was the following.
Take an estimate of time.
Find the intersection from 3 satellites among the 4, this gives a location.
Do the same for other sets of 3 among 4.
You end up with 4 locations since there are 4 ways to take 3 among 4.
This 4 points give you a tetraedron of some size for an estimated time.
Repeat this for other times to hunt for THE time giving the smallest tetraetron. This time is the right one and your location is inside a small volume.
This is not used anymore, now they use a more abstract algorithm based on analytic 4 dimension geometry. This can deal for 4 or more satellites to compute a best result.
I played with this, programming it, to see it working, but found no intuitive way to understand it.
This is pure maths.
I'll come back after a search for the name of this technic, name I forgot.
That is the Bancroft method.
See here:Global Positioning System — Wikipedia
Résolution de l'équation de navigation
Take an estimate of time.
Find the intersection from 3 satellites among the 4, this gives a location.
Do the same for other sets of 3 among 4.
You end up with 4 locations since there are 4 ways to take 3 among 4.
This 4 points give you a tetraedron of some size for an estimated time.
Repeat this for other times to hunt for THE time giving the smallest tetraetron. This time is the right one and your location is inside a small volume.
This is not used anymore, now they use a more abstract algorithm based on analytic 4 dimension geometry. This can deal for 4 or more satellites to compute a best result.
I played with this, programming it, to see it working, but found no intuitive way to understand it.
This is pure maths.
I'll come back after a search for the name of this technic, name I forgot.
That is the Bancroft method.
See here:Global Positioning System — Wikipedia
Résolution de l'équation de navigation
Last edited:
Not that boggling.Pure gobbledygook to me!
For instance:
(x-x0)² + (y-y0)² + (z-z0)² = R²
Is the equation of a sphere of radius R centered at x0,y0,z0.
The boggling four equations just add time distance with terms like c² (t-t0)².
The four equations are quite easy.
Then the resolution to get the solution of the four variables x,y,z,t is another piece of cake.
Not easy, there are several technics.
GPS. Calculation of the receiver location using sphere intersections.
A detail.
When intersecting 3 spheres you get 2 points.
Intersection of sphere 1 and 2 gives a circle, then intersection of this circle and sphere 3 gives 2 points.
There are two solutions for a possible location of the receiver.
The wrong one is rejected because, it is meaningless, far out in deep space.
A detail.
When intersecting 3 spheres you get 2 points.
Intersection of sphere 1 and 2 gives a circle, then intersection of this circle and sphere 3 gives 2 points.
There are two solutions for a possible location of the receiver.
The wrong one is rejected because, it is meaningless, far out in deep space.
No better theory available yet unless something 'proven' on youtube.
Impossible, as black holes are made of mass, and there was no mass yet at the (start of) time. It took a while before radiation was cooled down enough to condense into matter.
We live in a 'frozen universe' so to speak.
As with mass, there was no time either.
For most humans difficult to comprehend, as if human understanding is per se the definition of how the universe is put together.
Because it had happened as we can experience still today. Consider it as a quantum hiccup. Presto: universe!
There was no vacuum also before, so no volume and no something at all.
For most humans difficult to comprehend, as if human understanding is per se the definition of how the universe is put together. (Echo)
If these are understood, you get an idea of how the universe is constructed:
m' = m / sqrt(1 - v|exp2/e|exp2) and l' = l / sqrt(1 - v|exp2/e|exp2)
though t' = t * sqrt(1 - v|exp2/e|exp2) !!!
You only have to add some quantum mechanics to the mix for full understanding.
And with QM, there is no relation between cause and result, so that's the easy part.
QM always messed with my brain, what little I studied.
Shroedinger's Cat (sp?), and electron probability (I think that's the theory anyway)
How can we ever know any of this, when we can't see far enough into the past, and some things arent apparently exist only when not observed?
My poor understanding, though a friend of the family who works for ESA would probably be able to explain it, I'd probably still not comprehend.
All theories, as far as I know, are only applicable with bounds.
I still like the Macro Multi Universe Theory (well that's what I call it), where the edge of the universe is akin to a cell wall, and our universe just one cell in a 'tissue'
which could form an 'organ', etc etc.
Realistically what the Multiverse actually forms, is completely conceptual.
If we ever mapped the Universe, then Mutiverse, then we may find the Multiverse is not the only such 'structure'.
Shroedinger's Cat (sp?), and electron probability (I think that's the theory anyway)
How can we ever know any of this, when we can't see far enough into the past, and some things arent apparently exist only when not observed?
My poor understanding, though a friend of the family who works for ESA would probably be able to explain it, I'd probably still not comprehend.
All theories, as far as I know, are only applicable with bounds.
I still like the Macro Multi Universe Theory (well that's what I call it), where the edge of the universe is akin to a cell wall, and our universe just one cell in a 'tissue'
which could form an 'organ', etc etc.
Realistically what the Multiverse actually forms, is completely conceptual.
If we ever mapped the Universe, then Mutiverse, then we may find the Multiverse is not the only such 'structure'.
