Theory on Black Holes

[quantum_wave]

AN made a good post but Pipes acknowledged that this thread is not about String Theory.

Pipes, your mistake was mentioning a theory that you don't understand and that doesn't support your ideas. Try to stick to what your idea is and discuss it when people raise questions about it.

 

[Pipes75]

You mention string theory, as if you're familiar with it, and then use 'dimensions' in a manner utterly different to how they (ie string theorists) would. You use it in the way that sci-fi shows do, that 'another dimension' is another universe like ours, 'parallel' in the sense it has had a parallel history to ours but something's different.

That isn't how 'extra dimensions' are used in string theory, they are different directions to move. They are extra ups and downs, lefts and rights but in general can only be detected on very very small scales. In string theory it's possible to construct things which do look a lot like the sci-fi notion of extra dimensions but by their very nature (parallel 3-branes) they wouldn't 'occupy the same space', they are at different points in space-time.

Well string theory is still ongoing, incomplete, untested, and very complicated. I don't understand all of it, and I have dabbed with other multi dimensional stuff as well. String theory doesn't know yet, and has many possible explainations still open. I think I used string theory losely because it was string theory that helped me explore many possibilities, but some of my ideas come from various different opinions, and not just from this complicated theory.

And to be honest, after checking some stuff out, my original ideas do already need modified. That's why I presented this:

A more complete possibility,

Imagine a ball. Now imagine the ball is growing. The ball also has many layers. Each layer is it's own universe with it's own dimensions.
All the black holes throught the entire ball could be sucking as much into the core of the ball as they can. The denser the core gets, the more vulnerable the inner layers would become (the core might splash some dense 'singularity' on other layers once it becomes too dense).
Also the surface of our ball could be vulnerable to unknown outside forces.
There could be many balls of many growing universes!
Our universe would be just one of many layers.
Each black hole would be a gateway through other layers, but with so much force, that it's a gateway we can not travel through, .

I would assume each layer would have it's own physical properties, so our universes physics might not be the same as another universes physics. There also could be many different 'balls of universes' all having different physical properties and all having multiple layers of various different amounts of those properties. So no, I wouldn't think multiple dimensions would be the same as any sci-fi has shown me. When I think how small our universe could be when compared to everything, I realize why we know so little . We don't even understand our layer yet, and the many layers of many different masses could be mind boggling!

This version doesn't matter on what type of a black hole it is, and after seeing a dormant black hole eat a star on the Nasa site, I needed to make some changes.

Again, thnx wave, I need you beside me when I start posting, lol. I get excited looking at possibilities, and I do sometimes jump the gun . I am however very good at modifying ideas to better fit, when I feel I need to.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Well string theory is still ongoing, incomplete, untested, and very complicated.

True but that doesn't alter the fact that you wondered if other universes overlap ours. They can't, else they'd be part of ours. If you can move smoothly from one region to another then they are all part of the same larger space. I can move easily from my house to Australia but I can't get to the Moon without leaving the atmosphere. Hence the Moon and I aren't on the same planet.

[I think I used string theory losely because it was string theory that helped me explore many possibilities

You 'think'? Do you mean you were doing extradimensional general relativity and you weren't sure if you wandered into something string theory had already covered or you've just had some random qualitative thoughts and you think string theory got to those concepts before you? Did you or didn't you use any mathematics?

All the black holes throught the entire ball could be sucking as much into the core of the ball as they can. The denser the core gets, the more vulnerable the inner layers would become (the core might splash some dense 'singularity' on other layers once it becomes too dense).

Getting close to a singularity doesn't make it naked, you don't pass through an event horizon and then see the singularity. Infact, event horizons are like your layered ball analogy, there's always an event horizon between you and the singularity, as you move through 'the layers' getting closer to the centre you can see through the layers higher than you but not the singularity below you.

 

[quantum_wave]

... Did you or didn't you use any mathematics?

Do you ask this with a serious straight face? (Rhetorical) This kind of question is an example you your obnoxious arrogance. You brag endlessly about your math and your papers and pretend that anyone who wants to enter into a discussion at the low level of Pseudoscience must meet the standards that exist in the hard science forums. Until you give up that behavior you will always be a conceited arrogant agitator and your requests for quantification in pseudoscience are trolling and intended to belittle the posters. It displays your dislike for discussion and speculation among people who should be credited for taking an interest in ideas even if it is pseudoscience. Why don’t you keep your demands for compliance with the hard sciences to the hard science forums and in the Pseudoscience forum to the level of suggesting they move toward theory, hypothesis, tests, and quantification instead of asking stupid questions that you know the answer to and that are aimed to elevate you in some freaky way? (Rhetorical)

 

[Pipes75]

True but that doesn't alter the fact that you wondered if other universes overlap ours. They can't, else they'd be part of ours. If you can move smoothly from one region to another then they are all part of the same larger space. I can move easily from my house to Australia but I can't get to the Moon without leaving the atmosphere. Hence the Moon and I aren't on the same planet.

Layers don't have to intersect. If multiple universes do exist, I haven't pretended to know anything about them, I'm just exploring. But I still think if we are layers upon layers each layer could have it's own space. I am not sure where you got that I think the multiple universes have to share the same space, I honestly wouldn't know. But if we can only see our dimensions, I do feel other things we can't see could still exist within our universe that could be in dimensions we don't see. I would imagine that blackholes might suck straight through many layers whether we share space or not. I don't think science has answered too many questions about multiple universes and/or multiple dimensions so I am not sure what exactly 'can't' happen.

You 'think'? Do you mean you were doing extradimensional general relativity and you weren't sure if you wandered into something string theory had already covered or you've just had some random qualitative thoughts and you think string theory got to those concepts before you? Did you or didn't you use any mathematics?

Actually I have seen a few docs on String theory and a few on other multi dimensional stuff too. Most were just giving a general understanding for average people. The docs I watched went on to explore some possibilities that these new ideas might lead to in the future. I mixed all that in with my own thoughts, and I wasn't sure what parts came from where. I just new string theory influenced my thoughts, and most of my thoughts are not original - I was not sure who to give credit to.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Do you ask this with a serious straight face? (Rhetorical)

Please do elsewhere if you wish to throw a hissy fit. Or go back to the fractals thread and complain about how I interject with nothing relevant to say.

Until you give up that behavior you will always be a conceited arrogant agitator and your requests for quantification in pseudoscience are trolling and intended to belittle the posters.

So you're not an agitator for posting yet another personal attack on me when I was actually engaging in a discussion and explaining something to someone? I like how you ignored the rest of my post where I explained something to Pipes. Hell, I didn't even mock him.

Practice what you preach, after getting off your high horse.

I am not sure where you got that I think the multiple universes have to share the same space, I honestly wouldn't know.

You said "However if other dimensions do exist, they are completely unknown at this point, so it is unknown whether any of our space would be shared with other dimensions. ". Given your use of the word 'dimension' in the sci-fi context I read it as you wondering if anywhere a parallel universe and ours actually overlap, ie sharing the same space. That would mean you could smoothly move from our space to theirs which, practically by definition, makes it part of the same space, so they aren't parallel universe, they are the same one, just with a weird layout.

Actually I have seen a few docs on String theory and a few on other multi dimensional stuff too. Most were just giving a general understanding for average people. The docs I watched went on to explore some possibilities that these new ideas might lead to in the future. I mixed all that in with my own thoughts, and I wasn't sure what parts came from where. I just new string theory influenced my thoughts, and most of my thoughts are not original - I was not sure who to give credit to.

I see. While 'The Elegant Universe' is a nice documentary, don't take things said in it too literally, a huge quantity of details which are either too abstract or too longwinded to explain to the average viewer are missed out and, of course, they want to make it sound as fantastic as possible so as to sell some books or get more viewers.

It displays your dislike for discussion and speculation among people who should be credited for taking an interest in ideas even if it is pseudoscience.

I'd clearly engaged Pipes in discussion and explained something to him. He's now clarified he's talking entirely about qualitative ideas. I didn't smack him down for that, I wanted him to explain what he meant because thinking about the concepts you see in a documentary is fine. Claiming you've got your own model for them and then refusing to divulge it is not. See the difference?

Now run along and go have a huff somewhere else.

 

[quantum_wave]

Please do elsewhere if you wish to throw a hissy fit.

Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homonyms to describe me, you say I am your entertainment, and when I call you on your obnoxious arrogance you say I am having a fit. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

“I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum for misrepresenting what people say and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “Please do elsewhere if you wish to throw a hissy fit …”

If I can ever stand to get all of the way through one of your posts I will reply to the content. Until then you need to learn a few things that you obviously are still having trouble with like what a fixation is.

The point is you have to become a student of your enemy to bring change. I am trying to change the forum and people who use shock and awe tactics don’t fit with the changes. When a few people stand up against your hateful twisted trolling rhetoric then change begins. I am standing up alone right now while you have the support of the peanut gallery.

Being a student for me is to know you (not personally thank you). Being a student to you would be to know me. I win on the “student front” because I have you pegged for who you are, and you lose because you haven’t a clue about who I am (I don’t mean I am somebody, but just that you haven’t been a student of me by listening to what I say).

You should listen and learn. If you are engaging in any meaningful discussion that isn’t meant to puff up your ego it is only because I have called you out on your obnoxious arrogance.

 

[Pipes75]

You said "However if other dimensions do exist, they are completely unknown at this point, so it is unknown whether any of our space would be shared with other dimensions. ". Given your use of the word 'dimension' in the sci-fi context I read it as you wondering if anywhere a parallel universe and ours actually overlap, ie sharing the same space. That would mean you could smoothly move from our space to theirs which, practically by definition, makes it part of the same space, so they aren't parallel universe, they are the same one, just with a weird layout.

I get what you are saying, and I somewhat agree. It is just a misunderstanding on the words here. I still call our universe our universe, even if it is a small part of something bigger.
I would think each layer would have its own physical properties.
Furthermore I could easily see more than 1 'ball of multi-universes'.
Each 'ball' would likely have it's own physically properties that would be completely different than our 'ball' with each layer distributing the layers differently.
So the way I see it, both can exist - multi-dimensions within one bigger ball, and multi-dimensions that are a completely seperate ball.
Again, I don't know nothing, I'm just exploring what is possible - if anything needs revised because of actually proven science, I will revise .
But if you call 'the ball of multi universes' one universe, than you need to rename our universe to something else, cause our universe would be just a small part.
There might still be plenty of other 'balls', not just the many different layers in our one ball.

I see. While 'The Elegant Universe' is a nice documentary, don't take things said in it too literally, a huge quantity of details which are either too abstract or too longwinded to explain to the average viewer are missed out and, of course, they want to make it sound as fantastic as possible so as to sell some books or get more viewers.

I am all about exploring ALL possibilities. I am a dreamer that enjoys dreaming. Now when it actually comes to testing, I would agree completely that the most rational explainations should be tested first. However if the most rational explainations were in fact true, I feel alot more would have already been proven. .

PS You and wave need to call truths. I appreciate you sticking up for me wave, but I take things well and AN did not offend me. Nothing constructive happens from attacking eachother, and both of you have had good insights that have helped me revise some of my dreams!

And AN - dreaming about what is possible does not make it impossible if it sounds absurd. I understand testing should start with more rational explainations first, but until there is proof, many things remain possible. Some of those things need to be revised to fit, and I might not know all that is known, so I may still have to do revising that I am not yet aware of.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You should listen and learn.

Perhaps following your own advice might be in order?

If you are engaging in any meaningful discussion that isn’t meant to puff up your ego it is only because I have called you out on your obnoxious arrogance.

So the fact I made a post explaining something about extra dimensions, to which you said "AN made a good post but Pipes acknowledged that this thread is not about String Theory. " and which was before you started throwing hissy fits is just something you've 'conveniently' forgotten.

And if all you do is just copy and paste the same thing again you are going reported for trolling because you make it impossible for a discussion to occur. Time and again I try to discuss things and you refuse.

Being a student to you would be to know me. I win on the “student front” because I have you pegged for who you are, and you lose because you haven’t a clue about who I am (I don’t mean I am somebody, but just that you haven’t been a student of me by listening to what I say).

Though you don't like to admit it, you are really competitive, aren't you? You're just desperate to not let anyone 'one up' you? You've really taken it to heart that someone doesn't back down from your nonsense and now, despite saying I'm the one trolling and incapable of discussion you have taken another thread off course. Pipes has even said I didn't offend him, you simply went looking for something to have a go at me for.
You want to say something to me, PM me. You don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore. You aren't leaving me alone (despite you complaining I was 'stalking' you, you make a habit of projecting your issues onto me) and you're ruining threads. Well done, you've become the very thing you're claiming to crusade against.

 

[quantum_wave]

So the fact I made a post explaining something about extra dimensions, to which you said "AN made a good post but Pipes acknowledged that this thread is not about String Theory. " and which was *before* you started throwing hissy fits is just something you've 'conveniently' forgotten.

You have been trolling me for a year in hundreds of post in all of my threads.

And if all you do is just copy and paste the same thing again you are going reported for trolling because you make it impossible for a discussion to occur. Time and again I try to discuss things and you refuse.

They are not cut and paste and if you were to read what I write you would see that. There is a thread of constructive logic, though you don’t know what that means, that you have failed to recognize. And for you to report me for trolling would be the height of hypocrisy (but feel free).

Though you don't like to admit it, you are really competitive, aren't you? You're just desperate to not let anyone 'one up' you? You've really taken it to heart that someone doesn't back down from your nonsense and now, despite saying I'm the one trolling and incapable of discussion you have taken *another* thread off course. Pipes has even said I didn't offend him, you simply went looking for something to have a go at me for.

Yeah, sorry about that Pipes, and I’m sorry Pipes said that but the fact is that you would have followed your standard course of “telling him he is wrong”, saying “I told you that you were wrong”, then the ad homs would have begun to flow, and then the piling on by the peanut gallery to get the at-a-boys. Deny it. My intervention is the reason you haven’t been a jerk yet on this thread but I bet you can’t avoid it for long. Let’s find out.

You want to say something to me, PM me.

I’ve PMed you and you have lied to the forum about what I said to you in a private message which is supposed to be private under any circumstances.

You don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore.

I put you on ignore before and you complained to the moderator that I was ignoring the smart people in the forum simply because they had told me I was wrong. I have since learned to ask you to use the quote function when you tell me I am wrong but even after at least twenty requests for you to do that you have failed to do so. Saying someone is wrong about something they didn’t say is what is called creating a straw man argument.

You aren't leaving me alone (despite you complaining I was 'stalking' you, you make a habit of projecting your issues onto me) and you're ruining threads. Well done, you've become the very thing you're claiming to crusade against.

Unintended consequences. And this thread isn’t ruined unless you would say that all of my threads have been ruined by your hijacking and trolling; would you say that?

 

[Pipes75]

Calm down boys

I was hoping to get something back from this:

“ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You said "However if other dimensions do exist, they are completely unknown at this point, so it is unknown whether any of our space would be shared with other dimensions. ". Given your use of the word 'dimension' in the sci-fi context I read it as you wondering if anywhere a parallel universe and ours actually overlap, ie sharing the same space. That would mean you could smoothly move from our space to theirs which, practically by definition, makes it part of the same space, so they aren't parallel universe, they are the same one, just with a weird layout. ”


I get what you are saying, and I somewhat agree. It is just a misunderstanding on the words here. I still call our universe our universe, even if it is a small part of something bigger.
I would think each layer would have its own physical properties.
Furthermore I could easily see more than 1 'ball of multi-universes'.
Each 'ball' would likely have it's own physically properties that would be completely different than our 'ball' with each layer distributing the layers differently.
So the way I see it, both can exist - multi-dimensions within one bigger ball, and multi-dimensions that are a completely seperate ball.
Again, I don't know nothing, I'm just exploring what is possible - if anything needs revised because of actually proven science, I will revise .
But if you call 'the ball of multi universes' one universe, than you need to rename our universe to something else, cause our universe would be just a small part.
There might still be plenty of other 'balls', not just the many different layers in our one ball.


“ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I see. While 'The Elegant Universe' is a nice documentary, don't take things said in it too literally, a huge quantity of details which are either too abstract or too longwinded to explain to the average viewer are missed out and, of course, they want to make it sound as fantastic as possible so as to sell some books or get more viewers. ”

I am all about exploring ALL possibilities. I am a dreamer that enjoys dreaming. Now when it actually comes to testing, I would agree completely that the most rational explainations should be tested first. However if the most rational explainations were in fact true, I feel alot more would have already been proven. .