LaurieAG Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Hi Pluto, What type of a black hole is it? Looks black Looks like a holeSo it must be a black hole ??????????? The black hole in the image is the shadow of my finger trapped within the lag of the system. It's very difficult to do, I did it twice, once with a witness. What is produced is a classic 'Einstein ring' that continues as long as you don't disturb it (like taking a screen shot). Pity I never got any screen shots of the halo, what a beauty to behold, it has a perpetual wave flowing around the inside of the halo (i.e. the outside edge of the black hole). Considering that the screen captures are the same as what your eyes see (an artefact of the feedback loop due to the electronic timing as well as the timing required to place my finger onto the screen and trap the shadow) and are most probably due to the grid nature of display on a CRT, what are we seeing due to the spin? We are seeing the outside being pulled into the inside and then the whole lot has a hole punched through it that creates a state as stable as the original (perfect orb) state. The only difference is that the perfect orb always reverts back to itself if disturbed while the halo state reverts back to the perfect orb state when disturbed. The black hole is an illusion although it is a practical model for explaining how we detect planets orbiting around stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Hi Maddog, 1. I asked the question, you didn't answer (or even qualify).2. You are now "demanding" that I "prove"... (I am not sure what ?) In another thread you provided many different definitions for an algorithm, the key point being that anything that is infinite cannot be represented as an algorithm. I agreed with you, you've already proved my point. Also, considering the relationship between the calculus proofs for speed, acceleration and the distance travelled i.e. delta t, surely anything that doesn't conform to this basic structural convention (with respect to time) cannot be a part of a (calculus) model of our universe because it is not based on our universe. The only way to create a homogenous model of our universe is to regard the common features of both the micro (speed, acceleration and distance travelled) and the macro ©, that means delta t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Hi Maddog, As a representation, I can construct a coordinate system of "finite" dimension. Yet these coordinates can approach infinity (a limiting value). Time is an abstraction yet a different coordinate that spatial ones and is typically measured from 0. To have an "always" time may sound good; Negative Infinity for time doesn't have much meaning. In Win 95 and Win 98a you could use the calculator to divide anything by zero and get 'Error Negative Infinity'. From Win 98b on you get 'Error cannot divide by zero'. If you measure time from 0 you have a model that contains a BB, if your model is seconds from a BB then you don't have 0 and you certainly cannot apply infinity as a limit because you get a perpetually self representing system (like a feedback loop). Consider the setup diagram for my feedback loop model and an analysis based on your terms, where there are many infinities. As the angle of the difference between the path in a vacuum and the same path in air approaches zero the model becomes a representation of a light wave/point travelling around the universe and returning to its start point as per a Poincare Section. In this model the rest of the universe (infinity if you like) is represented by the electronic portion of the loop. Take this same model and regard it as the behaviour of a light wave/point going around in a GBF circle, without infinity (i.e. what is really happening), and you will find that while the consolidation of this circling light may provide many and interesting distortions, they are just that unless they can be related to what is actually happening in our universe (i.e. planets circling distant stars). I hope the Hubble crew find out if there is a 'MAXIMUS ARCUS QUO' or not, especially since their survey gear has been out of action for so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 G'day Laurie With a smile.I kind of worked out the image of the black hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 In Win 95 and Win 98a you could use the calculator to divide anything by zero and get 'Error Negative Infinity'. From Win 98b on you get 'Error cannot divide by zero'.Non Sequitur. Point ? If you measure time from 0 you have a model that contains a BB, if your model is seconds from a BB then you don't have 0 and you certainly cannot apply infinity as a limit because you get a perpetually self representing system (like a feedback loop).I am not sure how you get a "feedback loop". You get 0 as the limit, not infinity. In BBTas you roll back in time, you are approaching the beginning (artificial as it might be).Consider the setup diagram for my feedback loop model and an analysis based on your terms, where there are many infinities. As the angle of the difference between the path in a vacuum and the same path in air approaches zero the model becomes a representation of a light wave/point travelling around the universe and returning to its start point as per a Poincare Section. In this model the rest of the universe (infinity if you like) is represented by the electronic portion of the loop.I am not sure I follow. I did look Poincare Section and found two websitesSurface of Section -- from Wolfram MathWorldThe Poincaré sectionThe one from Wolfram, I see how this relates to Dynamical Systems (feedback?). I amnot sure how it relates to what you are talking about.Take this same model and regard it as the behaviour of a light wave/point going around in a GBF circle, without infinity (i.e. what is really happening), and you will find that while the consolidation of this circling light may provide many and interesting distortions, they are just that unless they can be related to what is actually happening in our universe (i.e. planets circling distant stars).What is a "GBF circle" ? maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hi Maddog, Around 11 years ago Microsoft changed it's mind about allowing anything to be divided by zero being equivalent to infinity, negative or otherwise and changed their calculator program to reflect that point. At the 'point' of a BB singularity, density = mass/volume, so a zero volume with any mass contains infinite density, NOT. The singularity point of a BB is time=zero. GBF = Great Big + 4 letter word starting with F + 'en' Compare a Poincare Section with the feedback model setup image. As the difference between the path in the vacuum and the path in air approach zero the model represents a straight line that loops back on itself. If you can have an absolute singularity point then you can have this as well from the same faulty reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hi Maddog, Pyro said in another thread (4th dimension = time) that physicists use the Imaginary Unit i to manipulate spacetime at a single discrete point to do their calcs and get distance. This has lead people to speculate that time doesn't exist but is imaginary. I suppose it depends on what type of 'point' you are talking about, a singularity or a series of points along a continuum. A real planet circling a star or an imaginary infinite loop or singularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzz Time is used to define the position of matter and its motions. Time exists by defining. You cannot feel time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Around 11 years ago Microsoft changed it's mind about allowing anything to be divided by zero being equivalent to infinity, negative or otherwise and changed their calculator program to reflect that point.Interesting trivia.At the 'point' of a BB singularity, density = mass/volume, so a zero volume with any mass contains infinite density, NOT. The singularity point of a BB is time=zero.You are speaking of at the instant, and I was talking of taking a limit of the instant. Asin "just after" - - [imath]lim (t -> 0) t > 0[/imath].Compare a Poincare Section with the feedback model setup image. As the difference between the path in the vacuum and the path in air approach zero the model represents a straight line that loops back on itself. If you can have an absolute singularity point then you can have this as well from the same faulty reasoning.If you say so. :shrug: maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzz This link is quite interesting in comparing mainstream and the Time acceleration Hypothesis (TACH) Time acceleration hypothesis Time acceleration hypothesis - Academic Publishing Wiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Hi Maddog, You are speaking of at the instant, and I was talking of taking a limit of the instant. Good point Maddog, I agree with you entirely once again. Not only would any algorithym that describes a BB instance be infinite and could not be called an algorithym, any calculus used would also have to reflect that, as the infinitessimal delta is at the heart of calculus proofs from first principles in pure maths. Brilliant Maddog, you've also convinced me that there can be no other infinite variables in any calculations of this nature, because they would not reflect the true limit but would reflect the instance that is never reached. BTW, You have put forward three good reasons for not having an instance of a singularity or a BB, or at least one that we mere mortals can model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 BTW, You have put forward three good reasons for not having an instance of a singularity or a BB, or at least one that we mere mortals can model.It is for this reason, I am hesitant to subscribe fully with models that strive to pursue within[imath]10E-6[/imath] seconds of the initial Bang event. I don't think we have full fidelitymodels of what is going on before that. I am not saying I'm in or out. It am waiting for more information to assess better. maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 This link is quite interesting in comparing mainstream and the Time acceleration Hypothesis (TACH) Time acceleration hypothesisTime acceleration hypothesis - Academic Publishing WikiI have not heard of TACH until now. I will need to investigate further. One point about the website I thought odd, was the website list in the Mainstream as usingVST (Variable Speed of Light). It is my understanding this is not mainstream standard Cosmology. I have read the book by the Portuguese Physicist (I forgot his name) that wrotethe book "Faster than the Speed of Light " -- which promotes a VST Theory. This would bein place of using Inflation. What I did find interesting is that TACH is aligning with Wheeler and the Multiverse idea. :eek_big: maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Though I can’t see the relevance of it to astronomy or cosmology, I feel compelled to challenge the claimAround 11 years ago Microsoft changed it's mind about allowing anything to be divided by zero being equivalent to infinity, negative or otherwise and changed their calculator program to reflect that point. Do you have a reference supporting this claim, Laurie? :QuestionM AFAIK Microsoft’s “calculator for windows”, CALC.EXE (which I’ve used at least occasionally since the early 90s) has never had any “equivalent to infinity” feature. While Microsoft is a very big company employing people with many different math and science backgrounds, it’s not a company much interested, by all appearances, in fundamental math topics such as the interpretation of division by zero. As the preceding link notes, the issue of interpreting [math]\frac{n}{0} = \infty[/math], or not, has been around in more or less its present-day form for at least 800 years, long before any computer programmer or engineer existed to worry about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz Please fogive me for posting so many papers. When I come across them, agree or not agree I just want to share the information. May 16, 2009Do satellite galaxies point to modified gravity?Do satellite galaxies point to modified gravity? - physicsworld.com A recent study of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way casts doubt on existing models of dark matter — according to its authors in Germany, Austria and Australia. The locations of the galaxies suggest that they should not contain any dark matter — but the motions of their constituent stars cannot be explained without invoking the elusive dark stuff. According to the researchers, this contradiction could provide support for alternative theories of gravity such as modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). The need for dark matter came to light when astronomers realized that galaxies were rotating at abnormally high speeds – and would otherwise be torn apart in the absence of hidden mass to provide ‘gravitational glue’. Dark matter is fundamentally different from normal “luminous” matter because it seems to interact only through gravity. However, direct proof of its existence has not yet been found. As a result some physicists have proposed alternative theories to explain galactic rotation — theories that dispense with dark matter and assume that our current understanding gravity is not complete. Now Manuel Metz and Pavel Kroupa at the German Aerospace Centre in Bonn along with colleagues at the University of Vienna and Australian National University have found new evidence that could support such theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enorbet2 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 It is for this reason, I am hesitant to subscribe fully with models that strive to pursue within[imath]10E-6[/imath] seconds of the initial Bang event. I don't think we have full fidelitymodels of what is going on before that. I am not saying I'm in or out. It am waiting for more information to assess better. maddog Agreed! Especially right now with the renewed HST w/ CosmicOriginsSpectrograph, and the extremely ambitious European effort with Herschel Space Observatory and the Planck telescope http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/SM4/main/Summary_FS_HTML.html ESA Science & Technology: Herschel ESA Science & Technology: Planck I suspect we are in for some homework rather soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pluto Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzz Thats funny I posted something hours ago and it seems its gone to another planet. Anyway EnorbetI agree with you. There are many issues that are not answered, particularly the BBT issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.