Phi for All

So we all end up FAILING at the purpose of life? I think you need a qualifier.

Hrvoje1 has been suspended for 3 days for continued abusive behavior. Telling someone to "shut up" on a discussion forum rather defeats the purpose.

! Moderator Note You've been warned about being civil. This is about the rudest thing you can say on a discussion forum. ! Moderator Note This time around, it's just you attacking people instead of ideas, so take some time off and assess whether this is the right place for you.

More evidence that supports this idea being false is the very nature of a copy of anything. They're never exactly the same, there are always some slight deviations, additions, and omissions that become compounded the more you keep making copies of copies. If your consciousness was copied EVERY TIME YOU FALL ASLEEP, it wouldn't take long before there were noticeable changes (maybe not noticeable by the individual, but certainly by those who know them best).

Science actually doesn't try to prove things true (because you can't). You can prove something is false, but not true. So instead we amass evidence in support of an idea. I certainly think brainwaves and dreams are supportive evidence that consciousness doesn't "die" (I assume you mean something like losing Random Access Memory when you shut off your computer). It's my understanding also that there's nothing in the brainwave patterns of a sleeping person to suggest anything shuts down. Neurons communicate more locally during sleep, and there's less connected activity. Another piece of evidence is the sense of time. When you've slept for a period of time, upon waking you retain a sense of having spent that time in sleep. However, if you're given a general anesthetic (say, before a medical operation), you wake up afterward having felt like you just went to sleep, even though hours may have elapsed. Again, the neurons don't stop communicating, but they form more localized signals, isolating brain activity. I also would like to see a reference to the piece you read. I'm very curious why the author believes our consciousness dies when we sleep, and where we get this backup copy from when it does. It's sounds contrived, and unnecessarily complex. If consciousness doesn't die when you sleep, you don't have to figure out where you're storing/getting a complete copy of your consciousness (whatever THAT entails). I'm betting the author is a computer specialist rather than a neurologist.

Colorado recently passed a law allowing primary voting by independents. We still have a problem with some folks turning in both ballots, but we're working on it.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

I've never heard anyone claim this before, for either definition of "singularity". The EH is neither a compressed, ultra-dense point, nor does it represent mathematical instability or unpredictableness. How is it a singularity? An event horizon isn't a thing, so of course it has no mass. It's a threshold past which the curvature of spacetime is so intense that no path away from the BH exists. Or, if it had any validity whatsoever, we could model it mathematically to remove the ambiguity and subjectivity that accompanies methods like "conceptualize this" and "visualize it".

You must mean the collapsing core of a sun. A black hole can't collapse any further. What?! It doesn't create space. The mass of a BH curves spacetime, the same as any other mass. Once past the EH, it curves so radically that no amount of energy will let anything escape. Um, I don't think you're using any of these words in their scientific sense. There is literally NO SPACE inside a black hole. The matter has overcome both the electron and neutron degeneracy pressures, and has been compressed to a point. Space(time) is merely the geometry we use to measure the effects of the curvature of mass. The fact that you think you could EVER know what anything looks like past an event horizon tells me you don't understand what a BH is, that you've given up trying to understand the mainstream explanations, and have now started making up your own that make more sense to you. It's a very bad habit, you know. Your ideas will always seem perfect, but only to you.

Goodbye, troll.

Settle down. A GUT is a Grand Unification Theory, what you've been calling a Theory of Everything. It's just in a language you don't understand.

Taking your ball and going home? How can you seriously read the responses you've been given and NOT see where your arguments have fallen short? While you're making up shit, others have been trying to teach you some science. WHY DID YOU COME HERE IF YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN SCIENCE??? It's. A. Science. Discussion. Forum!

You claimed "the mass in a black hole is unobservable", yet we have tested them, and found we have methods for determining their mass. For instance, the SMBH at the center of our galaxy is approximately 4.6 million times the mass of our own sun. So why did you say what you did?

He has critical thinking skills, which allows one to question EVERYTHING. What you seem to have is laziness wrt formal study. You've justified it as "I'm so intuitive I don't need it". You're wrong. You're being offered the accumulated knowledge of humankind, reviewed using the most powerful methodology we've ever discovered, and you're saying, "No thanks, I can make up more believable garbage than THAT!" Really, best of luck to you. I'm so very sorry you can't see the trees because you don't know what a forest is.

We don't know anything about that. Our model for it is unpredictable beyond a certain time.

The one I use is limited, but I can use it to calculate the height of a geostationary orbit. Can yours do that?

All these pages and views are us NOT shrugging it off. They certainly don't indicate interest from serious scientists. I'm so sorry you've wasted so much time guessing when the best explanations, the ones that actually work, were right in front of you. Please accept my condolences on your lack of reasoning skills. I had hopes.

This makes no sense. There can be NO GAP in spacetime. It's just a coordinate system we use to measure volume and movement. What happens to spacetime around a black hole is the same thing that happens around any stellar mass. Spacetime curves in the presence of mass; the more mass the more curved spacetime is. Because the matter in a black hole is SO much more dense than a similar amount of normal matter, it curves spacetime even more radically when you get past the event horizon. Far from being a gap, it's so tightly and densely curved that your paths AWAY from the center are eliminated completely. Every path leads to the ultra-dense matter, and no amount of energy allows for a path anywhere else. Newton reasoned that when you fire a cannon on Earth, the cannonball curves back down in a calculable arc. When you put more gunpowder in, the cannonball flies farther before arcing back down. He reasoned that if you were able to keep increasing the firepower of the cannon, eventually the cannonball would fly so fast that it would miss the Earth completely when it was pulled back down (draw the picture yourself if you like), and from then on would follow an orbiting path around the planet, always falling towards Earth, and always missing it. He also realized this meant the cannonball is always flying a straight path, but the mass of the Earth curves that path. Movement (like from a rocket) is straight through spacetime, which is curved by the multiple presences of mass nearby (and which we feel as gravity). Also, I wouldn't say the quantum realm is unobservable. We can calculate the energy spectra in virtual particle pairs. I'm not well-versed in this area, but this would seem to imply observable phenomena.

We don't attack people here, so stop this. We attack ideas, to make them stronger, or show they're wrong. It's always our knowledge that's lacking, and you now see why it's so important to fill the gaps in our understanding with trustworthy information. Without good input, the stuff we make up will always seem right, but just to a single person. Science MUST be able to be shared with peers. Good for you for recognizing this. Some people keep stomping their feet for years. I would also add the Khan Academy to the recommendations others have given.

Logic isn't a science, it's a tool used in philosophy and mathematics. You're probably thinking of the Mr Spock kind of logic, which has led many pop-sci enthusiasts to equate it with "this makes sense to me". It's a really poor definition for something that's very well defined (but not really applicable in science - outside maths and philosophy). You have zero evidence to base that on. If I claimed it was finite, I also would be guessing. There's nothing that says it has to be one way or the other, and plenty of theories that work that don't require such limitations. So when you claim they MUST be infinite, I can safely claim you're following no recognized methodology wrt evidence, which is MUCH more important in science than logic or proof. You should drop "logic". What you mean is critical thinking, or reasoned thought. Which you are NOT doing by making the above claim.

If you've "never seen any evidence that the Universe could have had a beginning", and we know there's none that confirm it's infinite, why are you convinced it's as you say? There's no evidence either way, so (in science) who cares what YOU (or I) believe? The very nature of the universe as far back as we can calculate, to just a fraction of a second after it started expanding from a really dense, hot state, is such that all evidence of an earlier state is lost. We simply CAN'T KNOW if our universe is finite or infinite, so it doesn't matter how you feel about it, what you believe is true. Science isn't looking for truth. Science looks for the current best supported explanations. Does that make sense?

Spacetime isn't a "thing" one can "anchor" anything to. You can't borrow a cup of spacetime. It's the coordinate geometry we use to visualize and measure relativistic effects. Are you saying that if an object is small enough, it's not considered part of the geometry of the universe?!

! Moderator Note Discussion of your personal ideas is unacceptable in mainstream threads. Stop hijacking and keep personal ideas in their own threads in Speculations.

That's one possibility. What evidence supports your contention, to elevate it beyond mere guesswork? Nobody is interested in discussing your personal beliefs here. Give us something trustworthy, because science.

This statement shows you're using a different definition of "dimension" than everyone else in the thread. Can you tell us how you're using it, please?