SamBridge

The temperature indefinitely approaches infinity, it never attains the value of infinity itself. And I am guessing that there is not an infinite amount of thermal energy, or we would know right away, but I suppose there could be an indefinitely increasing temperature because it's at the lowest energy state.

Either you're trolling or misinterpreting me. It is obvious, Carbon on it's own is just an inanimate object, so is iron, phosphorous, and a number of other components that make up the life we see today. They are objects they we determine have no consciousness or intelligence, yet somehow consciousness arises from them. We don't know exactly how non-intelligent objects can make intelligent life, so we can't rule out what possibly can make intelligent life.

Still not a correct physical interpretation, infinity isn't a number that can be computed, therefore they cannot have scientifically confirmed an infinite temperature from any scientific mathematics, it appears that the media is just really trying to hpe it up to make it sound as exciting as possible.

Or you could at least google other possible theories, Stephan Hawking isn't the only smart person in the world. Smart people like Stephan Hawking don't care about image and power so much and they don't want people to believe what they say just because they say it, they want people to believe them because they find it holistically logical.

There's no "in-between" excited states, particles and energy cannot physically exist in any between state.

It doesn't matter if you say "relative" speed because light has the same speed from all frames of reference oddly enough. If space time were moving, matter should be following that motion in some manner, but in order for us to measure multiple beams of light traveling in straight lines that would mean matter has to be moving in all those other directions simultaneously to constantly measure them at the speed of "c", which can't really happen.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. You don't seem to know what the difference is between proof and evidence. Besides, Stephan Hawking aready stated wormholes couldn't exist because he found they violate conservation laws. Again, possibly evidence, not proof, and anyway way it's just another pop-science article trying to make money from getting views. By the definition of the word "universe", nothing can exist outside of it, there's already other theories to explain this, such as Dark Energy. Gravity cannot exist outside the universe because outside the universe there is no medium for gravity to be transmitted.

I was assuming from the frame of reference of someone outside the black hole, since that's really the only way you could see the entire model of it. Wait, that doesn't sound right. A Free-falling observer should measure time is changing, it's only to an outside observer that they would not measure the free-faller's clock as changing, because if that happened the free-faller couldn't travel distance over time and therefore would never reach the singularity. It doesn't come to a stop....from what frame of reference? I can't use the Scharzschild metric to calculate the gravitational time dilation you say, if we assume the black hole isn't rotating, how else are you suppose to be able to confirm what you're saying? What other equation is there for calculation the time dilation caused by a black hole? There has to be some solution to the problem, we know black holes get bigger, that means matter has the cross the event horizon, unless perhaps being at the boundary of the event horizon is equivalent to being within the black hole...?

Even if you use wormholes you're still not "traveling" faster than light, in fact you're not traveling anywhere at all because a wormhole makes two 3-D coordinates overlap and become the same coordinate.

Smething seems wrong with this article, and usually the media is often behind. You can't go "above" infinity, that's inpossible by the defanition of infiity. What's more likely is that the media finally realized that more people are interested in complex mechanics that can be put into terms of words that people understand, and that really what happened is atoms have been cooled to the lowest possible energy state, using liquid helium, which creates a friction-less, entangled fluid. which was done at least 5 years ago. They are behind in many other scientific news items, such as cold fusion, nature, discovery of planets, all sorts of things. Because of the fact that the helium is at the lowest possible energy state, the uncertainty in it's particles actually "accidentally" create random amounts of energy, in the same manner that the uncertainty of thermal radiation in a black hole can exceed the boundaries of the event horizon. "The Wacky Physics Experiment" is something I saw at least 5 years ago and scientists won a Nobel Prize for it.

But there's a problem with it being physically meaningless. As a photon approaches a black hole, it's wavelength extends to infinity, and it's frequency goes to 0. This is a physical phenomena. Is there some way you could describe the flow rate of time in different 3 dimensional locations as a 3-D derivative model of a 4 dimensional manifold? Visuals would help more. You don't apply the Schwarchild coordinates, but the change in the system of significant mass I'm guessing would be measured at the speed of light, which is the same from all frames of reference, but for matter actually falling in, you can't just ignore time dilation, time slows down, therefore you should see that the velocity of an observer slows down because his own frame is counting units of time slower compared to your frame, but you say that it doesn't matter that it should theoretically come to a stop, I don't think it makes sense either, but I can't see a clear solution from what you're saying.

In contemporary physics matter and energy and forces can essentially be summed up in general as oscillating fields, your basic concept isn't far off, but I would say you should actually test specific parts of it if it were at all possible, string theory has virtually no direct evidence for it's existence.

Yeah? And? So what? stars and humans are completely different structures. The similarities you point out are things you extrapolate between the objects, those objects themselves will just continue to exist however they exist regardless of your acknowledged of any sort of similarity between them. There isn't really any evidence for what you're saying, and there's hardly any logic, you still have to use at least logic and evidence with philosophy. I could say "stars are like potatoes because they are both round". That doesn't mean stars are full of starch. and it doesn't mean stars and potatoes are in any way identical objects.

Which is why I'm investigating it. The word "triangle" is still a word created by humans, the universe is its own thing, it works however it wants to work, we simply try to label patterns we see in it using math. Can you prove a triangle has 3 sides using only algebra? You can't, the word "triangle" has some outside meaning from the operations of math, it us humans who recognize some collection of sides as being distinguishable, and this meaning has a meaning outside of the universe. In reality there isn't actually a circle when you think you draw one on paper, there's clusters of atoms which you can draw straight lines between. So, I guess we have to define, what is a value really? What really is a number? And why does it work the way it works? We can't completely answer that because numbers are just extensions of axioms. We say "1" means some thing, but that thing isn't actually found in reality, what we find in reality is physical objects. You say you find "1" apple, but really what it is, is a composite of many many atoms, which are something like oscillating fields, so really, "what is 'i' apples?" is a lot more complex than what it's being credited for, you can't just say it can't represent something when we don't really even understand what exactly a value is in the first place. Let's say some unit has a value of 1, but what does that mean beyond just that statement? Whatever the answer is, that's something we make up, using language and symbols.

I'm not completely sure about this, but I am fairly certain the structure of the human brain hasn't changed much over a few thousand years, or even 20,000 years. The average IQ may have risen, that's partly genetic there are slight modifications that get made to various parts of the skull which allow the brain to grow better or worse in different areas, as well as I suppose maybe some cognitive abilities, but pretty smart people existed a while ago, and we wouldn't be where we are today without them.

I suppose I see what your saying in a sense, that out definition of intelligence is subjective to our own experiences of it, but still a lot of what your saying just does't make sense. There is no correct or incorrect way to experience something, you experience whatever you experience and no science or religion can deny that. You say that most people can't understand the wheel, but we wouldn't have gotten here today unless many many smart people existed in the past and worked together. While many animals scientifically exhibit clear signs of intelligence, they are not measured to be able to do it at the highest levels as a human's highest levels. Many animals can count, but not to numbers like 100, except of course a few mammals like obviously maybe some primates and dolphins, but the smartest reptiles can only count to less than 20. Some lived in groups and would have developed social adaptations, others not so much, same with any species. Animals don't have defined language, most know basic verbal ques orally by observing others of their kind or by instinct, but they don't know complex language, they have no way to organize their thoughts into terms of words. The people you are talking about are more like extremists, even orthodox religious people definitely understand how a wheel works and recognize that animals can think and reason and feel things, that old time is more or less dying at out time progresses. Otherwise the other problems related to this issue are caused by environment, such as when growing up and with media. Meat industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hide the image of many animals being, slaughtered, and buy politicians...er sorry, "Hire Lobbyists", to make greater restrictions on documenting industrial farms and meat packing and slaughter houses. In developed worlds this is part of the reason why people tend to not think about animal "rights" so much, but of course there is also the environmental issue where people just aren't use to thinking so open minded about every single little thing, because honestly it take a lot of energy, it takes physically more brain calories to constantly think and analyze, I can't say I blame everyone for not wanting to think all the time, especially when they have a real hard job or a hard life, but progress will be made as time progresses is my guess, but these ethics don't really impair the ability to do scientific investigations as well as use cognitive abilities that you mentioned. So far out investigations have concluded that dinosaurs were more intelligent that what was originally assumed,and that's about all we know about them. If we find certain fossil patterns, perhaps a field where 3 dinosaurs acted exactly as coordinated as a pack of wolves to catch what appears to be a natural prey of theirs, we can make another little step and say they were intelligent to coordinate with each other in some manner like wolves, which means they would also have to have enhanced social abilities and social structure, but then again, perhaps not, we don't know a lot about them, and they are something like 65 million years old.

If you believe something just because he says it and not because there is evidence, you have violated one of his highest regards, which is science.

If the laws of physics weren't the same everywhere then you wouldn't necessarily be able to observe that location that was outside out physics. Frankly to me it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true, we matter matter is quantized, it can only exist the forms we see today, because otherwise our math shows that if it tries to exist as anything else, it doesn't exist.

Neither does "2". Do you see the symbol "2" just randomly floating through space? No, the number 2, like the number "i", is something we made up, and this is true for anything in math. Did you catch that math is in of itself proven to not be a form of logic? That it was created with it's own axioms? All numbers, regardless of whatever you want them to represent are symbols that we made up with meanings that we made up. The universe is its own thing and it will function however it wants independent from out understanding of it.

You can say otherwise all you want because there are other super-geniuses who doubt multi-verses and geniuses who doubt string theory and with the right to do so because there is absolutely no evidence for their existences. They key to it is in your sentence, Stephan Hawking "feels" that it's true, even though there's no evidence confirming it either way. Besides, Stephan Hawking admitted he was wrong about wormholes through time, it's not like he's infallible.

That's what I hope to find out. "i" like a value, and like any value it represents something, we know what most other values look like at least in some manner, I don't see how it is scientifically impossible to do the same with "i".

That's more of a pop-science story, really we have no idea about the state of the universe at all before a few hundred thousand years after it supposedly was formed, and every couple years we keep finding it was older and larger than we previously thought. Maybe our entire observable universe is just a local cluster in an infinite universe, maybe space existed before and the big bang wasn't the beginning, ect.

The state of a Higg's field will extend indefinitely, so if there is a state of a localized higg's field that has been around since the beginning of the universe, it should theoretically have the size of the universe if the universe can only expand at the speed of light and if it was expanding at all, otherwise all the changes that happened happened at the speed of light at later times, and so those field states aren't the size of the universe. If you could travel faster than light, you could outrun the state of a change field before a star collapsed and measure it still to have the mass that it had before from its frame of reference it had supernova-ed. So basically any change to interact with something will happen at the speed of light, which is the basic principal we have now, gravity instantaneously reacts with anything within it's static field, but any change to that field happens at the speed of light. Higg's particles do exist literally everywhere, but the same field states do not.

A nuclear reactor isn't the best shape for a drill. The problem is that some big volcanoes exist at high altitudes or are in the middle of some continent. Funneling water into them would first require a way to transport that much water, and I doubt everyone is going to be giant irrigation canals thousands of miles long, and then the water would have to be pored in after some kind of hole was made, which if it's too small it won't do anything because the water will vaporize before hitting the magma chamber, but if it's too big it will end up just accelerating the eruption.

Well it shouldn't make sense to do that with infinity, and if I take it a step further it shouldn't make sense to do that with ANY symbol because we made those symbols up and assigned our own meanings to them, you shouldn't be able to just slap meanings onto made up symbols, From that standpoint, the whole of mathematics sounds like a bunch of bs, even though it's allowed us to do a lot. Obviously "i" is a value, it's a value of something and that something can be found as represented by patterns extrapolated from nature, it's no different than any other symbol that we call a "number", it represents some kind of value, and what it represents obviously applies to reality in some way.