Big bangs within spinning balck holes?

[36grit]

I was "relegoing" the model in my head, stitching together new information with old and came up with this:

I learned a long tome ago that it is accepted that the electromagnetic scale is infinte in both directions. And now I know that the space and time can expand and contract at infinite rates and that this is relative to a local perspective.

Now, if we throw into the mix that many now believe that black holes have a singularity as a core. I can imagine that some of these singularities could be as vast and as limitless as our own universe.

Well, I got to thinking that if this is true than a big bang scenario must fit nice and neatly into the realms of possibility to explain our own existence, and place our own universe inside of an "extra universal" black hole.

So I started thinking about something I read in wikkipedia about black hole classifications, whereas some black holes have a charge, and some are static, and some spin. The article went on to explain that ones that have spin are predicted to have a core of ininite implosion and that some physicists believe the hole may be a doorway to alternate universes although this is highly speculative.

So I'm "legoing" away at the model, and the thought of vast universes being possible within some of the black holes in our own universe, trying to tie together the notion of how a big bang might occur, and I'm no scientist, but just the navigator of my own thoughts, and I started thinking about those spinning black holes.

At some point the infinite time space implosion must become smaller than a gravaton. At which point the gravatons might produce a cloud of gravatons smashing into each other thus becoming the ultimate particle collider. The razors edge of particle collision. I'm thinking that somewhere beyond the time/notime event horizon, of some spinning black holes, there may well be an expansion horizon existing within the infinite implosion. Within this local frame of relativity one might experience a plane of gravity expanding faster than the speed of light, which I've read is what most physicist believe happend at the advent of the big bang.

So now I'm wondering, what real scientists might think happens when and where a space and time implosion vortex becomes smaller than a gravaton?

[ACG52]

Word salad, empty of any meaning.

[elfmotat]

Word salad, empty of any meaning.

 

It seems to be a popular trend on science boards like this, where people naively decide one day that they're going to come up with "the next big idea," or "the theory of everything," etc., without having even a basic knowledge of the topics they want to talk about. The result is an oversupply of nonsense threads like this.

[36grit]

Go ahead and laugh and beat me with a word bat, I still I think I'm right. In fact, I'd dare say that stars orbiting black holes are weaving the threads of dark matter, that will someday be the particle colliders necessary to create galaxies.

There are singularities as black hole cores, and our universe was once a singularity, and I'm sure within a band width of infinite sizes it still is.

I have to think that the interior of a black hole consists of an outer layer of particle chaos within a time free zone. But closer to the core fractal patterns form structure from the algorythems of gravitaional, particle crunching. and ofcourse gravity transends through all the dimensions of possability.

If I'm correct then gravity is an expansion of infinite inward force. The speed of light is equal to the velocity that exists between the expansion and the implosion. This would put the present time as a vector of gravitaional equilibrium. Negative particles form from the gravitational decay of the inward force moving into an anihilation zone. And positive energy is the decay of the expansion into an anihilation zone. The anihilations take time and they are time.

[ACG52]

Go ahead and laugh and beat me with a word bat, I still I think I'm right. In fact, I'd dare say that stars orbiting black holes are weaving the threads of dark matter, that will someday be the particle colliders necessary to create galaxies.

There are singularities as black hole cores, and our universe was once a singularity, and I'm sure within a band width of infinite sizes it still is.

I have to think that the interior of a black hole consists of an outer layer of particle chaos within a time free zone. But closer to the core fractal patterns form structure from the algorythems of gravitaional, particle crunching. and ofcourse gravity transends through all the dimensions of possability.

If I'm correct then gravity is an expansion of infinite inward force. The speed of light is equal to the velocity that exists between the expansion and the implosion. This would put the present time as a vector of gravitaional equilibrium. Negative particles form from the gravitational decay of the inward force moving into an anihilation zone. And positive energy is the decay of the expansion into an anihilation zone. The anihilations take time and they are time.

Did you use a random sentence generator?

[36grit]

LOL, As a matter a fact I did, the grey matter 5000!!

[Popcorn Sutton]

Wow this is pretty insightful. What if you postulated that there isn't a singularity though (but something that we could logically call a singularity). I like how you said the weaving the threads part because it seems that that is a logical answer to the solidification of matter. But what if the black hole was actually just a draft behind a super solid object? Would that still make sense with this theory?

[36grit]

The term solid is relative. I'm sure our own universe would appear solid to a being in a spacial dimension millions of times it's (our own universe's) size. The draft is just a layer of timeless chaos that divides the systems of order that defines each universe.

The stars orbiting the black hole should create a kind of current not much different than the way our oceans currents are fomed by heating and cooling.

The thought is that; These currents might bring forth a stable enough structure within the gravitational cloud to bring forth an expansion whereby electro magnetic particles could escape from the strong force that they were pressed into by the spaggettification process. The size of the gravaton would have to be relative to the universe where it resides. The electromagnetic particles would be smaller than the vacuum energy of our own universe.

 

what you wind up with is an infinite system of chaos preceding order; preceding chaos preceding order ... ect...

A gravitaional time dialation whereby time collapses and then re-emerges. This theory explains that the present time is the gravitational equilibrium that exists between the expanding field of gravity against the inward force of gravity.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The term solid is relative.

What do you mean? Relative to black holes? Because that does seem to be

the case, although I'm not sure if we would be able to see any solid

matter floating between galaxies. Im inclined to believe that metallic

planets might be doing just that (if they don't define the parameter of

our galaxy).

 

Im also not sure if our universe would appear solid, we may actually be seing many different universi when we look into our telescope, but we want to call it all one, or it may be the case that everything exists within the universe, but the problem with that definition is that there is no clear boundary. I tend to think that everything is the universe, and I do also want to believe in the infinitessimal nature of all substances that exist within the nature. Substances converge to form larger substances, and the larger substances cause their surrounding to reduce. However, when you refer to the graviton, it may exist, but nobody knows that.... yet at least. And if we do find something extremely small (but not having the properties of a graviton) we may be inclined to call it a graviton. I'm always weary about the definition and categorization of anything in nature. Categorization seems to tear nature apart at the joints. Do you think that gravity is the result of our surroundings pushing us downward or as a result of something from within sucking us inward? There is a debate there. I, personally, want to accept that gravity is pushing us inward rather than sucking us, and there are good reasons to believe that, but, when it comes to black holes, I'm almost certain that it is a sucking event. I dont believe any singularities, but I do believe the closest thing to them. I may not believe in true vacuous space, but there are reasons to believe that something like it exists. I don't believe we could have a mind without also having the closest thing to a vacuum.

 

Its also not clear whether our universe would appear solid at all, it may be translucent like the membrane of a cell. I want to believe that somewhere out there is a membrane that we just havent spotted. And the membrane might be catching most of the light surrounding us which would be leaving us in darkness (or something close to it). But what you say about the outside observer, when it comes to the god argument, thats the most logical answer I have. Maybe we are part of some massive world or massive being and we are just like a disease, but this is just a crazy speculation and theres no reason to ponder questions such as these.

 

No we're getting into the interesting part. The size of a graviton being relative, thats genius. Electromagnetism escaping from strong force, genius. What is the electromagnetism though? Is it actually particles? I've heard that the magnetism travels with particles, not seperated. It's hard to imagine any form of magnetism coming from anything without a solidified nature. Not that it couldnt happen, and it could actually be the other way around. Solidified substances may just not occur without the magnetism. I dont understand when you put a size to the vacuum energy of our universe though. Vacuums are called vacuums because they do exactly that. They suck matter through them, not that the actual vacuum has any size in itself, just that it operates on an area that does have size. Im inclined to think that vacuums don't have size, and there are good reasons to believe that conclusion. I guess maybe they do have a size, but its not like there is a particle we can call the vacuum particle and measure it.

 

I cannot accept chaos at any level, the idea has never been observed in nature, and if it were true, it wouldnt even be observable, and hence the topic is meaningless. The fact is that we have order. Things happen in particular ways and they do so consistently. To have chaos would be like having a planet appear in my stomache yesterday. It just doesn't make sense. It's completely random. Things just aren't random. If you want to look at order from a grammaticality perspective, then yes there is a degree of chaos, but that chaos is not chaotic, its actually extremely confined to the structure of the environment that the signals travel through. And the only thing about it that we might be able to label "chaotic" is that our interlocutors response could be completely irrelevant, which happens all the time. But if you trace their response to something that prompted it, it turns out that it is, in every case, probable.

 

I should also make note that I cannot accept this notion of "infinity". Im always skeptical when someone proposes infinity within their paradigm, not that it disproves the concept, just that there is no such thing as infinity. Take a look at this argument. 1 = .99999999 repeating. Agree or disagree? Either way, the closest thing to 1 is .99999 repeating. So does 1 actually exist? Well, mentally, its a yes, but physical, theres no way it could be true because things are always changing. The breeze against my skin pulls part of my body with it (a very minute part but nevertheless does). Well, from this point of view, infinity is actually not infinity, but it is the closest thing to it. So it kinda bugs me when people use the word infinity because, to me, it seems like an obscenity lol. Its absurd.

 

Then as to the last part of your post "A gravitaional time dialation whereby time collapses and then

re-emerges. This theory explains that the present time is the

gravitational equilibrium that exists between the expanding field of

gravity against the inward force of gravity."

 

word salad. I've discussed the differences in inward forces here, but expansion has yet to be explained. My only conception of expansion is actually one of two possibilities, its either contraction and we're just naming it wrong, or all solidified matter is actually travelling within the draft of an impact that causes galaxies to drift apart. But the idea of expansion is already flawed because the milky way galaxy and andromeda are supposed to collide eventually, which means that we are not all drifting further apart. But these are all speculations based on previous proposals that may not be factual. So I'll leave expansion aside for now. But please, elaborate on your explanation of time because that is a concept I have been struggling with for a while now. In my equation for quantitative cognition, time is just a variable for all the knowledge we have accumulated.

 

Another question I have is this. How do substances become different from one another. If black holes are weaving the threads of dark matter, why is iron different from oxygen?

[36grit]

Think of like this; The universe started out as a singularity, and in some manner of perspective it still is.

The singularity cores of black holes are no different than the universe we are in. Size is relative. And that which seperates our universe from alternate universes is a layer of no/time chaos and that all universes are linked together by gravity.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Again, I cannot accept your premise of chaos, it's unwarranted. Theres no evidence for it. A long time ago I came to the conclusion that in order for things to be precisely perfect, time cannot exist, the reason is this. Death is considered an imperfection. How can you logically prevent death? Exist outside of time. Would you even exist at that point? You may, but there would be no subjectivity, so the question is entirely irrelevant.

 

Please, I think you have some genius insight going for you, I asked a few questions in my previous post, can you address those?