Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Vladimir,

One cycle to keep in mind in these discussions and knowledge in general, is the relation of simplicity to complexity as a form of expansion/contraction cycle.

Especially in math, there is a natural tendency to treat complex forms as a sort of platonic reality that naturally pre-exists any physical manifestation, because they are, by definition, regular. The assumption being these patterns are inevitable, so their existence must be a deterministic given.

I would argue they are still ultimately bottom up. That no form pre-exists its physical manifestation and regularity is a consequence of the same processes yielding the same results.

Remember that factors are in essence nouns and functions are verbs. We do actually have to commit the act of adding one and one, in order to arrive at two as the answer. If the cause does not occur, there is no effect. In the void, there is no form.

The larger point being is that this flower of expanding mathematical complexity is just as natural and dynamic as an actual flower blooming and regular as a field of flowers, yet still not nearly as complex.

So when we get around to discussions of what is the best course to follow, everyone is naturally going to have their own perspective and lead off in a particular direction, which is good. Like ants exploring for food, our knowledge should go in all directions. Now the resulting complex of input will eventually contract. Either because some answer to the issue in question is found and then the group effort then becomes to expand from that new level of understanding, or no answer is found, the joint effort breaks down and everyone goes off in their own directions, scattered to other endeavors.

Either way, it is that cycle of expansion and then collapse, contraction, or consolidation, depending on the intentions and results.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"No, it would only satisfy me further that you (among others) don't know a damn thing about mathematics, though you continue to hold forth on it."

Hopefully your math makes more sense than your grammar.

Regards,

John M

John,

I agree with you. But the question remains: primordial ontological structure of space, the nature of information and time. I think that the only answer to this question, and not solving equations and observations provide an opportunity to talk about the essential nature of "black holes" and the inclusion of the concept of "black hole" or other more clear and distinct concept in the scientific picture of the world. I think the problem is conceptual and ontological, as well as the problem of "dark matter" and "dark energy". In addition to the standard empirical justification of the fundamental knowledge is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Oh, now the topic is grammar, is it?

Steve,

Of course, quantitatively should read qualitatively.

Tom,

as usual, instead of trying to defend what you learned you managed distracting from my arguments, this time against what I consider a relapse to inapt pebble-like instead of Euclidean numbers. I blame this relapse for unreal topological models leading to mere artifacts, in particular to singular points in IR.

Eckard

Steve,

Time has amplitude and phase (?) don't you need space for that? Same with 'matter'.

Eckard,

You want Euclidian points. What size? Take your pick, there is an infinite selection between oo.

John M.

Prejudice is a part of the human condition, bigotry is irrational prejudice whether it's against race, culture or math.

jrc

Tom,

It's a big world.

John C,

Are there no biases in math, or is that ruled out?

For instance, is zero just a point on the line between 1 and -1, or does it represent the void?

How do we reconcile those two concepts, or would such discussion be prejudicial?

Regards,

John m

Yes, John, the world is big enough even for your profound innocence of all things mathematical. You may think the world is better for it.

Vladimir,

I think the issue is conceptual as well. We have this linear premise of the black hole are a final state, but the entire process leading up to it is radiating energy back out, as the structure, order and mass draws inward. This energy then loops out to start over.

Eventually what is left to fall into the vortex at the center, gets ejected out the poles.

This dynamic cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass/order is a basic model, of which linear projections only reflect one side.

Regards,

John M

" ... unreal topological models ..."

If that were true, Eckard, general relativity would be falsified. The very simplest complex sphere, the Riemann sphere, figures prominently in the geometry of spacetime.

Tom,

At least my naivete doesn't lead to multiverses and blocktime.

Eventually the grand edifice will suffer a reset.

Regards,

John M

"At least my naivete doesn't lead to multiverses and blocktime."

I wouldn't say that naivete leads to anything.

Tom,

Possibly because you have a static view of reality, rather than a dynamic one. Naivete would be the element of consciousness prior to the acquisition of knowledge.

Regards,

John M

In a collapsing universe, it is better to think of light standing still.

"Even in your collapsing universe model, you haven't explained to me the difference between the space that is expanding/collapsing and the vacuum that light crosses at C."

Since c defines the collapse rate, it is us who are moving at c and light stands still. Since c changes over proper time, the collapse rate changes but the light is just waiting there for us to get to it. In the collapsing universe, the CMBR is very near c, which is the rate of collapse in this epoch.

I just have to believe you when you say that you are overwhelmed with all of the data published about astrophysical phenomena. However, the same is true for any discipline in science and it is essential not to be blinded by the entropy of ideas inherent in the cacophony that we call science.

I did not say quasar variability does not change in time. In fact, that statement is oxymoronic. I said that my naïve expectation was that quasars would vary in time by any number of accretion mechanisms.

Everything that I read indicates that the steady-state or recycling universe is just inconsistent with observation. Strangely enough, though, the evidence for an expanding universe is still consistent with a collapsing cosmology. A collapsing cosmology simply means that c, alpha, and h evolve over time and it is c/alpha and mdot that are constant instead.

Steve,

I seem to live in a universe where only time stands still, ie. always now and it is light moving through space/the vacuum alone that creates change.

I guess this is one of those levels of the multiverse.

Regards,

John M

John C,

Euclid defined points as having no parts, i.e. no size. I see this the only way to escape Zeno's nonsensical paradoxes.

John M,

You asked John C: "Is zero just a point on the line between 1 and -1, or does it represent the void?"

Why should an Euclidean point not represent the void? Of course, a pebble is not void.

Tom,

Fortunately logics is not based on your questionable belief in Relativity. What about Einstein's so called first postulate, I see it formally seemingly correct but its interpretation blundering: Well, the laws of physics are certainly the same for every chosen point of reference. However, once a point of reference has been chosen, one must not expect that things look simultaneously equal from a different point of view.

Eckard

Eckard,

The problem is that the point still has location, but the void is an absence of location and/or all location.

While I have no problem with it representing a reference to positive and negative, this conflation of the point for the void seems to be the basis of the view that all space arises from one dimensionless point, which is an absence of space. So the view then becomes that space is only a product of the geometry of points of reference. Yet as I keep pointing out to Tom, multiples of zero always equal zero, so no matter how many dimensionless points you have, they still don't add up to extension and volume.

Regards,

John M

"Possibly because you have a static view of reality, rather than a dynamic one."

You haven't the faintest idea of what I'm saying, do you?

"Naivete would be the element of consciousness prior to the acquisition of knowledge."

No, I think that would be called ignorance. And what guarantees that knowledge is acquired?