Terminalcoffee discussion

For Sherrie (or anyone else who likes that sort of stuff):
http://hubpages.com/hub/Our-Universe-...

It's a shame that this woman only mapped out a 2-dimensional model... Due to the fact that we inhabit a 4-dimensional universe, the theory falls apart in numerous places.

She didn't take into account the instability of the cosmological constant. The lambda trigger determines the outward expansion (or lack thereof) of the spatial fabric.

Nevertheless, the idea of an immense black hole isn't without its merits; she just botched the description of one.

Cool.

And, uh, what Matthew said, which I think I understand:)

Yeah, what he said. Yup.

If you guys ever want to talk about math or physics, I'm your man.



-Your friendly astrophysics/cosmology major

Neat. Thanks.

OK I didn't understand Matthew.

Sshh!

I just saw this on MSN...reminded me of this thread...

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...

Now I'm going to have to pick Matthew's brain. I hope it isn't too globby. ;)

Dangit, I don't have time right now to wax philisophical/quantum physics on this subject, but mark my words... I will be back with much too much to say on the subject.

Thanks Larry! I heart you.

Too much is never enough.

So if the universe is a black hole, then there are black holes inside of it?
A singularity inside of another singularity...
Am I just really dense or does that not make sense?

Black holes are dense, Julie. That doesn't mean you are!

Matthew! Help us out here! It's your time to shine, bud.

hmmmmm...thinking of a math question for matt...

A gravitational singularity cannot exist inside of another gravitational singularity.

When black holes merge, the singularities fuse, but otherwise remain intact. The superpositioning of the localized gravitational fields remain unaffected by the collision.

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Actually, I understood that. What a relief. And a huge surprise!

Hey I understood that too. Well done Matthew.

We gotta star, here.

ok, now i realize that i am the token dumb*** in this group

I doubt that Kevin.

Haha!

I doubt that too, Kevin. But just in case, go get your axe and chop some wood.

[heading behind the woodshed with axe:]

thanks guys but i am a bit lost on this stuff. BUT that is why i like you guys. if i didn't want to learn anything i would not be here or a reader and would be BrainFart on Facebook

I used to be friends with BrainFart on MySpace.

Wormholes, Matthew. Tell us about wormholes, please.

Wormholes don't exist. They are just a theory, right?
Once inside a black hole, you cannot get out.
I actually don't know much about it.
However, is wormhole one word or two?

BrainFart on Facebook

Yea, that's a lot of my relatives. :)

Wormholes, wormholes, wormholes!!! That's just fun to say. (still coming up with an actual thought on the original thread topic)

We're waiting patiently Sherrie. ::tapping fingers on table::

I don't know, Julie. From what I've read, passing close enough to a black hole to actually enter it would tear your molecular structure to shreds. There would be no more Julie to come back out. Just Julie molecules, or maybe subatomic particles from Julie.

(oops. sorry jules)

i am taking notes here

Hey, that's fine.
I have no problem just being Julie molecules.
But, the Julie molecules could never actually exit the black hole, so no wormholes, no?

Julie's world line would come to an end. Julie would pass into imaginary time.

No one's ever lived to tell.

Crap, I don't know. We'll have to ask Matthew.

Hurray! Imaginary time!
That sounds fun.

ok, finished editing my new photo's so i am heading out. go ahead and continue without me. i will catch up later. matthew, you are in charge of all brain melting theory's

Haha, thanks, Kev.

Imaginary time is an interesting concept.

Stephen W. Hawking suggested that what scientists now call imaginary time might be the true reality, while what everyone calls real time might be only an invention to simplify describing the universe. Hawking and another physicist, James B. Hartle, proposed the idea as part of their attempt to describe the initial state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Imaginary time has nothing to do with fantasy or the ordinary definition of something conjured up by one’s imagination. It is a purely mathematical concept used to try to explain the origin of the universe and better comprehend the space-time continuum.

http://deep-space-astronomy.suite101....

Okay, so I heard a theory once that really spiked my interest and I've played with it in my head. It's very bizarre and I don't know all the scientific basis underlying it. It goes something like this: (take a big breath)

Everything in the universe has an energy frequency which attracts or repels other matter with similar or dissimilar frequencies. Our entire world has a frequency that we resonate with and are affected by, and some say that the frequency of the human population actually affects the resonance of the earth's frequencies. (There are current studies underway to begin to test this)

When you have two forms whose frequencies are similar at first but become opposing... let's say that one form begins to resonate at a higher frequency than the first... the two forms are no longer attracted and begin repeling one another. This pushes them further apart and reinforces the difference between them. (I know I've read about this in some of my quantum stuff, about atoms & particles, but I can't remember exactly where right now.)

The form with the 'heavier' resonance pulls 'down' and the one with a 'higher' resonance pulls 'up', until the two cannot exist within the same space any longer. They end up separating, sometimes with a dramatic release of energy in the process.

The theory I heard was that in another dimension/ universe this happened on a planet(?) with some forms retaining their heavy frequency and some their lighter frequency, and it pulled it two different directions. The lighter forms continued onto the dimensional plane of higher frequencies, and the heavier forms got sucked into a blackhole/wormhole and came into this universe with a 'pop' (i.e. Big Bang) which got our whole universe started. From there our universe began expanding outward & evolving to the point we understand now.

I can see some of the reasons why Matthew would disagree with the theory being put forth with Rinck's article, and I certainly don't know enough about this stuff being an arm-chair physicist only. But some of her ideas intrigue me, like the funnel idea.

I know this sounds all science-fictiony, but there is an element of this that tickles at my brain and wonders about it. If this happens with atoms & other things on a microcosmic scale, why couldn't it happen on a macrocosmic scale? And if there are truly other dimensions of reality (I know not everyone thinks so), resonating at different frequencies, couldn't we have originally come from another dimension into this one?

I think asking the questions and putting them out there to ponder, even if it sounds absurd and against the current 'scientific proof', is important.

Einstein challenged the whole foundation of Euclidian Geometry originally from the Greeks and Newtonian Science, which were combined as bedrock for science for two thousand years. I just wonder what piece of discovery will shake our foundations once again and make us realize that this reality we live in may not be how we perceive it at all.

We are still children in this Universe and we are still learning. We may grasp the basic alphabet, but we certainly can't comprehend all there is to know about reality yet. I believe this is our ultimate search, and I can't wait to see what is around the next cosmic door.

Wow, Sherrie.

I'm gonna have to chew on that one a while.

Here's something else to ponder:

Writing about his inflationary model of the universe, the renowned physicist Alan Guth states that his theory implies that in the first 1/1030th of a second, the entire matter and energy in the universe came into existence from nothing that existed before. Paul Davies points out in his famous book Superforce that even space and time came into being at the moment of the big bang. Even particle physicists are suggesting that at the most fundamental levels of nature, particles may be constantly going in and out of nothing. Physics Nobel-laureate Charles Townes remarked as follows in his keynote address at the Second World Congress for the synthesis of science and religion in January 19917 in Calcutta. "Quantum mechanics predicts that there is an infinite amount of energy in every volume of the world regardless of how small it is. Physicists don't really believe this and yet that is what it says". All these modern ideas and discoveries are strikingly similar to the foundations of Hindu Vedanta.

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tab...

Oh man... this all makes my head just swim! And yet I get so excited with all these concepts, I get a little giddy at the prospect of it all.

I'm reading The Tao of Physics which talks about the correlaries between all this and the ancient spiritual theologies. He talks about the Hindu Vendanta and the origin of Yin & Yang, and ties it in with quantum theories. I love it!

Yeah, it's neat stuff. I'll see if that book is in our library. You've rekindled an old interest that I've been ignoring.

It is my current obsession and I may end up imploding my own brain by ingesting all of this information. But on a deep level, for me, it all seems to tie-in and support each other.

One of these days Jared is going to find me drooling and repeatedly mumbling over my computer... "We're all made of stars, just like they said"

Sherri, have you read Anathem by Neal Stephenson? I think you'd love it.

Yeah maybe you should prepare him for that eventuality somehow.

One of the things that fascinates me is how this physical universe (or this iteration of physical universe) began as simple particles that formed into hydrogen, and that it took many many many catastrophic events for all of the elements to "evolve" from there, creating opportunity for life (as we know it) to exist.

I have so much to say... I, I don't know where to start!

For starters:

1. I believe this universe was created as a result of a momentary breach in space-time caused by a black hole. I wrote a lengthy treatise on this theory a few years ago. If this is true, it would mean that we're all copies. [Much to say on this subject...:]

2. Most believe that our universe is based in Euclidian geometry. However, this structure falls apart in special relativity where the universe functions only in Minkowski space. In general relativity, the universe is based off a slightly curved foundation (curved by the presence of matter), this curvature is denoted (and controlled) by the Riemann tensor. For example, when the Riemann tensor (hereafter referred to as R^4) is "0", the amount of curvature is also "0". This is known as "non-curvedness". When the two branches of relativity are united, and R^4 =0, the statement "Minkowski space is flat" becomes true.

Got that, Lori?

Great stuff, Matthew. More, please.

::POP::

My cat's name is mittens and I like chocolate cake. :D (drool)

Hee! Oh no!

Okay, seriously... that was way over my head but I loved it.

this universe was created as a result of a momentary breach in space-time caused by a black hole
But, what if this is not an anomally but part of the way new universes are actually born? What if there are not just one copy of ours, but endless potential copies? What if it was simply the energy from another dimension that entered the black hole & exploded into ours, kicking off a universal evolution? What if....?

And the curved stuff... I get in a broad concept but in no way pretend to ultimately understand it. It's all about thinking in an unconventional and non-linear way & admitting that our perception of it is severely limited. "Space and Time" are constructs of our minds to explain the unexplainable within our intellectual framework. It's not that it's wrong, it's just that we cannot possibly see the whole picture from our perspective in the universe, in each individual life.

"Modern physics has confirmed most dramatically one of the basic ideas of Eastern mysticism; that all the concepts we use to describe nature are limited, that they are not features of reality, as we tend to believe, but creations of the mind; parts of the map, not of the territory. Whenever we expand the realm of our experience, the limitations of our rational mind become apparent and we have to modify, or even abandon, some of our concepts." ~ excerpt from Tao of Physics

ok matthew.....[exhaling deeply:] just calmly pass the bong to me and relax for a minute. poppa kev will have an opinion on this here in about, oh....10 minutes

Ok, I thought of this book when I read this...Matthew, you might really like it...the author is a professor an astrophysicist...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...

She was on speaking of faith not long ago...the interview is pretty good...you can download/listen to it here...it's called "Mathematics, Purpose, and Truth..."

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.or...