Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on March 24, 2004 07:51:12 UTC

A question of definition:

what is a "black hole"?

Why do they think a super-collider may produce mini-blackholes?

Consider: A pre-mathematical analysis of physics laws shows Dr. Dick to be on to something: they seem to involve patterns of logic in defining things. I found that the paterns of the sub-atomic particles fit the patterns of juggling points of view in a discussion.

Example: I found "electron" to match "modification (of an idea)"; and "fuzzy space".

Why are the sub-atomic particles the SIZE that they are?

What is "size"?

SIZE (bigger/ smaller) involves a background of comparison. In math it gets assumed that "1" and "1" are the same size in "1 + 1 = 2". Suppose one of these "1" s is an orange. In "2", where is the orange?

Is it here or is it there? Or is it in two places at once?? (Sounds like physics!?)

What about "1 + 1 + 1" = "3":

where is the orange? Is it here, there, or over there? Or is it in a superposition of states?

Mathematics deals with "imaginary objects". Physics deals with "imaginary numbers".

Mathematics deals with "the square of +1" (Where is the orange? this bias in favour of the orange location is described in "2" as "the square of +1" as it is somewhere in a square bordered by 1 on each side?

In "1 + 1 + 1" = 3; the orange "square of +1" has complexified into a cube. Now look: "1 + 1 + 1 + 1" allows the cube to become a hypercube? But it could be described as a square with sides of "2" with the cubic and hypercubic dimensions superposed "flattened"!

Physics deals with "the square root of minus 1":
it answers the question "where is the orange" by NOT answering it!? By saying "it is in a superposition of states"; that may involve "curled up dimensions"?

Physics appears to be a tracking system for tracking information (such as "where is the orange?"). It is a question of logic: If "1 + 1 + 1 + 1" contains one orange and one apple, where are they?

Well: if the first "1" is the orange and the second "1" is the apple; you can say that the third "1" and the fourth "1" are not the orange or the apple in this situation say?

But what if you add lots of other "1"s? Adding "unknown data"? How can you track your orange and apple?

Dr. Dick suggests add another blob of "unknown data" (thus dividing his "unknown data" into two groups) such that subtract any one item and your original data is still unique. O.K.: we have "1 + 1 + 1 + 1" contains one orange and one apple; add to this a "1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1" say and another "1+1+1+1+1...." such that take away any "one item" and the original "1+1+1+1 containing one orange and one apple" is still unique?

How can you see that needle in this haystack?

With mini-blackholes?

By NOT seeing it?

Limited time to pursue this take on this now but seems to involve "common factors" (branes?) and "where'd the orange go? That way!" that is "directions" or "strings?"

I've figured out a system involving "grids" and "not grids" not typed yet.

Consider this discussion forum as a "super-collider" of ideas. Have any "mini-black holes formed"?

If things partly keep track of each other then you only have to keep track of minimum number?

Does a "black hole" have "time on its hands"?

Time seems to involve the idea of "three": for example a clock involves a self-reference (the center of rotation of the hand, or the assmed re-tracing of path of a pendulum) and reference distance (the actual move of the clock hand or distance sum of the pendulum.

Kind of differentiation and integration at once?

Defining which is differentiation and which is integration by differentiating them (clock center/ clock hand-tip)(pendulum same-path/pendulum different swings) yet integrating them (one clock)?

To differentiate differentiation requires a "chain rule"?

To integrate integration requires a? Sum of delta functions over differences?

(Idea: A delta looks like this: the number 5 involves a pyramid with base 1+1+1+1+1, next layer 1+1+1+1 next layer 1+1+1 next layer 1+1 top layer 1.)

(Two deltas colliding gives common factors with a remainder difference. Use a "Super-collider" and you are colliding basic particle (group meets unit) patterns so you might end out with a "tumbler" a mini-black-hole a "1+1+1"? Dr. Dick's paper is about a mini-black-hole?)

(Dr. Dick seems to think people are not really communicating? But math doesn't necessarily work as this 1 and that 1 are this 1 and that 1) (What you get are "flying saucers". If you do not talk to the universe its conversation might seem over your head a little? or it may come knocking on your door and saying "Hello"? Atmospheric nuclear tests in the 40s and 50s may have caused a shimmer (high frequency background vibration) in the atmosphere at certain altitudes. Compression of this shimmer on occasion by aeroplane compression waves may have generated vertical surfaces of unstable wave. Vibrational "images" of the aircraft may have broken off the surface and travelled in erratic ways through the air as lense-shaped "objects" that look metallic due to frequency of reflected light from these high frequency mobile standing waves. They may be a form of "mini-black hole". Most likely outcome of super-collider experiment might be numerous flying saucer sightings?)

What they call "black-hole" seems to fit "number". A mini-black-hole might be: "1 + 1 + 1"? Dr. Dick's system might simplify as:

"1 orange + 1 unknown + 1 unknown such that take away any 1 and still have 1 orange" gives

isolating the single division of "1 orange + 1 unknown" so allows tracking where the orange is (it's next to the 1 unknown)?

The sub-atomic particles appear to be describable as patterns in a discussion. Colliding them with a super-collider leads to considering a more basic definition of them.

A star is said to collapse into a black-hole if it is bigger than the Swarztschild radius?

Suppose the question "why are atomic particles the size they are" is partly answered by "because they were looked at in a certain way by experiment"?

What if each particle is a mini-black-hole? Suppose there is a MAXIMUM radius (a pattern conservation radius) that quantizes area and volume for each particle?

A mini-black hole would be a particle that SEES you? So talk to it?

Josh's idea would work: send a much bigger black hole zooming towards it at very high speed; this is done by saying "HI".


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins