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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Quicksand As Black Hole Model?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on June 23, 2008 02:25:36 UTC

another point of view:

Number involves "anywhere within limits" e.g. a number of oranges is "anywhere within limits of defining what an orange is".

A hole is "everywhere within limits". "Black" means dark or cannot be seen. If "everywhere within limits" cannot be seen; how do you know it's there?

The edge must be fuzzy because a hole can only be seen thanks to its edge. For the hole to be black it must have a fuzzy edge i.e. something one is sinking into (like a black hole is like quicksand that you discover by sinking partly into it?)

The disturbance (of the quicksand) is the anti-disturbance (i.e. it makes it visible). This suggests that a "black hole" is a indeterminate balance between matter (disturbance) and "anti-matter" (anti-disturbance)(objectivity) so is "probe-ability".

A number of oranges "probes" what it is to be an orange so "black hole" = "number" you might suppose.

"The Big Bang": "big" involves a scale of size so a direction possible so 3 marks (as 2 is symmetrical but 3 is lopsided when divided by 2 (this fact is called "Fermat's Last Theorem"!)(The inverse of "1+1 =2" (unstated first theorem?) is "2=1+1":

2 pieces of 3 = 1 bit plus the other bit which implies the bits are made of something (i.e. that something is the matter).

To define "big" the scale needs to be lopsided more on the lopsided side so "4": big is like "2 + 2 = 4" (as the twos are big).

(Fermat's Last Theorem: "x to the power n PLUS y to the power n EQUALS z to the power n HAS no integer (+-) solutions greater than 2":

"solution" involves at least two things as solution is watery (distributed i.e. spread at least to some extent (2 represents a minimum defined spread say)

"integer solution" inolves +- 2 so "three" (as in three things, two of them can be on one side or the other!

"to the power of" involves "to the surround of" so like "raised on to a ledge". So in Fermat's Last Theorem x and y are both raised on to the same "ledge" (Called "The Unertainty Principle" as "2" is defined again (the twoness of x and y) by raising them to a "ledge" (or to a new surrounding) and can be swapped with z which is also on this "ledge".

So you get "three" (where two (x and y) can swap sides in "two" ((x+y) and z).

So Fermat's Last Theorem now reads "three has no three" which is correct in that it ALREADY is three (and would need complexity theory to have three i.e. two-dimensional space.)
(Is the ledge already the second dimension?)(In which case: Fermat's Last Theorem is a +- spread greater? than 2? Or a +- spead that Is 2: so is complexity!

"Bang" involves 2 things (at least) collide; and since "big" minimally involves "big-ness" i.e. in that at least "2" is bigger than "1" then "big bang" involves 2 things that are two things another way so "three"?

But matter/anti-matter involves three (including the person "sinking in the quicksand that they discovered by sinking partly into it so undisturbing it (seeing it)(anti-matter) by disturbing it)
(matter)?

So to define "big bang" and anti-matter/matter requires not counting the observer: then it APPEARS that anti-matter and matter are in balance (as you say).

But this "invisible" (uncounted) observer if can see a "black hole" (a number)(anywhere within limits)(probe-ability) THEN they are "counted backwards" they become combined with the black-hole
almost- they escape by breaking up the background of the black hole (a bridge connects them to the edge of the quicksand)(so they only sampled the quick sand by putting one leg into it e.g.)

The rest of their body not in the quicksand (i.e. not in the black hole) equates to the "collection of anti-matter near the blackhole"?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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