Science Forums 2

THE THEORY OF INFINTY (Part 1)

Let me first consider what we do know about black holes.

From earth we see a black hole to be a large sphere with an
extrodinary mass. It also, therefore, has an extraordinary
gavitational force. It emits no light. Therefore, at the event
horizon, light is infinately red-shifted.

This creates a rather tricky question as to how a hole in spacetime
has mass and a centre of gravity.

An event horizon has no objects sitting on it's edge, like a ball
would sit on the edge of the earth. The ball, to an observer orbiting
the BH, would appear to be enter the event horizon.

There is a small amount of radiation emitted from the BH. According
to Stephen Hawking this is due to the attempted formation of atoms at
the EH. He states that if protons, electrons and neutrons continually
meet at the EH, and the electron is sucked* into the EH before they
can bind properly, a small amount of radiation would be emitted.

* I have used the term 'sucked', for lack of a better term, refering
to the apparent dissapearance of an object at the EH.

Gravitational forces, of the BH, do not continue increasing past the
event horizon toward the centre of gravity. When the gravitational
forces are stronger than the escape velocity for light, spacetime
curvature at the event horizon is so great it creates a hole in
spacetime. As such the event horizon spacetime is curved to infinity.
Time becomes a constant infinity at the EH. So the event horizon is
the entrance to infinity. I'm guessing that the time value = infinity
at the EH is the same for any observer outside the EH regardless of
their velocity. So spacetime at the EH is a constant. So if you would
like to find out how your spacetime relates to the constant spacetime
you need to find it relative to infinity.

So:
lightspeed (c) is a constant
Time (according to your observation) is relative to the constant:
spacetime=infinity

Since I have only been
studying relativity, or any form of physics for that matter,
(independently, besides the help from a professor over the last few days) for less than a
month it is not possible for me to come up with an equation to
calculate this theory. With all the squared numbers, the square roots
and the 'times twos' I can barely understand Lorentz Transformation.
Perhaps you can work it out and you, may, have your constant
spacetime value to work out your problem. By this I mean the
discrepancies in length contraction, with regard to different
observers, going at different velocities heading toward the BH.

HOW DOES THE UNIVERSE STAY TOGETHER

What is the opposite of a mass imploding to infinity. Well it would
be a mass exploding form infinity. Or even masses. So you would say
that the 'big bang' is the universe exploding from infinity. This
would therefore make the centre of the universe a black hole. Then
what would be outside this universe? Well another black hole. This
would mean that our universe is situated within a spherical event
horizon where outside would equal infinity and the centre event
horizon would equal infinity. Between these two event horizons would
equal time according to your relative perspective. With two event
horizons, one in the centre of the unverse and one surrounding the
universe, we would have a perfect 'isometric' universal gravity. Just
as the pressures within and without a soap bubble create a perfect
sphere.

PREDICTING THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

In this case you may predict that with infinite gravity the universe
would continue to expand infinitely. However, as with soap bubbles,
if the pressure changes between the inner and outer pressures the
bubble will pop. So I predict that as the stars and planets begin the
implode at an increasing rate an increase in pressure within the
bubble will cause an implosion at some point in this universe's
future.

THE RELATIVITY OF INFINITE SPACE-TIME (Part 2)

If inside a black hole there exists infinity. What does this mean.
If I were floating somewhere in infinite time and space, would it matter to where and at what time I was at a specific place. No, because, which ever direction I travelled I would still be in infinite time and space. So outside of this universe, of finite time and space, space and time no longer has any real meaning. Therefore relativity no longer has meaning.

So how would a universe, of finite time and space, be created out of infinity. This infinite spacetime must therefore have an infinte source of power. That is why at the event horizon we have infinite red-shifting, and infinite gravitational force.
(I must assert, at this point, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be defined mathematically).

We cannot say whether there are other finite universes existing within this infinite spacetime. Perhaps there are many. What would cause a section of this infinite space time to explode into a bubble of finite spacetime no one can know. But the theory remains true, when we consider, the existence of black holes.

TRANSFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNIVERSES (Part 3)

What would happen if an object floating through infinity were to come in contact with the finite universe. Well first we need to know how the finite universe looks from the outside. From within this finite universe all we see is a black space where no light can escape. One would therefore assume that the infinite universe is completely black. When we are controlled by the laws of physics infinite energy appears black basically. Now an observer outside the event horizon (if this could be possible) would need to be somehow related to this infinite energy. This is because a finite energy would simply be crushed and absorb due to the infinite force of energy. So an observer with infinite energy would see this infinite energy in a different way to an observer of finite energy. In other words this infinite energy would appear as light. So the event horizon would appear to be white. Since we cannot see this infinite energy any object of infinite energy would not be seen by the finite observer. Just as a black hole the object would appear blacker than black.

Thus an object from this infinite universe can therefore enter a finite universe but a finite object cannot escape.

UNIVERSE OF IFINITE ENERGY VS. UNIVERSE OF FINITE ENERGY (Part 4)

Well we know that our current universe consists of finite energy. Now we have found a relatively large space which consists of infinite energy. So do the infinite expanses of space and time Consist of mostly infinite or finite energy.

Let us consider the fact that our universe is expanding. The only way this universe could expand without flying off into space is if there was a force holding it together. This force would need to be isometric and infinite.
I therefore must conclude that we are in a finite space with finite energy. Outside this finite energy is an infinite energy which most of the infinite universe consists of.


Josephine Sage
Amatuer Physicist


(The following is part of a conversation I had with my proffessor whom helped me come up with the theory)

O.k Mac now I will respond to you.

Nothing inside a BH does anything IMO because there
> just ain't anything in there.....

Now you are acting like the pundits that have dismissed you out of
hand. You cannot hide empirical facts. I agree with you that the GR
idea is absurd. But somewhere between GR and your theory I see a
correlation. Neither is true because it mathematically doesn't add
up. So I think YOU are now not thinking outside the box.

An empty shell seems the most likely answer. To me as well. However
would you like to show me nothing. You can't even think about
nothing. Try it. I bet you are still thinking about something. Even
if you go far outside the boundaries of our universe what would you
find? That's right, not nothing as many may believe, you would find
infinity. As darkness is the abscence of light, infinity is the
absence of the finite. Is finity, therefore, the absence of infinity?
Well, no. Just as light is not the absence of darkness.

So yes, you are right, you cannot mathematically hold down infinity.
It is everywhere. It is not a metaphysical constant. It is a
mathematical constant.

S = 1 * infinity = infinity
S'= 1.1 * infinity = infinity

Now let's consider the absence of time. I gave you the hypothetical
(which I meant by no means literally) situation where I could freeze
time. You reacted to this statement as if I had walked over you
grave. Although you claim that time within the blackhole freezes.
Imagine this: no time and no space. If space and time no longer
existed inside the black hole then how would a black hole encase it.
The black holes radius would be measuring a space in time consisting
of no time and no space. It's equally absurd as the pundits.

You told me that there must be a tiny factor missing from your
equation and the GR equation. I am offering you the smallest number
and at the same time the largest number. Infinity does not
neccesarily consist only of a decimal place, followed by infinite
zeros with a one on the end of it. If I take infinite 9's, place a
decimal, then place infinite 9's on the end of it, this would also be
infinity.

...999 999 999.999 999 999... = ...111 111 111.111 111 111...

The problem though with the GR version is that there is a supposed
singularity. But this does not make sense in mathematics. If space
time curves to infinity the space time lines would never meet at a
point they would continue forever parallel to each other. It is not
mindful of the fact that infinity is a constant. So within the black
hole you have infinity and nothing else. The centre of gravity is
merely an abstract one as your theory states, Mac.

I understand calculus quite well. I also understand the Lorentz
transformation to the point I could calculate it and I understand the
meaninngs of the calculations to a point. I'm just rather immature in
my exposure to physics. I know I will get it. I just cannot see
through and beyond the numbers so to speak.

Also please read the end of the post #5111. The first half is the
same as #5110 but I go on from there and would like to hear you
thoughts.

Josephine Sage