Quantum Singularity

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

On Nov 9, 1:17*pm, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"









wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius *If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. *Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" *Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang *Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. *All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? *I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. *There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. *Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. *And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. *Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). *Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. *Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. *Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. *A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. *The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Threaten to take away their public funding or especially their hobby
tax avoidance status, and they'll do whatever is asked of them.

Telling them to put-up or shut-up would also do the trick. If they
can't demonstrate a direct benefit to humanity or the global
environment, then perhaps make it a ten year retroactive tax default
(plus interest) that they owe us. Then reassessing their land and
putting it up for auction unless they pay all of their fair-market
valued property taxes for the past decade. In other words, if there's
no public value, then treat astronomy exactly like any other private
hobby or sport that derives less than zero benefit for others.

Making anything offshore protected as automatically treated as a
foreign corporation that's in violation by using its offshore tax
avoidance, instead gets to pay double or triple whatever any all-
American corporation would have to pay for all possible fees and
taxes.

In other words, we can't afford to keep screwing around with
protecting public funded hobbies or any number of special-interest
perks and benefits when there's so little if any return on our
investments.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 9, 4:17*pm, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"





wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius *If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. *Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" *Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang *Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. *All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? *I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. *There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. *Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. *And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. *Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). *Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. *Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. *Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. *A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. *The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Painius a balloon is macro stuff,and a singularity is Micro. Like
Feynman said the very large does not relate to the very tiny. We do
see the effects of black holes that give the great bulging light from
galaxy cores. They look like a sunny side up fried egg. TreBert

On Nov 13, 7:01*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:17*pm, Painius wrote:









On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius *If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. *Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" *Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang *Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. *All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? *I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. *There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. *Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. *And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. *Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). *Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. *Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. *Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. *A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. *The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Painius a balloon is macro stuff,and a singularity is Micro. Like
Feynman said the very large does not relate to the very tiny. *We do
see the effects of black holes that give the great bulging light from
galaxy cores. They look like a sunny side up fried egg. *TreBert

If most all the stars of 20+ Ms turned into BHs, means our universe by
now has 1e16 BHs, at least a hundred fold as many NSs and perhaps yet
another 1000 fold as WDs. That's something like 1e21 stars out of
1e24 that are WDs, NSs and BHs. (others claim 3%~6% of all stars have
become WDs, so that's making my estimate way conservative)

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 13, 1:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:01*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:





On Nov 9, 4:17*pm, Painius wrote:

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius *If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. *Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" *Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang *Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. *All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? *I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. *There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. *Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. *And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. *Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). *Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. *Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. *Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. *A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. *The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Painius a balloon is macro stuff,and a singularity is Micro. Like
Feynman said the very large does not relate to the very tiny. *We do
see the effects of black holes that give the great bulging light from
galaxy cores. They look like a sunny side up fried egg. *TreBert

If most all the stars of 20+ Ms turned into BHs, means our universe by
now has 1e16 BHs, at least a hundred fold as many NSs and perhaps yet
another 1000 fold as WDs. *That's something like 1e21 stars out of
1e24 that are WDs, NSs and BHs. (others claim 3%~6% of all stars have
become WDs, so that's making my estimate way conservative)

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

If in the Quantum gravity ealm with its gravitational force of 10^
3333333333 tons can't produce universes begs the question Why am I
typing? TreBert

On Dec 9, 1:17*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 13, 1:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 13, 7:01*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:

On Nov 9, 4:17*pm, Painius wrote:

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:20*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:52:17 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
How small is the singularity? Its a billion billion time smaller than
a photon.Its the point where all matter ends up at the center of a
Black Hole. * TreBert

"Small" is a general term, Bert. *A singularity is theoretically
"small" in volume, diameter, area, and these parameters are in fact
"zero". *Again, though, theoretically a singularity is quite "large"
when it comes to mass -- supposedly it has infinite mass. *These are
the reasons that make a singularity a mythical entity. *Such a thing
cannot possibly exist except in our imaginations.

It must follow, then, that if singularities cannot exist, the Universe
could not have come from one.

Black holes, if they exist, cannot have singularities at their
centers. *A black hole's center would have to be a very small neutron
star or perhaps a sub-neutron star, if there is such a thing.

Painius *If all the space was taken away in both micro and macro realm
what would you have?. *Every thing touching to a point.(singularity)
This is the heart of my "Mass Density Theory" *Then my "Spin is IN"
theory creates the Big Bang *Thus spacet,and time come into existance.
TreBert

That's one of the reasons I don't like Big Bang threory, Bert. Science
just takes for granted that if you go back in history, and slowly
compress the Universe, the space eventually disappears. *All you have
left is infinite density of all the mass in the Universe. But how can
they just *assume* that the Universe expanded uniformly, so that they
can "think experiment" that going back in time, the Universe must
contract uniformly all the way back to a singularity?

If I blow up a balloon, and then I begin to let some air out, I don't
have to let it out uniformly until it's all gone, do I? *I might let
some air out, and then I might blow some back in, then let some air
out, then blow some more back in. *There is no scientific basis to
assume that the Universe did not do the same. *Expansion and
contraction are probably going on right now everywhere in the
Universe. *And some parts might be expanding while other parts are
contracting.

There is absolutely NO evidence in our "local space" that there is any
expansion of space going on. *Just for the sake of argument, let's say
that a billion light years away, we detect the expansion that has a
velocity of 100 km/s (that's "radial" velocity only, because a billion
light years away there is no way to detect the other velocity
vectors). *Two billion light years away, we detect an expansion
velocity of 200 km/s, and three billion light years away we detect an
expansion velocity of 300 km/s, and so on.

All this tells us ONLY that the Universe MIGHT have been expanding at
a velocity of 300 km/s THREE BILLION YEARS AGO, at a speed of 200 km/s
TWO BILLION YEARS AGO, and at 100 km/s ONE BILLION YEARS AGO. *Now to
me, that indicates that the expansion, if there is indeed expansion,
IS SLOWING DOWN, not speeding up. *Each time we look at a billion
light years CLOSER to us, the expansion speed is SLOWER.
Half-a-billion light years away, the speed is 50 km/sec. *A
quarter-of-a-billion light years away, the speed is 25 km/sec, and so
on. *The NEARER in time that we look, the SLOWER the expansion appears
to go.

I really and wholeheartedly believe that astronomers should seriously
*rethink* their past interpretations of their observations.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Painius a balloon is macro stuff,and a singularity is Micro. Like
Feynman said the very large does not relate to the very tiny. *We do
see the effects of black holes that give the great bulging light from
galaxy cores. They look like a sunny side up fried egg. *TreBert

If most all the stars of 20+ Ms turned into BHs, means our universe by
now has 1e16 BHs, at least a hundred fold as many NSs and perhaps yet
another 1000 fold as WDs. *That's something like 1e21 stars out of
1e24 that are WDs, NSs and BHs. (others claim 3%~6% of all stars have
become WDs, so that's making my estimate way conservative)

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

If in the Quantum gravity ealm with its gravitational force of 10^
3333333333 tons can't produce universes begs the question Why am I
typing? *TreBert

Within the same volume of a BH, those superconducting electromagnetic
forces should be off the hook.

Gravity by itself doesn't spin, and a BH that'll implode into creating
a galaxy or especially a whole universe needs a lot of spin.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I QUESTION WHY YOU AREN'T DEAD, BEERT?

Saul Levy


On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 13:17:03 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

If in the Quantum gravity ealm with its gravitational force of 10^
3333333333 tons can't produce universes begs the question Why am I
typing? TreBert