Cosmic Inflation & the speed of light

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event horizon of
that original BH or whatever's responsible for absolutely everything
(aka God fart)?

~ BG

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The
mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

Yousuf Khan

On Nov 16, 7:05*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event horizon of
that original BH or whatever's responsible for absolutely everything
(aka God fart)?

~ BG

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The
mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out..

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Something like this -

And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel
and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa 15th century

Do you want to know what infinite density/zero volume looks like
because I can and give you a proper explanation,all you need to do is
scroll down and get the answer -



















Infinite density/zero volume = infinite volume/zero density as both
are elaborate ways to describe 'nothing'.Twenty years ago I called it
the 'sinvulgarity' for such is its vacuousness.

On Nov 16, 7:21*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:05*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event horizon of
that original BH or whatever's responsible for absolutely everything
(aka God fart)?

~ BG

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The
mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Something like this -

And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel
and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa *15th century

Do you want to know what infinite density/zero volume looks like
because I can and give you a proper explanation,all you need to do is
scroll down and get the answer -

Infinite density/zero volume = infinite volume/zero density as both
are elaborate ways to describe 'nothing'.Twenty years ago I called it
the 'sinvulgarity' for such is its vacuousness.

I thought you'd given up quoting Nicholas of Cusa.
He was ignorant of the truth.
He thought the stars were close.
He was wrong.
We can easily apprehend the shape of the world and it's motions.
You should study anciemt astronomers who used their brains and
originality like Eratosthenes and Aristarchus.

Stop being so gullible.

On 11/16/10 1:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event horizon of
that original BH or whatever's responsible for absolutely everything
(aka God fart)?

~ BG

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The
mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

Yousuf Khan

Inflation?
Cosmic Expansion?
Fixed Mass/Energy?

Dear Sam Wormley:

On Nov 16, 2:59*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/16/10 1:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event
horizon of that original BH or whatever's responsible
for absolutely everything (aka God fart)?

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black
holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of
possibility. The mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the
mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

* *Inflation?

A change in "slope" with a linear combination of / from outer time and
the portion of inner "radius" that is timelike.

* *Cosmic Expansion?

Ditto. And / or what the container Universe would see as increasing
curvature and increasing density, resulting in a lower value of c (as
determined from outside).

* *Fixed Mass/Energy?

All that ever fell in. What more would be required?

The CMBR becomes the "half" of Hawking radiation that didn't escape,
plus the ingestion of light from the container Universe (which would
be suitably smeared).

David A. Smith

On 11/16/10 6:08 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:

On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, Sam wrote:
On 11/16/10 1:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event
horizon of that original BH or whatever's responsible
for absolutely everything (aka God fart)?

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black
holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of
possibility. The mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the
mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

Inflation?

A change in "slope" with a linear combination of / from outer time and
the portion of inner "radius" that is timelike.

Cosmic Expansion?

Ditto. And / or what the container Universe would see as increasing
curvature and increasing density, resulting in a lower value of c (as
determined from outside).

Fixed Mass/Energy?

All that ever fell in. What more would be required?

The CMBR becomes the "half" of Hawking radiation that didn't escape,
plus the ingestion of light from the container Universe (which would
be suitably smeared).

David A. Smith

A black hole presumably has a center. The universe does not.

CMB was at 3000+ K and is now less than 3 K.
What would be the temperature of a black hole with the mass of
the universe and what would the hawking radiation look like?

I think it makes more sense to say that the universe was BORN
FROM a black hole, than to say IT IS A black hole.

Dear Sam Wormley:

On Nov 16, 6:25*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/16/10 6:08 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 11/16/10 1:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event
horizon of that original BH or whatever's responsible
for absolutely everything (aka God fart)?

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black
holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of
possibility. The mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the
mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

* * Inflation?

A change in "slope" with a linear combination of / from
outer time and the portion of inner "radius" that is
timelike.

* * Cosmic Expansion?

Ditto. *And / or what the container Universe would see
as increasing curvature and increasing density, resulting
in a lower value of c (as determined from outside).

* * Fixed Mass/Energy?

All that ever fell in. *What more would be required?

The CMBR becomes the "half" of Hawking radiation
that didn't escape, plus the ingestion of light from
the container Universe (which would be suitably
smeared).

* *A black hole presumably has a center. The universe
does not.

A black hole has a singularity. An infinitely diffuse, cold, dark
future, in which no particle ever encounters another particle is
*also* a singularity.

**CMB was at 3000+ K and is now less than 3 K.
*What would be the temperature of a black hole with
the mass of the universe and what would the hawking
radiation look like?

How much of this mass is on its nth time through? And I think since
it looks like blackbody outside, it'll be blackbody inside also.
George Dishman tried to get me to calculate this too, but I'd just
embarrass myself, and waste everyone's time.

* *I think it makes more sense to say that the universe
was BORN FROM a black hole, than to say IT IS A
black hole.

I agree that is the standard model. And the black hole somehow
decoupled from its container, and started a Universe of its own.

Yet Kruskal coordinates permit an inner time, that is initially not
orthogonal, yet ends up orthogonal to outer time. And GR describes
objects infalling as interacting with both the past and future of
previous infallers. Adequate to provide a c-moderated fabric of
spacetime, even though all particles are "really" smashed into goo at
some central singularity we flatlanders outside are just sure is
present.

Now please review this series made by John Baez, and tell me if you
are so sure that, as Yousuf said, it isn't outside the realm of
possibility...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
.... (22 steps, so take some time, when you have time.)

And I'll readily admit that we are going to massage GR to try and
solve the black hole to avoid singularities, and in so doing, a
"mirror" Universe is a result of the mathematics, and perhaps not
Nature.

David A. Smith

On Nov 17, 2:56*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:

On Nov 16, 6:25*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:





On 11/16/10 6:08 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 11/16/10 1:05 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 15/11/2010 4:38 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/15/10 3:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, you want us to believe we're still inside the event
horizon of that original BH or whatever's responsible
for absolutely everything (aka God fart)?

You are confusing the universe (everything) and black
holes, Brad.

Not such a bad confusion, it's not outside the realm of
possibility. The mechanics of a Big Bang resemble the
mechanics of a Blackhole, inside out.

* * Inflation?

A change in "slope" with a linear combination of / from
outer time and the portion of inner "radius" that is
timelike.

* * Cosmic Expansion?

Ditto. *And / or what the container Universe would see
as increasing curvature and increasing density, resulting
in a lower value of c (as determined from outside).

* * Fixed Mass/Energy?

All that ever fell in. *What more would be required?

The CMBR becomes the "half" of Hawking radiation
that didn't escape, plus the ingestion of light from
the container Universe (which would be suitably
smeared).

* *A black hole presumably has a center. The universe
does not.

A black hole has a singularity. *An infinitely diffuse, cold, dark
future, in which no particle ever encounters another particle is
*also* a singularity.

**CMB was at 3000+ K and is now less than 3 K.
*What would be the temperature of a black hole with
the mass of the universe and what would the hawking
radiation look like?

How much of this mass is on its nth time through? *And I think since
it looks like blackbody outside, it'll be blackbody inside also.
George Dishman tried to get me to calculate this too, but I'd just
embarrass myself, and waste everyone's time.

* *I think it makes more sense to say that the universe
was BORN FROM a black hole, than to say IT IS A
black hole.

I agree that is the standard model. *And the black hole somehow
decoupled from its container, and started a Universe of its own.

Yet Kruskal coordinates permit an inner time, that is initially not
orthogonal, yet ends up orthogonal to outer time. *And GR describes
objects infalling as interacting with both the past and future of
previous infallers. *Adequate to provide a c-moderated fabric of
spacetime, even though all particles are "really" smashed into goo at
some central singularity we flatlanders outside are just sure is
present.

Now please review this series made by John Baez, and tell me if you
are so sure that, as Yousuf said, it isn't outside the realm of
possibility...http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... (22 steps, so take some time, when you have time.)

And I'll readily admit that we are going to massage GR to try and
solve the black hole to avoid singularities, and in so doing, a
"mirror" Universe is a result of the mathematics, and perhaps not
Nature.

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks David. What a very interesting post of yours, and thanks for
the ucr link which I will read as much as I can.

I have had enough of my SR textbook for the moment and have moved on
to GR and currently learning to raise and lower indices. so I am
still at a very early stage. Which means I can only comment as a
general reader. And of course I don't really understand exactly what
you have written.

Seeing the universe as nested layers of blackholes within blackholes
has a pleasing fractalness about it, though that doesn't make it
true. But you wrote of the "mass on its nth time through" presumably
means that you are not referring to multiple nested black holes but
to a recycling of the same black hole?

A popular book on string theory by Green mentions that physics of the
very small rebounds somehow to be like the physics of the very big.
He uses that to explain that the Planck length is a barrier. When you
try to probe smaller than that you will find it is really bigger. I
wondered if it also meant that there is a fractal similarity of
physics below planck length with physics above planck length, but
never the two shall meet as you cannot cross over from one to the
other.

So where in our BB universe is the spacetime occupied witin a nested
black hole? We can't reach it as an outside observer as time slows
down to a virtually stop as one nears the black hole event horizon.
But an infalling mass can reach it, quickly for its own travelling
clock. As I am trying to see it, the immense time and space within the
black hole is within what we call a singularity in the BB universe. I
like to think that there could be an endless layering structure of
black holes within black holes almost without limit. And whichever
one you were in the physics would be the same, or near enough.

Dear ben6993:

On Nov 17, 6:37*am, ben6993 wrote:
....
Thanks David. *What a very interesting post of yours,
and thanks for the ucr link which I will read as much
as I can.

I have had enough of my SR textbook for the moment
and have moved on to GR and currently learning to
raise and lower indices. *so I am still at a very early
stage. Which means I can only comment as a
general reader. *And of course I don't really
understand exactly what you have written.

I probably don't either. And more than likely I will choose different
words upon re-reading... but there you go.

Seeing the universe as nested layers of blackholes
within blackholes has a pleasing fractalness about it,
though that doesn't make it true.

We don't have access to "true". If we cannot get along with one
another, likely we'll never get off this planet to find out. And it
is my pet theory, and I'm the only one that will pet it. In the
meantime, I'll talk about the standard model where it is
appropriate...

*But you wrote of the "mass on its nth time through"
presumably means that you are not referring to
multiple nested *black holes but to a recycling of the
same black hole?

I figu
- all black holes from this Universe, open to the same "contained"
Universe. Likewise, the contained Universe has its black holes, which
open into another contained Universe. I guess at this point that four
such "rotations" will arrive back here, which should cover things like
those "compactified" features such as spin that have little direct
consequence here.
- Hawking radiation has in its description, the production of
particles-antiparticles where one of the pair gets away, and the other
does not. This matter / energy gets away from the "interior", which
means stuff recycles from distant future to distant past. Just not a
message in a bottle, not even "bottleness" would survive.

A popular book on string theory by Green mentions
that physics of the very small rebounds somehow to
be like the physics of the very big. He uses that to
explain that the Planck length is a barrier. *When you
try to probe smaller than that you will find it is really
bigger. I wondered if it also meant that there is a
fractal similarity of physics below planck length with
physics above planck length, but never the two shall
meet as you cannot cross over from one to the
other.

So where in our BB universe is the spacetime occupied
[within] a nested black hole?

Only worldines for individual particles is occupied, and probably for
an exterior duration like we'd expect. The interior spacetime is just
"photon exchange space" for the host of partilces that ever fell in.
Think of spacetime as a series of displays on a pixelated screen, with
the pixels being a slice through worldlines... an instant in interior
time.

We can't reach it as an outside observer as time
slows down to a virtually stop as one nears the
black hole event horizon.

The choice of the word "reach" here is not a good one.

But an infalling mass can reach it, quickly for its
own travelling clock.

OK, yes.

As I am trying to see it, the immense time and
space within the black hole is within what we call
a singularity in the BB universe.

The singularity is a coordinate choice or model problem, and not
necessarily one that Nature shares. I figure that all of spacetime is
contained within the event horizon, and my naieve expectation is that
it starts significantly before the geometric center.

*I like to think that there could be an endless
layering structure of black holes within black holes
almost without limit. *And whichever one you were
in the physics would be the same, or near enough.

I've described my limits above, and a vague pass at why I think so.

At some point this "tissue of lies" needs to address the same problems
that any infinite Universe problem has, namely where did the iron go,
alternatively why is there so much hydrogen? If black holes mostly
start with neutron stars, the neutrons can source the hydrogen (with a
~15 minute halflife). But we need most event horizons to be small, to
dissociate iron (or anything heavier than helium) to its constituent
nucleons. Of course the "shredder" that shows up as Hawking radiation
does that nicely as well.

And again, the model is classically based, meaning infinite number
system, infinitely differentiable, and it was tortured to describe
this Universe. So it makes sense it would describe Universe's just
like this *everywhere*. Which means it may just be more armchair
quarterbacking...

David A. Smith