Cosmogenesis .

[sutty27]

Great, so now I'm supposed to teach you about general relativity.

 

I'll try to keep it reasonably simple:

In the Newtonian gravity model, everything happens instantaneously, and light is unaffected.

In GR (which has been extensively experimentally tested), the effect of gravity travels at the speed of light and anything which carries energy is affected, including light and even gravitational fields themselves. This complicates things somewhat.

The stronger the gravity of an object is, the faster you have to travel to escape it. This is referred to as the escape velocity. When the escape velocity is greater than or equal to the speed of light, you'd have to travel at or faster than the speed of light to escape. If you have rest mass (all matter) then in order to achieve the speed of light you have to have infinite energy.

To complicate things further as you add energy to a massive particle to accelerate it in an effort to achieve escape velocity, you increase its total energy and thereby increase the effect of gravity upon it.

So in GR, infinities are reasonably easy to come by where as they are rather hard to come by in Newtonian gravity.

 

 

Not all singularities are equal. There was a perfect energy balance at the big bang which is not re-created in black holes.

The first "inflation" phase of expansion cannot occur in a singularity with total energy significantly different from zero.

GR does allow for singularities other than black holes. Your mistake is the baseless assertion that all singularities are the same.

 

You supplied the definition for them.

What you have to appreciate is that the compression force inside a black hole is literally infinite.

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field of a celestial body become infinite.

Your response is the biggest load of gibberish I have ever seen of SF forum and all to cover up the fact that you can't support your stance.

 

Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object so how can something with finite mass have infinite gravity?

 

For the universe to exist in your model both sides of the equation have to balance out, gravity on one side = everything else on the other, there are billions of galaxies each apparently with a black hole and each black hole you say has infinite gravity, obviously that's all still equals infinite gravity, but if there is infinite gravity on one side there would have to be infinite everything else on the other side of the equation otherwise it wouldn't balance and the universe couldn't exist.

 

A black hole with infinite gravity would have infinite pull on all the matter in the universe, why isn't everything being pulled into black holes and why is all this gravity not preventing the expansion of the universe?

 

According to modern general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, now you say there are billions of them in the universe, all presumably capable of renewing the universe.

 

Because we didn't exist the last time it happened billions of years ago.

[unbeliever]

You supplied the definition for them.

 

Your response is the biggest load of gibberish I have ever seen of SF forum and all to cover up the fact that you can't support your stance.

 

Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object so how can something with finite mass have infinite gravity?

 

For the universe to exist in your model both sides of the equation have to balance out, gravity on one side = everything else on the other, there are billions of galaxies each apparently with a black hole and each black hole you say has infinite gravity, obviously that's all still equals infinite gravity, but if there is infinite gravity on one side there would have to be infinite everything else on the other side of the equation otherwise it wouldn't balance and the universe couldn't exist.

 

A black hole with infinite gravity would have infinite pull on all the matter in the universe, why isn't everything being pulled into black holes and why is all this gravity not preventing the expansion of the universe?

 

According to modern general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, now you say there are billions of them in the universe, all presumably capable of renewing the universe.

 

Because we didn't exist the last time it happened billions of years ago.

 

 

Oh dear.

There were infinities present at the big bang. That's not the point.

There was also an effect called inflation. This effect is not present in black holes because the conditions are not correct.

 

Your assertion that all black holes are somehow identical to the big bang is wrong. If you're not prepared to learn these things and you want to keep talking nonsense from a position of ignorance, you go right ahead.

[sutty27]

Oh dear.

There were infinities present at the big bang. That's not the point.

There was also an effect called inflation. This effect is not present in black holes because the conditions are not correct.

 

Your assertion that all black holes are somehow identical to the big bang is wrong. If you're not prepared to learn these things and you want to keep talking nonsense from a position of ignorance, you go right ahead.

 

Infinite just appears in the maths that attempts and fails to explain the universe.

 

The universe is infinite but the gravitational pull of black holes isn't.

 

 

Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object so how can something with finite mass have infinite gravity?

 

For the universe to exist in your model both sides of the equation have to balance out, gravity on one side = everything else on the other, there are billions of galaxies each apparently with a black hole and each black hole you say has infinite gravity, obviously that's all still equals infinite gravity, but if there is infinite gravity on one side there would have to be infinite everything else on the other side of the equation otherwise it wouldn't balance and the universe couldn't exist.

 

A black hole with infinite gravity would have infinite pull on all the matter in the universe, why isn't everything being pulled into black holes and why is all this gravity not preventing the expansion of the universe?

 

According to modern general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, now you say there are billions of them in the universe, all presumably capable of renewing the universe.

 

Because we didn't exist the last time it happened billions of years ago.

[unbeliever]

Infinite just appears in the maths that attempts and fails to explain the universe.

 

The universe is infinite but the gravitational pull of black holes isn't.

 

 

You realise you just said that infinities are invalid when we put them in the maths for the real universe, but your infinities don't invalidate the suttyverse.

yes I used an emoticon. I reserve them for special occasions.

 

Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object so how can something with finite mass have infinite gravity?

 

Because it isn't proportional. You're using Newtonian gravity which is an approximation to GR that works well in every-day situations.

Also because the singularity has zero volume, so there's no issue being zero distance from it.

 

 

For the universe to exist in your model both sides of the equation have to balance out, gravity on one side = everything else on the other, there are billions of galaxies each apparently with a black hole and each black hole you say has infinite gravity, obviously that's all still equals infinite gravity, but if there is infinite gravity on one side there would have to be infinite everything else on the other side of the equation otherwise it wouldn't balance and the universe couldn't exist.

 

A black hole with infinite gravity would have infinite pull on all the matter in the universe, why isn't everything being pulled into black holes and why is all this gravity not preventing the expansion of the universe?

 

According to modern general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity, now you say there are billions of them in the universe, all presumably capable of renewing the universe.

 

Because we didn't exist the last time it happened billions of years ago.

 

There's a distinction I may have been unclear about. I've been guilty of mixing infinities.

At the event horizon the space-time curvature goes to infinity. That makes the force at that distance absolutely irresistible.

The force goes to infinity at the centre, but everywhere between the centre and the event horizon, the force is absolutely irresistible. The escape velocity being the speed of light.

 

Infinities can be cancelled by other infinities. The universe can have infinities all over the place, and indeed it does, but in most of space, there are cancelling infinities which bring you back into the realm of sensible numbers.

I know that this is counter-intuitive, but it occurs throughout physics. QM is full of such things.

[sutty27]

You realise you just said that infinities are invalid when we put them in the maths for the real universe, but your infinities don't invalidate the suttyverse.

yes I used an emoticon. I reserve them for special occasions.

 

If the universe isn't infinite it must have a boundary, if it as a boundary what happen when you cross it, and you can't have something that is infinite in finite universe.

 

 

 

 

Because it isn't proportional. You're using Newtonian gravity which is an approximation to GR that works well in every-day situations.

Also because the singularity has zero volume, so there's no issue being zero distance from it.

So it doesn't exist, to solve your problem you invent non existence give it infinite gravity and mass and call it a singularity.

[unbeliever]

If the universe isn't infinite it must have a boundary, if it as a boundary what happen when you cross it, and you can't have something that is infinite in finite universe.

 

 

That's not necessarily the case. It's possible to construct a hyper-toroidal geometry model for the universe which has zero net curvature and so zero total energy, but if you were somehow to out run the super-luminal expansion, travelling far enough in one direction would eventually put you back where you started.

I agree that for a simple hyper-plane geometry the edge issue is vexing.

 

So it doesn't exist, to solve your problem you invent non existence give it infinite gravity and mass and call it a singularity.

 

You know all fundamental particles are modelled as singularities surrounded by a a cloud of virtual particles which give the impression of volume and cancel the infinities generated. There may be a similar effect for a black hole, but we don't know yet as there is no quantum theory of gravity. Doesn't change the fact that all matter in a black hole is compressed into a single compound particle.

[sutty27]

Doesn't change the fact that all matter in a black hole is compressed into a single compound particle.

 

It isn't a fact, its an unprovable idea and a bizarre one at that.

[unbeliever]

It isn't a fact, its an unprovable idea and a bizarre one at that.

 

How do you suppose that 2 matter particles are going to remain separate when in order to do so they would have to exceed the speed of light?

[sutty27]

How do you suppose that 2 matter particles are going to remain separate when in order to do so they would have to exceed the speed of light?

 

They won't remain separate but they also won't occupy the same space.

[unbeliever]

They won't remain separate but they also won't occupy the same space.

 

Do you want to re-read your own post and then try again.