Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:36 am just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

holy hogging holes Batman...

yet the universe is supposedly expanding

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:28 am

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:36 am just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

holy hogging holes Batman...

yet the universe is supposedly expanding

-Imp

Although the Universe is obviously NOT expanding. For the very simple irrefutable Fact that the Universe, Itself, could NOT expand.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:28 am yet the universe is supposedly expanding

You say that like you think it contradicts my prior post. It doesn't.

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:36 am just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

There IS NO so-called 'infinite space' NOR COULD there be.

The Universe, however, is IRREFUTABLY INFINITE, (and eternal).

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

Noax wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:05 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:28 am yet the universe is supposedly expanding

You say that like you think it contradicts my prior post. It doesn't.

I don't think it contradicts anything... it could be that the ever sucking black holes prevent the expansion of anything...

then again

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:40 pm it could be that the ever sucking black holes prevent the expansion of anything...

Matter (dark or otherwise) lacks the mass density to do that.
Expansion is not prevented as evidenced by it having been measured, and measured to be accelerating to boot.
Gravity cannot do that.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:42 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 12:36 am just a thought- if the universe is infinite, would there be an infinite number of black holes scattered throughout?

The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

There IS NO so-called 'infinite space' NOR COULD there be.

The Universe, however, is IRREFUTABLY INFINITE, (and eternal).

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

Excuse me, but with your one irrefutable truth, you would be a good fit as a religion teacher... The history of physics is accompanied by doubts, but physics became faith:(

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:42 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am
The alternative is a finite number of them in an infinite space, yielding an average density of far less than one per visible universe, which means we're hogging way more than our share.

There IS NO so-called 'infinite space' NOR COULD there be.

The Universe, however, is IRREFUTABLY INFINITE, (and eternal).

Noax wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 3:38 am Same logic goes for anything, like the number of stars or superclusters or whatever.

Excuse me, but with your one irrefutable truth, you would be a good fit as a religion teacher... The history of physics is accompanied by doubts, but physics became faith:(

If some thing is irrefutable, then it just is so.

The Universe, which is fundamentally made up of 'space' AND 'matter', is infinite and eternal, and this just can NOT be refuted.

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 6:01 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 11:40 pm it could be that the ever sucking black holes prevent the expansion of anything...

Matter (dark or otherwise) lacks the mass density to do that.
Expansion is not prevented as evidenced by it having been measured, and measured to be accelerating to boot.
Gravity cannot do that.

But singularity, which is the infinite compression of matter, and thus is absolute 'dense', might have a much higher power of attraction than you are imagining, here.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:13 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:56 am …
Excuse me, but with your one irrefutable truth, you would be a good fit as a religion teacher... The history of physics is accompanied by doubts, but physics became faith:(

If some thing is irrefutable, then it just is so.

The Universe, which is fundamentally made up of 'space' AND 'matter', is infinite and eternal, and this just can NOT be refuted.

By the way, it was also irrefutable that the Sun orbits the Earth... And ‘space’ itself does not exist, there is only condensing, sedimenting, crystallizing ‘matter’. The transparent part of it is often called aether, I think:)

Is the electron “composed” of an innumerable number of points of ‘space’ (permanently falling into the past) or is it “just” a (measurable) phenomenon, only a manifestation of a certain instantaneous configuration of the aether?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:13 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:56 am …
Excuse me, but with your one irrefutable truth, you would be a good fit as a religion teacher... The history of physics is accompanied by doubts, but physics became faith:(

If some thing is irrefutable, then it just is so.

The Universe, which is fundamentally made up of 'space' AND 'matter', is infinite and eternal, and this just can NOT be refuted.

By the way, it was also irrefutable that the Sun orbits the Earth

LOL Of course that was NEVER irrefutable. Why would you make such a False AND Wrong CLAIM, here?

What you are doing, here, now, is just further BACKING UP and SUPPORTING what I have been SAYING about WHY you human beings are far better off NEVER PRESUMING nor BELIEVING things to be true. See, it is only when you are OPEN that you can and WILL FIND and SEE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am .. And ‘space’ itself does not exist, there is only condensing, sedimenting, crystallizing ‘matter’.

So, to "cerveny" anyway, there is NO 'space' thus 'distance' between and around 'matter'.

And, are you 'trying to' say and claim that it is an IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'space', itself, does not exist?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am The transparent part of it is often called aether, I think:)

What you say 'you think' PROVES that you do NOT YET KNOW. And, it is ONLY WHEN one KNOWS some thing when 'that thing' can be IRREFUTABLY True.

Also, you just said and wrote, 'The transparent part of 'it' ...'. What even is the 'it', which you speak OF and talk ABOUT, here, EXACTLY?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am Is the electron “composed” of an innumerable number of points of ‘space’ (permanently falling into the past) or is it “just” a (measurable) phenomenon, only a manifestation of a certain instantaneous configuration of the aether?

What is the so-called 'aether', EXACTLY?

Also, if you are NOT YET AWARE OF what some thing is COMPOSED OF, EXACTLY, then I suggest FINDING or WORKING 'this' OUT, FIRST, BEFORE you START MAKING OTHER CLAIMS, here.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:16 am But singularity, which is the infinite compression of matter

No, that's not what a singularity is. It is a region where the equations break down. For instance, in the frame of an accelerating object, an event horizon forms behind it. The equations no longer work, but nothing special physically happens there. A black hole seems not to compress at any point. Rather the opposite: Tidal forces tend to pull things apart, not squeeze them together. There's no reason to suspect that compression occurs suddenly where the equations no longer work.

and thus is absolute 'dense', might have a much higher power of attraction than you are imagining, here.

Gravity is not a function of mass density. Two planets with the same mass but one triple the density of the other have the exact same gravitational effect. Their moons orbit at the same rate if at the same orbital distance.

Likewise, if the sun somehow compressed overnight into a black hole (it's possible), Earth would continue to orbit exactly as it had before, just colder.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:16 am But singularity, which is the infinite compression of matter

No, that's not what a singularity is.

So, the word 'singularity' GETS DEFINED AS 'an infinite compression of matter', BUT that is NOT what 'singularity' IS.

Also, and by the way, the word 'singularity' used to get USED to be what was at the start of the beginning of the Universe, Itself, WHERE there was 'an infinite compression of matter', Whereas, the word 'singularity', in the days when this is being written, HAS CHANGED to MEAN and/or REFER TO, the final state of matter falling into a black hole. But, which, coincidentally, has an 'infinite mass density', which MEANS, more or less, the EXACT SAME thing as, 'an infinite compression of matter'.

Which, by the way, WHEN look at, FULLY, HELPS in UNDERSTANDING, and PROVING, HOW the Universe IS ACTUALLY infinite, and eternal, EXACTLY.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am It is a region where the equations break down.

It REALLY DID TAKE SO LONG, BACK in the 'olden days' WHEN this WAS being written.

So, If 'singularity' IS 'a region', where the equations, supposedly, break down', then what ARE 'those regions' made up OF, EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am For instance, in the frame of an accelerating object, an event horizon forms behind it. The equations no longer work, but nothing special physically happens there.

WHERE, EXACTLY, DO the 'equations' SUPPOSEDLY NO LONGER WORK?

Also, will you PROVIDE an example, or two, of an 'accelerating object', and WHERE, EXACTLY, an 'event horizon' FORMS 'behind it'? And, what is the thing that ACTUALLY CAUSED or CREATED SAID 'event horizon'?

If you are, however, talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO A 'black hole', then SAY this.

Obviously, you in a moving motor or horse drawn vehicle ARE an 'accelerating object', FOR EXAMPLE.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am A black hole seems not to compress at any point.

Are you AWARE that 'what' SEEMS, or 'what' DOES NOT SEEM, TO you, has NO necessary BEARING on what SEEMS, or DOES NOT SEEM, TO others, NOR on what IS ACTUALLY True and Right?

Also, OF COURSE 'black holes', "themselves", do NOT SEEM TO COMPRESS, WHEN they are OPEN, and so-called SWALLOWING 'matter'.

However, and BLATANTLY, what you THINK HAPPENS TO ALL OF THE 'matter', which ENTERS A 'black hole' FROM WHERE it is SAID and CLAIMED NOT even 'light', itself, CAN ESCAPE?

Also, were you YET AWARE that the VERY REASON WHY light CAN NOT and DOES NOT ESCAPE FROM A 'black hole'?

If no, and you ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and KNOWING, then just LET 'me' KNOW.

I WILL then TELLING you WHY.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am Rather the opposite: Tidal forces tend to pull things apart, not squeeze them together.

So, TO you anyway, ALL that is getting SUCKED INTO, and SWALLOWED UP BY, A 'black hole' is NOT going INTO ONE place AT ALL, and is BEING SPREAD OUT, correct?

IF yes, then HOW do you KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

Also, WHAT ARE so-called 'tidal forces', here, EXACTLY? And, HOW do they WORK, EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am There's no reason to suspect that compression occurs suddenly where the equations no longer work.

BUT, TO you there IS A REASON TO SUSPECT or BELIEVE 'expansion' occurs 'suddenly' where the 'equations' are CLAIMED TO NO LONGER WORK, right?

If yes, then WHY 'expansion' and NOT 'compression', EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, WHY your human being 'equations', supposedly, NO LONGER WORK IS BECAUSE of your human beings PRESUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, and BECAUSE you human beings WERE NOT YET OPEN, ENOUGH.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am

and thus is absolute 'dense', might have a much higher power of attraction than you are imagining, here.

Gravity is not a function of mass density.

REALLY?

So, what IS 'gravity' A FUNCTION OF, EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am Two planets with the same mass but one triple the density of the other have the exact same gravitational effect.

Okay. Is 'this' an IRREFUTABLE Fact?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am Their moons orbit at the same rate if at the same orbital distance.

Is 'this' MEANT TO COUNTER ANY thing, and/or SUPPORT ANY thing, here?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:01 am Likewise, if the sun somehow compressed overnight into a black hole (it's possible), Earth would continue to orbit exactly as it had before, just colder.

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

What SIZE 'black hole' are you talking ABOUT, here, EXACTLY?

Do ANY planets get SUCKED IN or SWALLOWED BY 'this black hole'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But, if yes, then which ones, and WHY ONLY 'those ones'?

It is PRETTY AMAZING HOW it was, relatively, ONLY a few years ago from when this was being written, that 'black holes' were ONLY JUST DISCOVERED, YET some of 'these people', supposedly, ALREADY KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT 'black holes, and HOW 'they' WORKED, EXACTLY.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:41 pm …

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am .. And ‘space’ itself does not exist, there is only condensing, sedimenting, crystallizing ‘matter’.

So, to "cerveny" anyway, there is NO 'space' thus 'distance' between and around 'matter'.

And, are you 'trying to' say and claim that it is an IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'space', itself, does not exist?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am The transparent part of it is often called aether, I think:)

…

A specific real relationship between elementary particles corresponding to the distance ("metric") of course exists, the particles "perceive" it, feel it. But It is mediated and modulated by just the elements of the ether. And there is definitely nothing* je between the elements of the ether, not even emptiness. (I would probably look for that elsewhere:) You may not agree with me on certain things, but I would be pleased if you at least thought about it, that is, those who have a working processor (not necessarily from Nvidia:)...
*nothing that could be detected, measured, so nothing

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:41 pm …

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am .. And ‘space’ itself does not exist, there is only condensing, sedimenting, crystallizing ‘matter’.

So, to "cerveny" anyway, there is NO 'space' thus 'distance' between and around 'matter'.

And, are you 'trying to' say and claim that it is an IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'space', itself, does not exist?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:03 am The transparent part of it is often called aether, I think:)

…

A specific real relationship between elementary particles corresponding to the distance ("metric") of course exists,

Great, so 'space' really does ACTUALLY EXIST.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm the particles "perceive" it, feel it.

How do you KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm But It is mediated and modulated by just the elements of the ether.

But it is not mediated and modulated by just the elements of the ether. it just exists , as well as just HAS TO exist.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm And there is definitely nothing* je between the elements of the ether, not even emptiness.

There is also DEFINITELY 'space' between the elements, OBVIOUSLY. Which, by the way, some of you human beings do refer to it as 'nothing'.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm (I would probably look for that elsewhere:)

Okay. But what you would look for, and what you would only probably look for, has NO actual bearing on absolutely ANY thing, here.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm You may not agree with me on certain things, but I would be pleased if you at least thought about it, that is, those who have a working processor (not necessarily from Nvidia:)...

I WONDER if you will EVER think about it.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:37 pm *nothing that could be detected, measured, so nothing

AGAIN, it is great that you REALLY DO 'now' AGREE and ACCEPT that it does ACTUAL EXIST, after all.