How sure are we that black hole is not a product of a massive gravity implosion that rips a hole into the fabric of 3D/4D dimensional space in which light and everything else got sucks out to another side?

My imagination runs wild like a horse in the wild today, and so today it’s all about black hole and infinity and Calculus. To tell the truth, I’m not at all great in math, and so Calculus is so out there for me. Furthermore, I have not been back to school for ages, and so I might be a thousand miles away from the right answer when I’m trying to do a complicated math problem such as a hard Algebraic problem and so forth. Still, I’m a carefree person sometimes, and today is that day when I don’t care if I’m right or wrong.

According to the YouTube video right after the break, a black hole is formed because of the massive gravitational collapse of a dead star. Personally, I like to say a massive gravitational implosion because it sounds cooler! Anyway, the video right after the break explains how black hole forms in detail.

Today, I imagine that because of massive collapse or implosion of dense gravitational strength which, in my opinion, allows the core of a dead star not really was squashed into nothingness but was pushed so hard that it stretched and ripped a hole of our 3D/4D spatial space — thus pushing and ejecting the core of the dead star through another spatial dimension. This way, as if you can imagine that a hypersonic plane got punctured with a massive hole and thus anything got closer to the hole would get eject and suck out of the plane. The hypersonic plane is the container or the fabric of our 3D/4D spatial dimension and the outside is a bigger dimension that imprisons our 3D/4D spatial dimension.

Why black hole is always round like a circle and not a square? You know, if you push a ball through a massive piece of easy to be ripped tissue, you could probably create a square or a weird shape of the hole in the tissue right? Here comes the part of infinity and Calculus — hence circle.

Since Calculus was probably started by the ancient mathematics geniuses who were hypnotized by trying to work with a circle or whatever was more meaningful than a circle that led to their wonderment of infinity. Since a circle isn’t a straight line, in Calculus, I guess we could imagine a circle is a composite of infinitely small straight lines that form a circle in an orderly connected directional position. Hence infinity’s involvement since we don’t really know curve that well and have to use our imagination of using a straight line with infinity to form a circle. I guess, through infinity, a constant of the unknown, we find changes in infinitely small intervals. (My interval meaning isn’t a mathematical one but merely a point!) — So I guess Calculus is about finding the meaning of the change!

What has Calculus got to do with a black hole? In my opinion, a ball rips through a massive tissue isn’t the same as a massive collapse or implosion of gravity. According to the book “Infinite Powers: How Calculus Reveals the Secrets of Universe” by Steven Strogatz, and here I quote:

Mathematically, circles embody change without change. A point moving around the circumference of a circle changes direction without ever changing its distance from a center. It’s a minimal form of change, a way to change and curve in the slightest way possible. And, of course, circles are symmetrical. If you rotate a circle about its center, it looks unchanged. That rotational symmetry may be why circles are so ubiquitous. Whenever some aspect of nature doesn’t care about direction, circles are bound to appear. Consider what happens when a raindrop hits a puddle: tiny ripples expand outward from the point of impact. Because they spread equally fast in all directions and because they started at a single point, the ripples have to be circles. Symmetry demands it.

Thus my thinking is that since symmetry demands it, whenever something in nature which doesn’t care about the direction like the implosion of gravity — in our case the black hole — a circle must be formed in space that is so black as a black hole! As I mentioned above, the core of the dead star was collapsed and imploded so hard by gravity thus I think it probably got ejected through the ripped 3D/4D spatial dimension. Like a hypersonic plane that got a massive hole, anything near the hole would get ejected out to the other side. Whatever on the other side must be so exotic and our super special black hole makes things so impossible that even light cannot escape the grasp of the black hole.

Advertisements

Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.

Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?

From Einstein E=mc^2 to the conservation of energy theory, these concepts agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed — after all these energies existed since singularity (even before the big bang).  Thus, if I agree with these concepts, it means everything within this universe can be deconstructed into the smallest of the smallest possible units, and each of these smallest units could be counted individually in a way that if they’re to be reunited they could be constructed into the whole universe again.  The question is if this is the case, is our universe static in quantity?

I surmise there is another possibility!  What if the first scenario is true but there is one exception!  The exception is that outside of the singularity there is a bigger container that could feed more energy into the already constructed universe which we’re living in.  This could mean the quantity of our constructed universe could be changed according to the limitation of the larger container which contains our universe.  If this is the case it could mean that our universe could be shrunk in size and quantity by somehow shredding off existing energy and feeding the lost energy back to the larger container.

Relatively then, from within our universe, it could be that our universe is infinite since it could be expanded forever or be shrunk forever depending on the situation.  We don’t know the limitation of the larger container so we could only see the direction of our universe as an infinite expansion or infinite contraction relatively!  There’s a saying that nothing could last forever, and so we know that even the sun and anything else that exists within our universe got an expiration date.  I suspect that our universe could be expanded forever until the larger container stops feeding energy to our existing universe which would then allow this universe to contract and die off eventually!

Nature Isn’t Good and Isn’t Bad Either!

Is progressing a bad thing or a good thing?  Some people out there prefer that we could live like we were in the past because we couldn’t develop as much and so we didn’t pollute the environment.  They would argue that living closer to mother nature would naturally be good and be healthy, and anything otherwise is just bad!  They would argue that scientific advancements like nuclear power would be bad and so forth.  Basically, they would like to roam naked in the wood and prefer doing things more naturally!  Once again, are they right or wrong?

This specific case, I think they’re not only wrong but super stupid!  In the movies, we got superhuman, but in this case, we got super dumb ideology!  Why?  Just like any tool, it got two sides!  One good and one bad!  Like a knife, you could use a knife to cut food or kill people!  One is good, and one is bad!  So, when scientific developments are meant to be used for good, these things are naturally good.  These things are more natural than a rock which sits pretty on the ground all day long!

People who argue that developments are bad should ask the dinosaurs why they had extinct!  Isn’t it obvious that the dinosaurs couldn’t think as deep as humans thus they could not fly away for a brief vacation till things on earth cool down?  This is why scientific advancements are super crucial for the human race as a whole!  We need to be able to escape one rock and cultivate another just so we could avoid our own extinction!

Us humans tend to be not only stupid but we are also very arrogant!  We tend to think that what we got would last forever!  Unfortunately, we could not live forever, and our human race won’t exist forever also!  Why?  Even the sun will cease to exist eventually!  So, even the scale of the universe would not last forever, why would we think our earth would last forever?  If earth would not last forever, how will human race last forever?  Isn’t it natural for earthy humans to devise plans for our continuation even though we know nothing would last forever?

So, let’s get back down to earth and think simpler!  I think nature itself is just a tool!  If you’re sick and needing a cure, the right herbs naturally would cure you.  If you’re not too careful and eating the wrong mushrooms that exist naturally in nature, you would naturally die!  Nature exists as both good and bad!  So let us not be that stupid to think that developments are bad, and whatever exists naturally is naturally good!

Sometimes, hugging a tree is bad for the whole human race!  Instead of hugging a tree, we need to plant trees as a development and common sense!  Don’t argue that any development is bad!  Don’t just say nuclear power is unsafe!  In fact, I believe that we may need more advancement in nuclear power so we could suppress the tyranny of distance within our universe so we could travel far and cultivate more out-of-this-world colonies (i.e., in space) so we could lengthen the human race lifespan!

Speculation of the day: I think light is a particle in nature but behaving as wave when it rides the wave!

My speculation of the day!  I could be way off the mark, but this isn’t going to stop me from thinking out loud.  I’m remembering fondly how I’d read something about why some scientists think light’s behavior suggests that it’s particle but others would argue that light is a wave.  Then some more people would suggest that light is both wave and particle.  For me, I think a light is a particle but becoming a wave as it interacts with a particular environment which gives its wavelike property.

Imagine this!  Can a fish realize that it’s swimming in water?  The water, of course, is a wavelike entity.  Regardless, I don’t think a fish could realize that, and yet it swims in it as its dear life depends on the water’s wavelike property.

Imagine this!  Can a human realize that he or she is swimming in the air?  If he or she is swimming in the water, this person would definitely realize that he or she is swimming in the water.  Regardless, air is second nature to each human, and so we don’t easily realize that we’re swimming in it.  We’re thinking that it’s invisible and we’re breathing it in naturally without realizing we’re swimming in the wave of air.

I think when a light particle hits the wave of invisible air, it rides the wave and becomes one with the wave thus exhibits the behavior of the wavelike property.  When a light particle hits an environment which requires it to bounce back as if a tennis ball had just hit a hard surface, then the light particle would behave as a particle.

In summary, my speculation is that light is just a particle, but it behaves as a wave when it rides the wave of whatever!