I mean..... what if the black hole is able to grow?

Edit to add: I should also state that, i do think i know what your saying. Basically you cant have energy without matter, and you cant have matter without energy, Basically meaning that they are not two separate things. Am i right?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Lichter daraus

---

Edited my above post with a decent example of the point I'm trying to make. Sort of decent at least... Anyways, I am in no way laying claim to being smarter than anyone. I am just pointing out a simple problem of misusing things as if they imply something they don't imply at all. Honestly, where is the problem in that?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Amagnon

---

Look at all the different forms of energy and show me at least one form of energy or even a force that does not require some particle of matter to propagate through. Even the forces themselves are propagated by other pieces of matter.

What I'm finding troublesome is the usage of something like energy as if it's something we can die and exist within as if it is a separate 'thing' from matter. I'll bet no one here can legitimately show me one 'thing' of energy that does not require matter at all. If you think you got something, post it and I'll attempt to show tot he best of my ability why it does require matter, why energy is not separate from matter.

Somewhere inside the digits of pi is a representation for all of us -- the atomic coordinates of all our atoms, our genetic code, all our thoughts, all our memories. Given this fact, all of us are alive, and hopefully happy, in pi. Pi makes us live forever. We all lead virtual lives in pi. We are immortal. [1]

That things are only a copy of Numbers; nay, that in some mysterious way, Numbers are things themselves [2]

Notice how it says "concept"?

You know what dark matter is? Neither do cosmologists, but they make an assumption that it is matter we cannot see...

Oh yeah...what about "entanglement",superposition and kymatics? I can't see a person with static "lab coat" view of reality coping well with those subjects

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SmokeandShadow

---

You know what dark matter is? Neither do cosmologists, but they make an assumption that it is matter we cannot see...

Yeah its a place holder scientists use for something they cant explain. That doesn't mean it exists or not...just saying

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

His basic argument is that after all matter has decayed / radiated away (through the WMAP we're seeing all matter flying to the edges of the universe, so the universe will likely die from an inflationary big freeze) that the only thing left will be a high entropy void of energy (highest state of randomness). From this Penrose postulates that energy somehow accretes back in to matter in a highly uniform state at the point of the singularity. Which seems to mimic your thoughts on energy requiring a constituent mass component.

The only oddity of this idea is we have a fairly huge volume of space somehow shrinking back down to a point, but if there's no mass, and no gravity then perhaps, even though gravity doesn't seem to thermalize, it somehow goes to infinity at the point of the singularity despite reaching a limit of 0 when all matter has decayed (this is why we really need a working quantum gravity model).

Your complaint seems to be that you can't imagine through a series of breakdowns (entropy) that energy will contain "information" about us as humans when we die. This relates very strongly to the information paradox that's encountered when evaluating what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. However I caution you to be very careful about how you think of "information." The background radiation of the universe is technically "information" and it gives us data about the very inception of time & space. Furthermore if you take the CCC hypothesis it's even possible for information to survive between "big bangs." You'd be well served to research the Thorne-Preskill-Hawking bet.

For example, water molecules blessed by an eastern religious practitioner will take on a specific geometry. Watch "What the bleep do we know:down the rabbit hole"....it should be on google or youtube.
I

" Dr. Jenny coined the term cymatics(from the Greek kyma, meaning "wave" and ta kymatica, meaning "matters pertaining to waves") to describe the study of wave phenomena. The implications of his cymatics studies are vast, especially as applied to the field of healing and vibrational medicine. "

The eighteenth-century German scientist and musician Ernst Chladni, known as the father of acoustics, showed that sound does affect matter. When he drew a violin bow around the edge of a plate covered with fine sand, the sand formed intricate geometric patterns.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme

---

His basic argument is that after all matter has decayed / radiated away (through the WMAP we're seeing all matter flying to the edges of the universe, so the universe will likely die from an inflationary big freeze) that the only thing left will be a high entropy void of energy (highest state of randomness). From this Penrose postulates that energy somehow accretes back in to matter in a highly uniform state at the point of the singularity. Which seems to mimic your thoughts on energy requiring a constituent mass component.

It's essentially an assumption that the universe actually is expanding, the BBT hasn't really been proven to the point of taking it at face value and deeming it fact. It relies on a few thing's being constant about our universe despite the possibility that those things aren't actually constant at all.

Yet that seems counter-intuitive to what BBT proponents say, when asked how can the universe apparently break the physical boundaries of a singularity they quickly state that there is no actual singularity and yet turn around and postulate the universe collapsing back into a singularity and expanding from over and over. Doesn't make sense to me. If all matter can be shown to pack down into an infinitely hot dense singular point and expand from it, then they need to show a viable mechanism for this rather than saying there is no actual singularity. I asked about this in another thread, I just can't think of the answer given by whomever it was.

This last possibility is tied up with the issue of the strength of the gravitational interaction ... . In the background of conformal geometry, the strength of gravity may be considered as being infinitely large at the Big Bang (which is, in a sense, why the gravitational degrees of freedom must initially be set to zero), and this strength gets smaller as time progresses, eventually reducing to zero at the final boundary. [1]

Your complaint seems to be that you can't imagine through a series of breakdowns (entropy) that energy will contain "information" about us as humans when we die. This relates very strongly to the information paradox that's encountered when evaluating what happens at the event horizon of a black hole. However I caution you to be very careful about how you think of "information." The background radiation of the universe is technically "information" and it gives us data about the very inception of time & space. Furthermore if you take the CCC hypothesis it's even possible for information to survive between "big bangs." You'd be well served to research the Thorne-Preskill-Hawking bet.

Again, seems counter-intuitive to what we know about the human body and it's energy system. The 'information' that makes up 'you' has never once been shown to be something separate from the brain at all. Everything we know about the energy system of the brain that leads to you requires a constant influx of energy from an outside source. Take away that outside source of energy then any energy being utilized by the brain is dissipated or decoheres to a point of being useless to describe the 'you' that was made from it.