Black Hole Philosophy

There are known objects in this universe that have mass but no volume, that is, they are there, but they're not. We refer to these entities as "singularities". A singularity is a single point found at the center of black holes that is responsible for the hole itself as well as the gravitational effects on the objects around it.

A single point is that which has no length, width, or height. It has 0 spatial dimensions, yet paradoxically, it exists. It would be impossible to directly observe this, because at the moment of a supposed observation, it would be infinitely smaller than what you just defined it as, and in fact, size isn't an appropriate measurement for a singularity at all.

This highly strange singularity actually exists. We are life. We emerged, seemingly against all odds, as observers of 3 dimensional objects existing in 4 dimensional space. What we now know is that there are, in fact, objects that exist in 0d space and 1d space. So if there are 0d objects and 1d objects (strings), then what about 2d objects? What are those? They would probably be something we already know about, but haven't seen them as such yet. But what about the ones we aren't so familiar with, like 4d objects? What would those be?

Well here's the way I see it. The nature of a 0d singularity is that which, when observed, becomes infinitely smaller, thus rendering a deeply inaccurate observation every time. But we can't even say that it becomes smaller because the concept "small" is a concept involving length, width, and height, which a singularity has none. It would be more appropriate, I think, to say that it is infinitely non-existent. But this thing paradoxically does exist, and everything in our galaxy is moving in towards it, so are we becoming non-existent?

Somehow, space is able to maintain at least 4 dimensions superimposed over a dimension of non-existence. The only way I can imagine that this would be possible is if there is an equal and opposite dimension on the other end of the spectrum that is keeping everything balanced, so that all remains existent. Or does it? Perhaps it remains paradoxically non-existentially existent.

All of space of all dimensions exists as a unified whole, no matter where you are. Just because there is a black hole singularity at the center of the galaxy doesn't mean that that's the only space that is there. It just means that there is an object there that has mass but has no volume. This virtually non-existent object still exists within all of the fullness of space. Every day that goes by, we are approaching a thing that doesn't exist, and honestly, we can call it what ever we want, but it is always going to be something other than that.

So are we moving towards infinite non-existence as we approach the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy? I'm going to have to say no. I base this conclusion on the fact of evolution. Life emerged from inanimate matter billions of years ago, and now it plays video games and flies airplanes. If anything, I would say we are becoming more existent. So my question is, "What's REALLY at the center of the galaxy?"

The way I see it is this. There is no center, and therefore, we'll never get "there", but by the time we paradoxically do get "there", we will, by then, be the epitome of infinitely existent non-existence. I'll always be here now. Later will become now and there will become here, but my relative position will always be constant as I both exist and simultaneously don't. We're all torn between two realities; objective and subjective, but truly these realities are one. One is real, one isn't, but we are inseparably stuck in between, and due to the nature of the universe, forever we shall be. Time goes on and people grow, but what is growth in the land of un real reality? It is mastery over the subjective/objective existential truth. It is the activating of your free will's potential. It is a mystery.

An object with mass that exists in a space with no dimensions. Where is that object really?

If anything, I would say we are becoming more existent. So my question is, "What's REALLY at the center of the galaxy?"

i wouldn’t say ‘more existent’ but certainly a lot of energy would be set free to experience more of those parts of us that have no mass

if we dissect ourselves, there are many of observable parts of us. physicality is probably the densest part and possibly takes most of our attention. i think i can detect a shift towards experiences which separate the various parts more and more. lucky (?) for those of us who are followers and not groundbreakers.

i think life on the internet is kind of an experience like that. good practice. the choice of vehicle on which we take that ride is imperative. i keep falling off of mine for sure. activating potential is a stormy affair for me.

i don’t know what is at the centre of the galaxy, but it is nothing to be afraid of. i’m sure of that.


jaw - gentle soul

Black holes are complete nonsense. The equivalent of the schoolboy joke of dividing by zero.
It is mass hysteria, they all are just agreeing with each other and calling it proof.

But, even when they don't agree, they agree anyway. Can't say the emperor has no clothes.

American astronomers claim that black holes may not exist (Guardian, July 29)

>> They swallow everything that comes their way and exercise the world's finest minds, but the portrayal of black holes as awe-inspiring celestial menaces may be woefully inaccurate, a team of scientists claim. Indeed, they might not exist at all. Scientists have discovered a gaping hole in a disc of material surrounding the centre of the quasar, as wide as 4,000 times the distance from the Earth to the sun. Image credit CfA

Does this mean that the madness of black holes is at an end? Not a bit of it. " According to the researchers, the traditional astronomers' view of a universe liberally sprinkled with invisible, all-consuming black holes should be replaced with an alternative that sees strange, magnetic balls of plasma floating in their place."

"The scientists, lead by Rudy Schild at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, spotted what they claim to be the death knell for black hole theory while observing a quasar, lurking nine billion light years from Earth. They discovered a gaping hole in a disc of material surrounding the centre of the quasar, as wide as 4,000 times the distance from the Earth to the sun. The hole, they believe, could only be caused by a vast ejection of material propelled by a strong magnetic field. Because black holes do not have magnetic fields, Dr Schild's team suggest the quasar must be powered by a dense ball of plasma called a MECO (magnetospheric eternally collapsing object). But according to the astronomers' theories the MECOs' existence precludes the possibility of black holes.

"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," said Darryl Leiter, a scientist on the team. According to Gerry Gilmore at Cambridge University's Institute for Astronomy, the theory has yet to convince most scientists. He pointed to last year's groundbreaking experiments that gave the first direct observation of a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way. "I'd have to say it's a minority view. It's almost certainly wrong," said Prof Gilmore. "Before we had observations of a black hole, there was a legitimate debate over whether black holes existed or not, but now it's hard to think how it could be anything else."

Gilmore shows the delusion remains firmly in place and Schild demonstrates that gravitational science fiction is his forte with an "eternally collapsing object." The only glimmers of hope come from identifying the object as magnetized plasma and that black hole phenomena may be magnetospheric. However, a magnetic field requires an electric current and there is not one word about electricity.

I recently posted this thread on drudge.com:

Black holes PROVE faster than light forces exist, EATHER!

Also, I find Nassim Haramein's suggestions quite interesting. For example,

reply to post by CaptChaos


My impression it that the concept of a black hole is missrepresented as though nothing escapes. I get the impression that's not the case. There are unseen dimensions. Also we tend to look at things like galaxies as though they're on a flat plane and that nothing exjects from the north/south --- instead of something like a macro-tesla coil... sorta more like a "doughnut on a stick".