Cosmos vs us

Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2020 07:56 pm
We all have a beginning as a BB, after that, the body expanded and we became adult. Piggy found that he has stopped growing (perhaps guys not yet). It’s surely that piggy will contract in the next decade, at last disappears in this world…This seems to be the genera lphilosophyof this world. That’s why piggy believes cosmos has a beginning as well as an end.
If cosmos has no an end, perhaps we will not have to die in logic (or say, just because cosmos has an end, so we has to do the same, as a part of the cosmos, we can’t escape the general rule).
If cosmos has an end, where does the present come from? It must have a beginning.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 676 • Replies: 3
No top replies

Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2020 06:19 pm
When something can’t be observed directly, we can try to infer it theoretically from different angles or using different theoretical ways…and see if contradiction happens.
Actually, the question of whether cosmos has an end can be calculated with mathematical – physics method.
According to another form of the “mass – space equation” (details see the thread “Is the sun round or thin?” in the Relativity column of the physics forum): L ∝ 1/ρ, when the whole cosmos contracts, its mass density ρ will increase and its size L decrease. When ρ → ∞, L → 0. That’s a singularity.
In physics, ρ = ∞ is meaningless. But a singularity is something between "existence" and "non - existence". All physics laws and rules were generated after the appearance of cosmos (existence of cosmos). So, the singularity appears at the ending of cosmos is reasonable.
And naturally the singularity is the (re)starting point of cosmos.
The present existence of the cosmos is fact.
Transform L ∝ 1/ρ into ρ ∝1/ L.
When a massive object in this cosmos such as a star collapsing, the size L decreasing, while the mass density ρ increasing, If ρ reaches infinite, it will be meaningless in physics. So, to some degree, it will have to stop collapsing. That’s to say, the core of a black hole can’t be a singularity. It might be a small round ball.
No contradiction.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2020 02:53 pm
The starting point of the Big Bang should be a singularity. If the core of the black hole is also a singularity, then what’s the difference between these two kinds of singularity? There shouldn’t be two kinds of singularity, non – sense. If they are the same kinds of singularity, then, a black hole can generate a cosmos at any time…That’s fun.
Cosmos can be fashion, passion and inflation, but physics must be step by step.
The mass – space equation reflects the basic physics property of 3D physical space, the most basic thing in nature.
Piggy heard a British philosopher talked about black hole in another site. It's from a fun angle but no contradiction:
"I have been pondering a question which is perhaps related to this post.

It is my understanding that in the intense gravitational field around a black hole,
Time, as viewed from "our" reference point a safe distance away is slowed.
In the limit, as the black hole reaches singularity, time (from our point of view) within the hole stands still.

Firstly have I got this interpretation correct?

If so then does that not imply that (from our external point of view) a collapsing massive object will never reach full singularity
because the time it takes to reach singularity will tend toward infinity as the gravitational field tends toward infinity.

My point is that to the "universe at large" (whatever that means)
the collapsing mass will reach a certain point (the point where it creates a black hole event horizon),
and then it will (appear to) stop collapsing because the time inside the event horizon is "stopped" as viewed by an external observer.

But surely that means that to any observer outside the event horizon, the final collapse toward a singularity will never be completed.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2020 02:18 am
Piggy reorganized the materials about the mass – space equation and put it here for reference.

The Concept of the Mass – Space Equation

Below is a thought experiment to demonstrate the insufficiency of the traditional Lorentz transformation.
When someone stays stationary relative to the sun, he will see that the sun is a round ball. When he moves to the sun in constant velocity (the sun moves to him relatively), he will see that the sun is an oval ball/thin due to the "length contraction effect" in the direction of movement.
The effect of gravity is even in all directions, so the sun is round; if the sun is thin, that means the effect of gravity is not even in all directions. Physics rule is not equivalent in different inertial frames? But one of the basic principles of SR is "physics rule is equivalent" in different inertial frames...

Actually, there is another very simple thought experiment to demonstrate the inherent flaw in Einstein’s SR: assume an object is moving in speed v in frame S, the same angles with all axis x,y,z for simplicity. Then, in frame S, the components of speed v along x,y,z axis are the same. While in frame S’, because the Lorentz transformation formulas in the cross direction is not the same as that of the along direction (the moving direction of frame S’), that’s mean the components of speed v’ along x’,y’,z’ axis are NOT the same. Then, physics rule is not the same in different inertial frames.

Next, introduce the mass – space equation.
The equation for the traditional Lorentz transformation of length contraction is: L’ = L /γ
The mass – speed equation is M = γM0
Then, ML’ = M0L so, L’ = M0L / M
Because M0 and L are constants, then: L’ ∝ 1 / M. This might be called the “mass – space equation”. (note: I am habitual to use upper case letters in this equation because the lower case of L looks like a “1”).
Mass M is a scalar, so the equation reflects the contraction of size in all directions due to the increase of mass.
It seems that the “mass – space equation” is a derived one. But its components “mass” and “space” are most basic physical elements. Actually, it should be a more basic equation than the equation for the traditional Lorentz transformation of length contraction and the mass – speed equation. It describes more basic natural rule.
During the course of exploration, people perhaps touch the leaves of a tree first, then the sticks, and so on the stock, at last the root. But for a tree, the root is the most basic.
From the angle of the physical substance of the object itself, perhaps the research might be more in depth and sufficient.

If we resort to the space contraction in all directions (Lorentz transformation is the same in all directions) which is disclosed by the mass – space equation, the above flaw can be amended easily.
Perhaps the natural logic should be “the movement in 3D space causes the increase of mass and the increase of mass causes the size contraction in all directions”.

Current in Different Inertial Frames

Blow is a third thought experiment to demonstrate the insufficiency of the traditional Lorentz transformation.
Assume a part of stable DC circuit with the shape of “L” rests in inertial frame S: section 1 horizontal; section 2 vertical; wire cutting face is a square for convenience. Another inertial frame S’ moves rightward at velocity u.
The purpose of this thought experiment is to verify whether the “length contraction effect” is in all direction as the “mass – space equation” shows or just in the moving direction as traditional Lorentz transformation shows.

First, analysis resorts to traditional Lorentz transformation.
In frame S:
For section 1, I1 = n1qv1; for section 2, I2 = n2qv2
(Here take the moving direction of electron as the direction of current for convenience, n is the density of free electron in the wire, q is the charge carried by electron, v is the moving velocity of free electron.)
I1 = I2, n1 = n2 = n, v1 = v2 = v
In frame S’:
For section 1, △x’ = △x / γ , △y’ = △y , △z’ = △z
V’ = △x’△y’△z’ = △x△y△z / γ = V / γ (V’ is volume in frame S’, V is volume in frame S)
So, n1’ = γn1 = γn
Lorentz transformation of velocity:
v1’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I1’ = n1’qv1’ = γnq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
For section 2, also V’ = V / γ
So, n2’ = γn2 = γn
Lorentz transformation of velocity:
v2’ = v2 / γ(1 - u v1/c²)
I2’ = n2’qv2’ = γnq v2 / γ(1 - u v1/c²) = nq v2 / (1 - u v1/c²)
I1’ ≠ I2’
Physics rule is not equally applicable in inertial frame S’.
Next, resort to the space contraction in all directions which is disclosed by the “mass – space equation”.
In frame S’:
For section 1, n1’ = γ³n1 = γ³n
v1’ = dx’ / dt’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I1’ = n1’qv1’ = γ³nq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
For section 2, n2’ = γ³n2 = γ³n
v2’ = dz’ / dt’ = dx’ / dt’ = (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c² )
I2’ = n2’qv2’ = γ³nq (v1 - u) / (1 - u v1/c²)
I1’ = I2’
Physics rule is equally applicable in inertial frame S’.

Of course, the “L” shape DC circuit scenario can be verified. Just fix two electric meters in the sections and watch if their values are the same. It’s not a difficult experiment to do.

The mass – space equation L’∝ 1 / M discloses Lorentz transformation is the same in all directions. So, there is no what “longitudinal mass” or “transversal mass”. The appropriate conception should be the “dynamic mass” (is the same in all directions).

The mass – space equation can be transformed to be M ∝ 1 / L’. It means the contraction of space leading to the increase of mass. So, the employment of “dynamic mass” / “relativistic mass” is reasonable.

The mass – space equation L’ ∝ 1/ M contains just two most basic physics quantity: space and mass. It’s the most basic equation in cosmos and reflects the most basic natural rule. Its existence does not depending on SR. So, shake off the effect of reference frame, it will be L ∝ 1/ M.
The “mass – space equation” can transform into another form: L ∝ 1/ρ, where ρ is mass density. The derivation course is as below:
Assume V is a certain value of any finite volume, then: L ∝(1 / V)﹝1 / (M / V)﹞,
1 / V is a constant; M / V = ρ

Cosmos can be fashion, passion and inflation, but physics must be step by step.
The mass – space equation reflects the basic physics property of 3D physical space, the most basic thing in nature.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
  1. Forums
  2. » Cosmos vs us
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 12:43:43