Discussion:
Holographic Universe can't exist
(too old to reply)
7
2018-02-04 11:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Holographic Universe can't exist
--------------------------------

Holographic Universe as originally described
can't exist. The reason is down to black hole shape.

They are spherical objects.

Think of asteroids as being able to come in all sorts of shapes
from potato shape to oblong objects to round, while planets are mostly
round. But as you get to larger objects, the objects become
more round. They can no longer look like potato shape.

Potato shape easy enough to describe in a Holographic Universe
as something of a random blot on the sphere that is the holographic
projector.

However a spherical shape is not a random blot on the holographic
projector. It is a perfect geometric object and not a blot.
This requires elements in the hologram to move into
special configuration. In short, these elements are unstable and move
into this configuration to find stability.
But that actually means something very different from saying
that it is a random blot on the holographic projector.

This movement can be reconciled by having another holographic projector
much further out describing the inner holographic projector.
But therein lies the proverbial rub.
You need two (or more) holographic projectors to explain the universe.

Or the simpler explanation that perhaps such holographic projectors
do not exist will work equally well.
john
2018-02-04 12:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Agreed
Edward Prochak
2018-02-04 20:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Agreed
I haven't seen you post for a while.
Glad to know you are okay.
Ed
Edward Prochak
2018-02-04 20:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by 7
Holographic Universe can't exist
--------------------------------
Holographic Universe as originally described
can't exist. The reason is down to black hole shape.
They are spherical objects.
[NOTE: not saying we are in a Holographic Universe or not.]

You do not seem to understand the Holographic Principle.
It is primarily about the equations used to describe our
universe and how to solve those equations, given the
complexity of objects such as black holes.

And a second misconception you have is about black holes.
how do you know they are spherical? We know the event
horizon is spherical but we still do not know what happens
inside that horizon.
Post by 7
Think of asteroids as being able to come in all sorts of shapes
from potato shape to oblong objects to round, while planets are mostly
round. But as you get to larger objects, the objects become
more round. They can no longer look like potato shape.
Potato shape easy enough to describe in a Holographic Universe
as something of a random blot on the sphere that is the
holographic projector.
That is not how a hologram works. It is not random at all.
From this point you just go from misunderstanding off into
the weeds.

[snip the weeds]

Holograms are actually fascinating tools. If you are a
programmer you can think of it as a sort of compression
algorithm.

Photo holograms map between 3D image to 2D and back.
Using the holgraphic principle for the universe essentially
maps from 4D (have to include time dimension) to 3D.

I guess that would be the sky high description. I'm
too rusty in my math skills to give a more detailed
description.

7,
you would benefit from a bit more research into the topic.
Good luck.

Ed
7
2018-02-04 21:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edward Prochak
Post by 7
Holographic Universe can't exist
--------------------------------
Holographic Universe as originally described
can't exist. The reason is down to black hole shape.
They are spherical objects.
[NOTE: not saying we are in a Holographic Universe or not.]
You do not seem to understand the Holographic Principle.
It is primarily about the equations used to describe our
universe and how to solve those equations, given the
complexity of objects such as black holes.
And a second misconception you have is about black holes.
how do you know they are spherical? We know the event
horizon is spherical but we still do not know what happens
inside that horizon.
I'm only referring to the event horizon.
Post by Edward Prochak
Post by 7
Think of asteroids as being able to come in all sorts of shapes
from potato shape to oblong objects to round, while planets are mostly
round. But as you get to larger objects, the objects become
more round. They can no longer look like potato shape.
Potato shape easy enough to describe in a Holographic Universe
as something of a random blot on the sphere that is the
holographic projector.
That is not how a hologram works. It is not random at all.
From this point you just go from misunderstanding off into
the weeds.
[snip the weeds]
Holograms are actually fascinating tools. If you are a
programmer you can think of it as a sort of compression
algorithm.
Photo holograms map between 3D image to 2D and back.
And they have a physical representation of squiggles
and wiggles on the 2D surface to create the 3D image
when light passes through it.
Those markings get localized more intensely on the photographic film
depending on where the objects are in the photo.
So if there was only one object and its located to the bottom right,
then you won't see many markings on the top left of the
hologram while there are a lot more on the bottom right and smears
out from that area. And we can generate holograms of round objects
and cube objects no problem.
We can also modulate the wiggles to create a genuine
holographic projector - technologically we are nearly there
because the wiggles are smaller than light and tens to hundreds
of nanometers in size, and we can fabricate structures that
are small and move them around to create holograms
computationally.
Post by Edward Prochak
Using the holgraphic principle for the universe essentially
maps from 4D (have to include time dimension) to 3D.
Which still translates into local features for local objects
on the holographic projector.
Which is where all the problems begin and end.
Those features are taking on localized geometric shapes
which in turn means they are not stable.

You could easily think of a cubic black hole,
and then see why it doesn't work in practice
because there are no stable elements
in the hologram that can produce it and maintain it.
We are no using computers to modulate
the squiggles and wiggles in the holographic universe
but something is clearly doing it.
In short, you end up needing a second
hologram to contain all the moving pieces
of the first hologram to enforce limitations.

At least that is what I think - doesn't have to
be correct. It just makes more sense to model it that way
and see the glaring holes in the argument.
Post by Edward Prochak
I guess that would be the sky high description. I'm
too rusty in my math skills to give a more detailed
description.
7,
you would benefit from a bit more research into the topic.
Good luck.
Ed
Edward Prochak
2018-02-05 16:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by 7
Post by Edward Prochak
Holograms are actually fascinating tools. If you are a
programmer you can think of it as a sort of compression
algorithm.
Photo holograms map between 3D image to 2D and back.
And they have a physical representation of squiggles
and wiggles on the 2D surface to create the 3D image
when light passes through it.
Kinda sorta on the right track.
Post by 7
Those markings get localized more intensely on the photographic film
depending on where the objects are in the photo.
No, it is exactly the opposite. Information to reproduce
the 3D object is actually spread out on the film,
exactly opposite of "localized more intensely".
Post by 7
So if there was only one object and its located to the bottom right,
then you won't see many markings on the top left of the
hologram while there are a lot more on the bottom right and smears
out from that area. And we can generate holograms of round objects
and cube objects no problem.
So your original claim was spheres for black holes could NOT be done
for a hologram, but now you say round objects are "no problem".
Post by 7
We can also modulate the wiggles to create a genuine
holographic projector - technologically we are nearly there
because the wiggles are smaller than light and tens to hundreds
of nanometers in size, and we can fabricate structures that
are small and move them around to create holograms
computationally.
Not clear what you are saying here. Earlier your point
was holograms do not work, now you seem to say we can make them.
(technically we can, but your approach from this angle
seems to undermine your goal of proving this is
not a holographic universe.)
Post by 7
Post by Edward Prochak
Using the holgraphic principle for the universe essentially
maps from 4D (have to include time dimension) to 3D.
Which still translates into local features for local objects
on the holographic projector.
Yes.
Post by 7
Which is where all the problems begin and end.
You have NOT demonstrated the problem.
Post by 7
Those features are taking on localized geometric shapes
which in turn means they are not stable.
Precisely wrong. On the hologram side of the equation,
the information about a shape is spread throughout the hologram.

Here is a simple proof:
Create a photographic hologram of a 3D scene.

View the scene from the hologram. Note you can see
images of the objects in a range of angles.

Now cut or break the hologram in half.

Using the right half of the original hologram, you still
see the whole scene. Objects on the left are still visible.
The range of angles from which they are visible is more
limited than before, but they are there.

So you see that in regular holograms, the information is
spread throughout the image.

Note: the mathematics of this also show the information
distribution.
Post by 7
You could easily think of a cubic black hole,
and then see why it doesn't work in practice
because there are no stable elements
in the hologram that can produce it and maintain it.
You could "easily think" that if you did not
understand the mathematics involved.
Post by 7
We are no using computers to modulate
the squiggles and wiggles in the holographic universe
but something is clearly doing it.
IF we are in a holographic universe,
then it is the universe that is changing,
just as it would in a non-holographic universe.
Post by 7
In short, you end up needing a second
hologram to contain all the moving pieces
of the first hologram to enforce limitations.
NO, you don't. Not if you understood how they really work.
Post by 7
At least that is what I think - doesn't have to
be correct. It just makes more sense to model it that way
and see the glaring holes in the argument.
Well so far you have not demonstrated any glaring holes
in the holographic theory. Also keep in mind that the
holographic principle is first a mathematical technique
for solving some of the problems with black hole singularities.
Whether it truly reflects how the universe actually
works is still speculation at this point.

Enjoy,
ed
john
2018-02-05 17:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
" Also keep in mind that the
holographic principle is first a mathematical technique
for solving some of the problems with black hole singularities.
Whether it truly reflects how the universe actually
works is still speculation at this point. "
BH singularities are because of Suck Gravity stupidity. They actually PROVE that Suck Gravity is wrong.

Singularities, monopoles, zero volume particles: brainless Physics RULES.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-05 18:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Ed
" Also keep in mind that the
holographic principle is first a mathematical technique
for solving some of the problems with black hole singularities.
Whether it truly reflects how the universe actually
works is still speculation at this point. "
BH singularities are because of Suck Gravity stupidity. They actually
PROVE that Suck Gravity is wrong.
Singularities, monopoles, zero volume particles: brainless Physics RULES.
You have degenerated to catcalling. Whatever does not fit your worldview,
and whatever is not intuitively obvious to you, you call brainless.

It’s as though you think it’s just unfair that there be things you don’t
understand and aren’t willing to accept any.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 00:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bot
"You have degenerated to catcalling. Whatever does not fit your worldview,
and whatever is not intuitively obvious to you, you call"

Bullshit, Bot.
You lie. As usual.
Fuck off, brainless Bot.

My VERY FIRST post said the same: Black Holes are PROOF that Suck Gravity is wrong.
If your 'theory' goes wonko when trying to deal at different scales, it's wrong.

Yours does. It is.

Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board; yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out.
Edward Prochak
2018-02-06 00:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 7:03:57 PM UTC-5, john wrote:
[bs deleted]
Post by john
My VERY FIRST post said the same: Black Holes are PROOF that Suck Gravity is wrong.
If your 'theory' goes wonko when trying to deal at different scales, it's wrong.
Yours does. It is.
And your model to replace relativity?????
Don't forget: by model, physicists mean the
mathematics used to solve problems and predict
consequences of the theory.

Relativity went from normal gravity levels like earth
to predict black holes and neutron stars and is used
to solve GPS.
Post by john
Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent
across the board; yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out.
Self consistent? Seriously?? 8^)
Ed
john
2018-02-06 07:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"Relativity went from normal gravity levels like earth
to predict black holes and neutron stars and is used "
Black Holes do not exist.
The centres of galaxies spin so fast that Matter can't survive there.
Those are not the "black Holes" predicted by your fantastical gravitational self-collapse- those are regions of very fast spin. NOTHING to do with "condensed matter".

You have dreamed/puked/shat this ridiculous endgame for "extreme" Suck Gravity where it's a "really really dense place" and then looked around and identified centres of galaxies as such. You are spectacularly wrong. Seeing extreme absorption at centres of galaxies does not "prove" BHs or relativity- especially after seeing them all shooting jets out like flame-throwers!! "Oh, the material SPLASHES as it gets sucked in." Ridiculous!! Science at its most arrogant and deluded.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 12:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Ed
"Relativity went from normal gravity levels like earth
to predict black holes and neutron stars and is used "
Black Holes do not exist.
The centres of galaxies spin so fast that Matter can't survive there.
Those are not the "black Holes" predicted by your fantastical
gravitational self-collapse- those are regions of very fast spin. NOTHING
to do with "condensed matter".
And John, care to explain why your idea is less peculiar and more
consistent than a black hole?
Post by john
You have dreamed/puked/shat this ridiculous endgame for "extreme" Suck
Gravity where it's a "really really dense place" and then looked around
and identified centres of galaxies as such. You are spectacularly wrong.
Seeing extreme absorption at centres of galaxies does not "prove" BHs or
relativity- especially after seeing them all shooting jets out like
flame-throwers!! "Oh, the material SPLASHES as it gets sucked in."
Ridiculous!! Science at its most arrogant and deluded.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Edward Prochak
2018-02-06 18:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Ed
"Relativity went from normal gravity levels like earth
to predict black holes and neutron stars and is used "
Black Holes do not exist.
So proclaims the all-knowing John.
Post by john
The centres of galaxies spin so fast that Matter can't survive there.
Other than repeating yourself, do you have any evidence?
Post by john
Those are not the "black Holes" predicted by your fantastical
gravitational self-collapse- those are regions of very fast spin.
NOTHING to do with "condensed matter".
Can you explain what is the 4.5 million solar masses at the
center of our galaxy? If it is not matter, what is it?
Post by john
You have dreamed/puked/shat this ridiculous endgame for
"extreme" Suck Gravity where it's a "really really dense place"
and then looked around and identified centres of galaxies as such.
So if it is just a "really really dense place", what keeps
it from collapsing?
Post by john
You are spectacularly wrong. Seeing extreme absorption at
centres of galaxies does not "prove" BHs or relativity-
especially after seeing them all shooting jets out like
flame-throwers!! "Oh, the material SPLASHES as it gets
sucked in." Ridiculous!! Science at its most arrogant
and deluded.
Again proclamations of the GREAT JOHN! (yawn)

You should be able to model this kind of thing with your
spinny galaxy things. Wait, you don't know how to calculate
the gravitational attraction and orbital mechanics.
Oh well. Too bad.

I have a nice analogy of you:
you are a deaf person placing yourself in judgement
over Beethoven and Mozart.

Enjoy,
ed
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 12:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Bot
"You have degenerated to catcalling. Whatever does not fit your worldview,
and whatever is not intuitively obvious to you, you call"
Bullshit, Bot.
You lie. As usual.
Fuck off, brainless Bot.
My VERY FIRST post said the same: Black Holes are PROOF that Suck Gravity is wrong.
If your 'theory' goes wonko when trying to deal at different scales, it's wrong.
You are confused. Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are
they wonko. And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there.
Post by john
Yours does. It is.
Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board;
yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out.
Where is the self-inconsistency in physics?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 14:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd the Bot questioned ad naiseum
"
Post by john
My VERY FIRST post said the same: Black Holes are PROOF that Suck Gravity is wrong.
If your 'theory' goes wonko when trying to deal at different scales, it's wrong.
You are confused. Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are
they wonko. And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there. "
Yes, the Centers of galaxies have a dense, compact nucleus- just like atoms!
No, matter does not fall in and get crushed to nothing- Matter has quite plainly been seen to orbit closer and faster until it shreds and is blasted away as jets.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/shredded-star.html

No matter has been seen "falling in". Fuck off idiot Bot.
Post by john
"Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board;
yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out. "
Where is the self-inconsistency in physics? "

Fuck, you're so blind and have no memory BUS just kidding.
ONE example: everything is The Center because of the Big Bang! (Your retarded physics)
But QUASARS have HUGE energy because redshift tells us. (Your retarded physics)
But NONE of the quasars are near us- they're all far away at the edges- because they formed first during the Big Bang. (Your retarded physics)
Oh. So everything ISN'T at the if it's not convenient? (Your retarded physics)

You're retarded, brainless Bot Odd
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 14:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd the Bot questioned ad naiseum
"
Post by john
My VERY FIRST post said the same: Black Holes are PROOF that Suck Gravity is wrong.
If your 'theory' goes wonko when trying to deal at different scales, it's wrong.
You are confused. Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are
they wonko. And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there. "
Yes, the Centers of galaxies have a dense, compact nucleus- just like atoms!
No, matter does not fall in and get crushed to nothing- Matter has quite
plainly been seen to orbit closer and faster until it shreds and is blasted away as jets.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/shredded-star.html
No matter has been seen "falling in". Fuck off idiot Bot.
Not true, John. The recorded mass of a binary system where one partner is a
black hole fits models where SOME of the mass is flung out and some of the
mass falls in. The RATIO of those two has been measured. Your profound
ignorance of numerical data comes from the fact you only read internet
blurbs that offer only qualitative information.
Post by john
Post by john
"Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board;
yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out. "
Where is the self-inconsistency in physics? "
Fuck, you're so blind and have no memory BUS just kidding.
ONE example: everything is The Center because of the Big Bang! (Your retarded physics)
But QUASARS have HUGE energy because redshift tells us. (Your retarded physics)
But NONE of the quasars are near us- they're all far away at the edges-
because they formed first during the Big Bang. (Your retarded physics)
Oh. So everything ISN'T at the if it's not convenient? (Your retarded physics)
John, let’s talk briefly about the word “self-inconsistency”. What this
term means is this: an idea is internally self-inconsistent if it puts
forward two claims that are in conflict with EACH OTHER.
The fact that an idea contains several claims that you simply don’t believe
doesn’t make it self-inconsistent. All that means is that the idea isn’t
consistent with things YOU personally believe. That is, the ideas are
inconsistent with YOUR ideas. That has fuck-all nothing to do with being
internally self-inconsistent.

Idiot.
Post by john
You're retarded, brainless Bot Odd
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 15:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"
Post by john
No matter has been seen "falling in". Fuck off idiot Bot.
Not true, John. The recorded mass of a binary system where one partner is a
black hole fits models where SOME of the mass is flung out and some of the
mass falls in. The RATIO of..."

How do these measurements carry ANY weight?
You ADMIT your measurements are inaccurate and are only in the ballpark if DM is added in
Post by john
Post by john
"Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board;
yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out. "
Where is the self-inconsistency in physics? "
John, let’s talk briefly about the word “self-inconsistency”. What this
term means is this: an idea is internally self-inconsistent if it puts
forward two claims that are in conflict with EACH OTHER.
The fact that an idea contains several claims that you simply don’t believe
doesn’t make it self-inconsistent. All that means is that the idea isn’t
consistent with things YOU personally believe. That is, the ideas are
inconsistent with YOUR ideas. That has fuck-all nothing to do with being
internally self-inconsistent. "
Fuck off.
BB says everything is the Center.
Then why are Quasars so far away?
Because they're at the edge.
Fuck off idiot Bot Odd.
Idiot
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 16:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd
"
Post by john
No matter has been seen "falling in". Fuck off idiot Bot.
Not true, John. The recorded mass of a binary system where one partner is a
black hole fits models where SOME of the mass is flung out and some of the
mass falls in. The RATIO of..."
How do these measurements carry ANY weight?
You ADMIT your measurements are inaccurate and are only in the ballpark if DM is added in
Not for black holes, John. DM doesn’t enter into that.
As for the accuracy of the measurements, they’re pretty clear. It’s
documented in what you choose not to read. I guess it’s your choice not to
believe results by not reading them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by john
Post by john
"Fuck off, brainless Bot- my ideas are self-consistent across the board;
yours are not. Garbage in, garbage out. "
Where is the self-inconsistency in physics? "
John, let’s talk briefly about the word “self-inconsistency”. What this
term means is this: an idea is internally self-inconsistent if it puts
forward two claims that are in conflict with EACH OTHER.
The fact that an idea contains several claims that you simply don’t believe
doesn’t make it self-inconsistent. All that means is that the idea isn’t
consistent with things YOU personally believe. That is, the ideas are
inconsistent with YOUR ideas. That has fuck-all nothing to do with being
internally self-inconsistent. "
Fuck off.
BB says everything is the Center.
Not quite. What BB says is that there is no point that it distinguishable
from any other point
Post by Odd Bodkin
Then why are Quasars so far away?
Because they're at the edge.
No, John, there is no edge. That’s YOUR internal inconsistency. The BB says
no edge, no center. You say “but I can only imagine things with edges and
centers”. Quasars are not at the age of anything. YOU say “far away means
closer to the edge that I say must be there”. See what I mean? The
inconsistencies are with the things YOU believe, they are not internal
self-inconsistencies. Can’t let go, can you?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Fuck off idiot Bot Odd.
Idiot
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 16:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"
Post by john
Then why are Quasars so far away?
Because they're at the edge.
No, John, there is no edge. That’s YOUR internal inconsistency. The BB says .."

No, nym, I don't say there's an edge.
The inconsistency is that all the quasars are far away, and there should be, according to BB, no such distribution.
Here, from. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/quasars/power.asp

'One of the most important facts about quasars is that they are all very distant from us. The closest quasar is about 800 million light years away. Therefore, we can conclude that there are no quasars in the universe today and the last quasar disappeared about 800 million years ago.

Where did the quasars go? No one can say for sure. Given their power source, however, it is most likely that they simply ran out of fuel. The black holes eventually consumed all the gas and dust in the disk surrounding them, so the quasars ceased to shine.'

So all the CLOSE ones ran out of fuel.
Must be the Odd Effect: the emptiness of his brain sucks all the energy from 800 million ly around.
john
2018-02-06 17:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd the Bot
"And your spinning space that excludes matter where the spin is too high....
what’s your mechanism for creating that spin and what’s spinning the space? "

The same mechanism that gives your fundamental electrons charge, of course.

"And does this happen in atoms as well as galaxies, according to your John
law that macro and micro should behave the same? "

Of course. The spinning proton is YOUR so-called Black Hole. It recycles electrons in exactly the same way that galactic centres recycle stars; by shredding, reenergizing, and shooting their components back out.

"Let’s talk about YOUR internal inconsistencies. And in your case, the
inconsistencies really are internal. "

No inconsistency. Fractals copy themselves. As those mini-starred electrons radiate, they create Gravity and inertia. You have NO MECHANISM for those in your JokeScience.

IdioBot
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 17:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd the Bot
"And your spinning space that excludes matter where the spin is too high....
what’s your mechanism for creating that spin and what’s spinning the space? "
The same mechanism that gives your fundamental electrons charge, of course.
And your mechanism for that is what? Remember that it is YOUR law that all
things must be explainable by some internally moving mechanism. So you have
to preserve the internal consistency of YOUR ideas.
Post by john
"And does this happen in atoms as well as galaxies, according to your John
law that macro and micro should behave the same? "
Of course. The spinning proton is YOUR so-called Black Hole. It recycles
electrons in exactly the same way that galactic centres recycle stars; by
shredding, reenergizing, and shooting their components back out.
John, your model says mass is EXCLUDED from the center by the spinning of
space.
Where is the mass of an atom concentrated, John? What are the observational
facts here?

Where is the internal consistency of your ideas?
You say there is NO concentration of mass at the center of galaxies.
So a consistent position would be that there is NO concentration of mass at
the center of atoms. Otherwise you have an INTERNAL inconsistency.

C’mon, John. Where’s your head?
Post by john
"Let’s talk about YOUR internal inconsistencies. And in your case, the
inconsistencies really are internal. "
No inconsistency. Fractals copy themselves. As those mini-starred
electrons radiate, they create Gravity and inertia. You have NO MECHANISM
for those in your JokeScience.
IdioBot
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 18:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"So a consistent position would be that there is NO concentration of mass at
the center of atoms. Otherwise you have an INTERNAL inconsistency. "
No inconsistency.
Spinning space absorbs radiations. Protons do. Galactic centres do.
So what?
Plus, mass is not fixed- it depends on overall orientation of the disc-like atoms. When that orientation is random, it is highest. It may be reduced to near-zero by proper temporal ordering of the disc-like atoms.
Bot
Edward Prochak
2018-02-06 19:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd
"So a consistent position would be that there is NO concentration of mass at
the center of atoms. Otherwise you have an INTERNAL inconsistency. "
No inconsistency.
Spinning space absorbs radiations. Protons do. Galactic centres do.
Now space itself is spinning??
Wow.
Post by john
So what?
Plus, mass is not fixed- it depends on overall
orientation of the disc-like atoms. When that orientation
is random, it is highest. It may be reduced to near-zero
by proper temporal ordering of the disc-like atoms.
Of what IT doth you speaketh above, sire?

Seems like two or three things. Just repeat the above with
the correct nouns in place, please.

Ed
john
2018-02-06 19:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ed
"
Post by john
Spinning space absorbs radiations. Protons do. Galactic centres do.
Now space itself is spinning??
Wow.
"
Everything is made from something, Ed.
Space can't be nothing and spin OR form waves OR "warp".
So, if there's nothing there, no photons can move and no gravitational "warping" can occur.
So you just ruled out your OWN crap- doesn't matter, it's ruled out by logic a long time ago.

Space is composed of smallergauge energy forms- both Matter and radiation.
Think Fractal.
john
2018-02-06 22:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Black Holes have been measured to spin at near-c.
'Super Massive Black Holes Spin Near the Speed of Light. Scientists using the new NuStar telescope and the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton telescope, have recently determined that the supermassive black hole called NG1365 is spinning at an extreme speed of 85% of the speed of light or 670 million miles per hour.'
This is why Matter shreds. This is where energy COMES FROM for stars to keep shining.

Same thing with protons, but they spin faster- at about 9c- because they are so much smaller. And that is the speed of the radiation at the atomic level. And that is how fast protons ABSORB Gravity. 9c
john
2018-02-06 22:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So that's what powers electronic charge: Gravity.
Edward Prochak
2018-02-07 00:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Black Holes have been measured to spin at near-c.
'Super Massive Black Holes Spin Near the Speed of Light. Scientists using
the new NuStar telescope and the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton
telescope, have recently determined that the supermassive black hole
called NG1365 is spinning at an extreme speed of 85% of the speed of
light or 670 million miles per hour.'
This is why Matter shreds. This is where energy COMES FROM for
stars to keep shining.
John, you are just so confused.
Post by john
Same thing with protons, but they spin faster- at about 9c-
because they are so much smaller. And that is the speed of
the radiation at the atomic level. And that is how fast
protons ABSORB Gravity. 9c
You brighten and darken my day.
You darken it by showing how much science ignorance exists,
You brighten it by being so outrageously oddball.

Enjoy,
ed
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 23:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd
"So a consistent position would be that there is NO concentration of mass at
the center of atoms. Otherwise you have an INTERNAL inconsistency. "
No inconsistency.
Spinning space absorbs radiations. Protons do. Galactic centres do.
So what?
Plus, mass is not fixed- it depends on overall orientation of the
disc-like atoms. When that orientation is random, it is highest. It may
be reduced to near-zero by proper temporal ordering of the disc-like atoms.
Bot
What the hell, John? What does the DATA tell you about where the mass of
the atom is concentrated?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 23:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"- show quoted text -
What the hell, John? What does the DATA tell you about where the mass of
the atom is concentrated?
--
In the nucleus.
What is mass?
Mass is absorption of Gravity. That's what protons DO. And that's where they get their energy.
From Gravity.
And electron bits keep falling in there and getting re-charged.
And that's where charge comes from.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 23:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd
"- show quoted text -
What the hell, John? What does the DATA tell you about where the mass of
the atom is concentrated?
Odd
"- show quoted text -
What the hell, John? What does the DATA tell you about where the mass of
the atom is concentrated?
--
In the nucleus.
What is mass?
Mass is absorption of Gravity. That's what protons DO. And that's where
they get their energy.
From Gravity.
And electron bits keep falling in there and getting re-charged.
And that's where charge comes from.

===========

Right, in the nucleus. Where in the galaxy you say there IS NO mass at the
center. Funny that.

Also, where on earth did you get the idea that mass is absorption of
gravity? Go ahead, make up some other sproul.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-07 01:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"- show quoted text -
===========

Right, in the nucleus. Where in the galaxy you say there IS NO mass at the
center. Funny that.

Also, where on earth did you get the idea that mass is absorption of
gravity? Go ahead, make up some other sproul. "

LeSage.
Galactic centres have been clocked at .87c.
They are a whirlpool in Space with what WARPS and WAVES spinning at c, and they trap LIGHT and NEUTRINOS travelling at c.

Protons do the same to the next radiation down that electrons give off by accelerating/radiating. That's what mass IS.
What did you think it was? Bricks?
john
2018-02-07 17:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So-called "black Holes" at galactic centres are not the BH that Suck Gravity predicts: stuff falling in blasts away as JETS. Nothing about jets in A Brief History of Time AT ALL.

These objects are measured to be SPINNING because that's what they ARE- a standing wave of SPIN made from all the smaller Fractal levels of Matter. This is the MEDIUM that photons WAVE in, and what particles are made from.

Galactic centres spin at LIGHTSPEED, and absorb LIGHT and NEUTRINOS, which travel at c, and cannot get out once they get in.

Protons are the next level down from galactic centres. They spin at the same speed as the MINIPHOTONS andMININEUTRINOS that electrons are radiating, and they absorb THAT radiation, in the process creating Gravity and Inertia.

Truth
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-07 17:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
So-called "black Holes" at galactic centres are not the BH that Suck
Gravity predicts: stuff falling in blasts away as JETS. Nothing about
jets in A Brief History of Time AT ALL.
That’s right, because Hawking’s book is not intended to be a compendium of
what we know about black holes. It is a book about cosmology.
Post by john
These objects are measured to be SPINNING because that's what they ARE- a
standing wave of SPIN made from all the smaller Fractal levels of Matter.
This is the MEDIUM that photons WAVE in, and what particles are made from.
“Standing wave of SPIN”. Would you like croutons on that?
Post by john
Galactic centres spin at LIGHTSPEED, and absorb LIGHT and NEUTRINOS,
which travel at c, and cannot get out once they get in.
Notice how you have not explained why matter gets excluded OUT from the
“standing wave of SPIN” but light and neutrinos not only get absorbed but
can’t get out. Where’s the mechanism you say should be there for all
explanations?
Post by john
Protons are the next level down from galactic centres. They spin at the
same speed as the MINIPHOTONS andMININEUTRINOS that electrons are
radiating, and they absorb THAT radiation, in the process creating Gravity and Inertia.
Truth
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-07 19:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"
Post by john
Galactic centres spin at LIGHTSPEED, and absorb LIGHT and NEUTRINOS,
which travel at c, and cannot get out once they get in.
Notice how you have not explained why matter gets excluded OUT from the
“standing wave of SPIN” but light and neutrinos not only get absorbed but
can’t get out. Where’s the mechanism you say should be there for all "
Spin charged Matter fast enough and the TWO DIFFERENT CHARGES going the SAME SPIN will create conflicting magnetic fields and shred.
Of course, your model doesn't require any mechanisms for DM to be where you say- or be made to stay there- or for 'delocallized ' electrons to know where to go- or for Gravity to act-
But, hey- what? Me worry?
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-07 19:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd
"
Post by john
Galactic centres spin at LIGHTSPEED, and absorb LIGHT and NEUTRINOS,
which travel at c, and cannot get out once they get in.
Notice how you have not explained why matter gets excluded OUT from the
“standing wave of SPIN” but light and neutrinos not only get absorbed but
can’t get out. Where’s the mechanism you say should be there for all "
Spin charged Matter fast enough and the TWO DIFFERENT CHARGES going the
SAME SPIN will create conflicting magnetic fields and shred.
What in holy hell is that supposed to mean?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Of course, your model doesn't require any mechanisms for DM to be where
you say- or be made to stay there-
Sure there is. It’s called gravity. Gravity is what explains the
distributions of dark matter. It also explains the distribution of matter
in galaxies, though with nondark matter there are other interactions to
include too.
Post by Odd Bodkin
or for 'delocallized ' electrons to know where to go- or for Gravity to act-
Sure there is for delocalized electrons! Solve the Dirac equation and
that’s where the electrons are! It’s just like solving the second order
differential equation for projectile motion tells you the path of the
projectile! This is what college freshmen learn how to do!
Post by Odd Bodkin
But, hey- what? Me worry?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-07 20:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"
Post by john
Of course, your model doesn't require any mechanisms for DM to be where
you say- or be made to stay there-
Sure there is. It’s called gravity. Gravity is what explains the
distributions of dark matter. It also explains the distribution of matter
in galaxies, though with nondark matter there are other interactions to
include too. "

What's your mechanism, again?
Gravity?
What's the mechanism for Gravity?

And how does your magical DM not gravitate towards itself?
Ur Lost in Fantasy, bro

And you don't know that turning an electron in a circle creates opposite magnetism than turning a proton in the same circle? Why ever not?
john
2018-02-07 20:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LOL
Odd asking ME for a mechanism for Gravity.
LOL
Not happy with "just by being there", anymore?
LOL
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-07 23:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
LOL
Odd asking ME for a mechanism for Gravity.
LOL
Not happy with "just by being there", anymore?
LOL
John, YOU are the one that says that every explanation needs a mechanism.
And so you snort when I say one isn’t needed. When I hold YOU by your own
accountabilities, suddenly you’re exempt from your own rules?

So if you snort at physicists for not providing the mechanism you demand,
then you’re going to have to snort at your own, you miserable hypocrite.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-07 23:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Odd
"
Post by john
Of course, your model doesn't require any mechanisms for DM to be where
you say- or be made to stay there-
Sure there is. It’s called gravity. Gravity is what explains the
distributions of dark matter. It also explains the distribution of matter
in galaxies, though with nondark matter there are other interactions to
include too. "
What's your mechanism, again?
Gravity?
What's the mechanism for Gravity?
Curvature of spacetime.

What’s your mechanism for spinning space again? Remember, no matter in that
space, just “pure spin”, whatever the hell you think that is, or what spins
it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And how does your magical DM not gravitate towards itself?
It DOES! What rock are you living under?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Ur Lost in Fantasy, bro
And you don't know that turning an electron in a circle creates opposite
magnetism than turning a proton in the same circle? Why ever not?
And what circle is the proton circumnavigating?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
john
2018-02-06 22:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd
"And your mechanism for that is what? Remember that it is YOUR law that all
things must be explainable by some internally moving mechanism. So you have
to preserve the"

Thinking in this: Black Holes trap radiation by their spin; anything going lightspeed, which is their spin speed. That doesn't account for their creation, some energy event, but explains how they survive. So they absorb OUR emr.

Meanwhile, the proton absorbs the next level radiation down- that put out by electrons on account of their fusion/rotation/acceleration- and that causes Gravity/Inertia
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 17:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Odd
"
Post by john
Then why are Quasars so far away?
Because they're at the edge.
No, John, there is no edge. That’s YOUR internal inconsistency. The BB says .."
No, nym, I don't say there's an edge.
The inconsistency is that all the quasars are far away, and there should
be, according to BB, no such distribution.
Here, from. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/quasars/power.asp
'One of the most important facts about quasars is that they are all very
distant from us. The closest quasar is about 800 million light years
away. Therefore, we can conclude that there are no quasars in the
universe today and the last quasar disappeared about 800 million years ago.
Right, John. Remember that the universe is not static.
Remember too that when we make observations TODAY, we are looking at
cosmological strata. The further away, the longer ago.
It’s like geological strata. You find the KT boundary down at a certain
depth, which means that the KT event happened 125 million years ago.
Likewise all the dinosaur fossils are further DOWN in the geological strata
below the KT boundary.

Similarly, the further OUT we look in the surrounding cosmos, the further
AGO we are looking in time.
Post by john
Where did the quasars go? No one can say for sure. Given their power
source, however, it is most likely that they simply ran out of fuel. The
black holes eventually consumed all the gas and dust in the disk
surrounding them, so the quasars ceased to shine.'
So all the CLOSE ones ran out of fuel.
No, ALL quasars ran out of fuel. It just so happens that the quasars we
see know, we are looking at how they were billions of years ago, BEFORE all
the quasars ran out of fuel.

So if you look close, you’re looking at times that are after ALL the
quasars ran out of fuel. If you look far away, you’re looking at times that
are before ALL the quasars ran out of fuel.

What about this do you not understand?
Post by john
Must be the Odd Effect: the emptiness of his brain sucks all the energy
from 800 million ly around.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are they wonko.
And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there.
No TRUE event horizon exists because, if it could,
it'd have ZERO entropy and INFINITE "eXergy"
( energy that can do physical work ).

Imagine the Earth, the Sun, the Solar system, the Milky Way,
Andromeda, and the hundreds of billions of galaxies we see today...
now add a little "gravity&eXergy", so it fits in the head of a pin.

When you're done, that's what it was like, 13.8 billion years ago:
less entropy, more eXergy/Gravity/Density.
[ And, NO, it was NOT a (true) black hole back then ]
john
2018-02-06 16:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let's look at what Odd said
"> Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are they wonko.
Post by john
And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there. "
Black Holes are at the scale of galaxies. Suck Gravity is PROVEN to not work at those scales, and evidence of it NOT working is the Black Hole, itself, which very much IS a wonko idea- stuff disappearing down a rabbit hole, indeed!!
There's a ton of evidence that there is SOMETHING at galactic centres and elsewhere that absorbs a lot of gravity. It does NOT have the characteristic of making Matter disappear- it shoots energized Matter BACK into the galaxy as JETS, which are seen to PRECESS and inflate Cosmic bubbles of NEW STARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Show me in "A Brief History of Time" where Hawking covers this aspect.
He doesn't. Those are not the Black Holes he talks about. Those are galactic centres. Black Holes that you imagine just don't exist.
Crow will taste better than your regular shit, Odd.

Atoms are galaxies.
They are rotating discs with orthogonal magnetic fields that precess to create spheres.
Galaxies are atoms.
They are rotating discs with orthogonal magnetic fields that precess to create spheres.

My ideas ALL are self-consistent with this MODEL.

YOUR model is the STANDARD MODEL, silly brainless Bot Odd.

What is it again? Oh, yeah, there are "fundamental" point particles, and they spread out to "distribute" themselves where they're needed, but they sometimes move REALLY FAST, but usually not because they would radiate if they did, and they collect around BARYONS (what a fine word), which we can break up into hundreds of short-lived pieces, and this stuff just "warps Space" just by BEING THERE!!!
That about right, idiot Bot Odd? And you LOVE Standard Model!!!
Aw.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-06 16:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john
Let's look at what Odd said
"> Black holes are not different scale phenomena. Nor are they wonko.
Post by john
And there’s a ton of evidence that they are really there. "
Black Holes are at the scale of galaxies. Suck Gravity is PROVEN to not
work at those scales, and evidence of it NOT working is the Black Hole,
itself, which very much IS a wonko idea- stuff disappearing down a rabbit hole, indeed!!
There's a ton of evidence that there is SOMETHING at galactic centres and
elsewhere that absorbs a lot of gravity. It does NOT have the
characteristic of making Matter disappear- it shoots energized Matter
BACK into the galaxy as JETS, which are seen to PRECESS and inflate
Cosmic bubbles of NEW STARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Show me in "A Brief History of Time" where Hawking covers this aspect.
He doesn't. Those are not the Black Holes he talks about. Those are
galactic centres. Black Holes that you imagine just don't exist.
Crow will taste better than your regular shit, Odd.
Atoms are galaxies.
They are rotating discs with orthogonal magnetic fields that precess to create spheres.
Galaxies are atoms.
They are rotating discs with orthogonal magnetic fields that precess to create spheres.
My ideas ALL are self-consistent with this MODEL.
YOUR model is the STANDARD MODEL, silly brainless Bot Odd.
What is it again? Oh, yeah, there are "fundamental" point particles, and
they spread out to "distribute" themselves where they're needed, but they
sometimes move REALLY FAST, but usually not because they would radiate if
they did, and they collect around BARYONS (what a fine word), which we
can break up into hundreds of short-lived pieces, and this stuff just
"warps Space" just by BEING THERE!!!
That about right, idiot Bot Odd? And you LOVE Standard Model!!!
Aw.
Lol, John.
And your spinning space that excludes matter where the spin is too high....
what’s your mechanism for creating that spin and what’s spinning the space?
And does this happen in atoms as well as galaxies, according to your John
law that macro and micro should behave the same?
Let’s talk about YOUR internal inconsistencies. And in your case, the
inconsistencies really are internal.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
7
2018-02-05 23:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edward Prochak
[]
Post by 7
Post by Edward Prochak
Holograms are actually fascinating tools. If you are a
programmer you can think of it as a sort of compression
algorithm.
Photo holograms map between 3D image to 2D and back.
And they have a physical representation of squiggles
and wiggles on the 2D surface to create the 3D image
when light passes through it.
Kinda sorta on the right track.
Post by 7
Those markings get localized more intensely on the photographic film
depending on where the objects are in the photo.
No, it is exactly the opposite. Information to reproduce
the 3D object is actually spread out on the film,
exactly opposite of "localized more intensely".
Post by 7
So if there was only one object and its located to the bottom right,
then you won't see many markings on the top left of the
hologram while there are a lot more on the bottom right and smears
out from that area. And we can generate holograms of round objects
and cube objects no problem.
So your original claim was spheres for black holes could NOT be done
for a hologram, but now you say round objects are "no problem".
Post by 7
We can also modulate the wiggles to create a genuine
holographic projector - technologically we are nearly there
because the wiggles are smaller than light and tens to hundreds
of nanometers in size, and we can fabricate structures that
are small and move them around to create holograms
computationally.
Not clear what you are saying here. Earlier your point
was holograms do not work, now you seem to say we can make them.
(technically we can, but your approach from this angle
seems to undermine your goal of proving this is
not a holographic universe.)
Post by 7
Post by Edward Prochak
Using the holgraphic principle for the universe essentially
maps from 4D (have to include time dimension) to 3D.
Which still translates into local features for local objects
on the holographic projector.
Yes.
Post by 7
Which is where all the problems begin and end.
You have NOT demonstrated the problem.
Post by 7
Those features are taking on localized geometric shapes
which in turn means they are not stable.
Precisely wrong. On the hologram side of the equation,
the information about a shape is spread throughout the hologram.
Create a photographic hologram of a 3D scene.
View the scene from the hologram. Note you can see
images of the objects in a range of angles.
Now cut or break the hologram in half.
Using the right half of the original hologram, you still
see the whole scene. Objects on the left are still visible.
The range of angles from which they are visible is more
limited than before, but they are there.
So you see that in regular holograms, the information is
spread throughout the image.
Note: the mathematics of this also show the information
distribution.
Post by 7
You could easily think of a cubic black hole,
and then see why it doesn't work in practice
because there are no stable elements
in the hologram that can produce it and maintain it.
You could "easily think" that if you did not
understand the mathematics involved.
Post by 7
We are no using computers to modulate
the squiggles and wiggles in the holographic universe
but something is clearly doing it.
IF we are in a holographic universe,
then it is the universe that is changing,
just as it would in a non-holographic universe.
Post by 7
In short, you end up needing a second
hologram to contain all the moving pieces
of the first hologram to enforce limitations.
NO, you don't. Not if you understood how they really work.
Post by 7
At least that is what I think - doesn't have to
be correct. It just makes more sense to model it that way
and see the glaring holes in the argument.
Well so far you have not demonstrated any glaring holes
in the holographic theory. Also keep in mind that the
holographic principle is first a mathematical technique
for solving some of the problems with black hole singularities.
Whether it truly reflects how the universe actually
works is still speculation at this point.
I would not subtract from anything you say other than
point out, the information is not stored in its
entirety in distributed form. Because when you cut out the top
left corner and try to peer at the bottom right
object, it becomes a lost cause the further away the
two corners are.
So the smearing of the data is outward from wherever the object
is locally. That is where the problems originate.
If the things that project a black hole into a spherical form
are more local than not, there must be some kind
of interaction between the things that create the hologram.
And they expressly forbid a cubic black hole.
To me that sounds like needing another outer hologram
to rectify the behaviour of the inner hologram.
Loading...