Creations - from Big Bang to Big Crunch, and beyond (before and after)

originally posted by: Rolci
a reply to: Prezbo369

A documentary is a documentary, whichever channel they eventually decide to air on.

It's on the Science-Fiction tv channel.......Fiction....

However, this one isn't on Sci-fi:

www.youtube.com...

It's not a documentary though is it? It's one person giving a talk on his 'experiences'. So what?

But if you had paid attention you would've realized that all you need to do is get a damn past life regression, note down the checkable facts, and check 'em! It's what people that believe no one do for personal conviction. Not THAT'S undeniable proof for anyone.

That's all that's needed? wow, I wonder why this hasn't been recreated in laboratory conditions and verified as an actual phenomenon?

This scientist says black holes do not exist mathematically

September 24, 2014

That’s the conclusion reached by one researcher from the University of North Carolina: black holes can’t exist in our Universe — not mathematically, anyway. “I’m still not over the shock,” said Laura Mersini-Houghton, associate physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.”

www.universetoday.com...


unc.edu...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your argument makes sense, but only from the point of view where you're not aware of animal reincarnation. Not only are there innumerable accounts of people losing a pet, then years later when they have another pet they feel as if it had the same personality. Also the whole mechanism is described in detail from 1st Density through 2nd (mostly plants and animals), through 3rd (humans), to the 8th Density of the octave. It is a universal process, although it's only 3rd D where the process becomes conscious:

"Firstly, there are those directly under the Guardians who are responsible for the incarnation patterns of those incarnating automatically, that is, without conscious self-awareness of the process of spiritual evolution. You may call these beings angelic if you prefer. They are, shall we say, “local” or of your planetary sphere. ... When the entity becomes aware in its mind/body/spirit complex totality of the mechanism for spiritual evolution it, itself, will arrange and place those lessons and entities necessary for maximum growth and expression of polarity in the incarnative experience before the forgetting process occurs. The only disadvantage of this total free will of those senior entities choosing the manner of incarnation experiences is that some entities attempt to learn so much during one incarnative experience that the intensity of catalyst disarranges the polarized entity and the experience thus is not maximally useful as intended."

A second quote to further elucidate:

"The incarnating entity which has become conscious of the incarnative process and thus programs its own experience may choose the amount of catalyst or, to phrase this differently, the number of lessons which it will undertake to experience and to learn from in one incarnation. This does not mean that all is predestined, but rather that there are invisible guidelines shaping events which will function according to this programming. Thus if one opportunity is missed another will appear until the, shall we say, student of the life experience grasps that a lesson is being offered and undertakes to learn it."

I only subscribe to the Ra Material because it is logical, coherent, consistent, the source trustworthy, the material is offered free, the process of obtaining it is knowable to the last detail, and it is in line with everything I have learned about the world. For me it's the truth of the highest order I have found through long years of intensive truth-seeking. You can imagine what it was like when I found it, and the experience of reading it. Hard to put into words. But that's my view. It serves me perfectly. Nevertheless I never gave up searching ever since, but only found one source worthy of mentioning. The Conversations with God books (don't judge a book by its cover! it's not a religious book! the biggest eye-openers) and maybe Manly P Hall's lectures. I keep looking.

a reply to: Rolci

Without understanding the physics that drives the inner workings of a white hole, why would you assume an ability to guess how it would behave or what it would look like?

Exactly the question you should be asking yourself, my friend.

I would remind you that matter is merely condensed energy, identical in nature to electromagnetic waves.

Save your breath. I learnt my physics in a university.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Rolci

Without understanding the physics that drives the inner workings of a white hole, why would you assume an ability to guess how it would behave or what it would look like?

Exactly the question you should be asking yourself, my friend.

I would remind you that matter is merely condensed energy, identical in nature to electromagnetic waves.

Save your breath. I learnt my physics in a university.

a reply to: Astyanax

Exactly the problem, my friend. (Actually that explains a lot about your previous remarks.) So you've been indoctrinated and you brag about it? Congratulations, you can now think inside a box. (No physics course teaches you the ability to develop novel ways of looking at the world. They teach you what we already THINK we know. Besides, any and all knowledge they have to offer is available on the internet, they can't tell you a single thing that you can't find out about online.) You can't solve a problem with the same way of thinking you got into it with. So where are you going to have your synaptic system rewired? On a university course?? If they ever cared to stretch the creative faculty of the mind, our graduates would have revolutionized science. We've had special rel. and general rel. for over 100 years. What changed since? We discovered dark matter and energy, that they still can't explain. Damn, they can't even agree what black holes really are

www.nature.com...

not to mention that now they have proven they can't even exist mathematically, as our friend above shared:

www.universetoday.com...

You must've heard when NASA confirmed this propulsion system works, BUT THEY HAVE NO CLUE HOW.

www.digitaltrends.com... m_campaign=o1

It's microwaves, for heaven's sake. Is this really where we are? They don't understand microwaves??

But obviously you're different, you know it all. So if you're the expert here and you know all about Black Hole Thermodynamics (if they even exist), why don't you just tell us the solution? After all, you know so much more than we do. Please educate us.

a reply to: Rolci

And what, pray, is the source of your knowledge?

No need to reply. You have already made it clear: YouTube videos, web sites full of mystical bunkum and 'channelled' information, AKA 'making things up'.

Instead of being rude about other people's education (the envy is palpable), answer my question. Where are the white holes? 'They're hidden by black holes' is not a tenable answer. If they are returning information to the universe the consequences must be visible somewhere. Where?

originally posted by: Astyanax
YouTube videos, web sites full of mystical bunkum and 'channelled' information, AKA 'making things up'.

Where are you suggesting Susskind's information is channeled from? Obviously you don't even know the guy. (Which in itself tells volumes about you and your "education".) But to consider the journal Nature is outright ridiculous.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Instead of being rude about other people's education (the envy is palpable), answer my question. Where are the white holes? 'They're hidden by black holes' is not a tenable answer. If they are returning information to the universe the consequences must be visible somewhere. Where?

The Nature article explains it clearly: time dilation. I know understanding this concept was not a result of your education, but it's explained in the article, and I gave you further references.

What exactly should I be envious of? Your lack of understanding what gravitational time dilation is, and how it delays the release of information from the white holes viewed from our reference frame? Don't worry about my education, I've had mine generously. Except mine hasn't narrowed down my mind. You are responsible for making the right choice of education for yourself. The easiest thing to do is jump into the institutionalized system (put in place for a purpose, and I'll give you a clue, it's not to encourage critical and creative thinking in the population). I can see your choice serves you right. So maybe, instead of looking for answers on a conspiracy forum, you should go back to your trusted professors, maybe if they explain it to you for the tenth time, you'll get it.

Reply to Rolci

Oh what fun.

Where are you suggesting Susskind's information is channeled from? Obviously you don't even know the guy.

Do you mean Leonard Susskind the string theorist, or Leonard Susskind the aluminium siding salesman?

But to consider the journal Nature is outright ridiculous.

Well, I prefer artificial journals myself.

The Nature article explains it clearly: time dilation. I know understanding this concept was not a result of your education, but it's explained in the article, and I gave you further references.

Yes, whenever I do a Lorentz transformation I always come up short.

Now, never mind what the 'article' says. As you have so acutely determined, I'm too dumb to understand the article. So take pity on my poor ignorance and answer my question. Are you saying that the white holes won't be visible yet? Then when will they be visible? Why haven't the white holes resulting from ancient black holes become visible yet — how long do we have to wait? Or could it be that's the wrong question to ask? And if so, what would be the right question?

Come on, you're the guy who understands all the theory. So don't tell us 'it's in the article'. Explain, explain.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Are you saying that the white holes won't be visible yet? Then when will they be visible? Why haven't the white holes resulting from ancient black holes become visible yet — how long do we have to wait? Or could it be that's the wrong question to ask? And if so, what would be the right question?

Come on, you're the guy who understands all the theory. So don't tell us 'it's in the article'. Explain, explain.

Your professors had to just love having you around!

I was surprised to see you had the humility to allow for the possibility that maybe you're asking the wrong questions. But to go so far as asking what the right questions would be... Wow!

The right question to ask, my friend, is what you expect to come out of the white hole, in what form, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how you would expect it to appear to the outside observers, considering the nature of the local fabric of space-time it is originating from. (Don't just assume curvature, consider frame-dragging, etc.) Also consider the amount of "stuff" being released, and don't forget to ponder the duration of the event. (Do you expect it to be "oozing" and "seeping" out, or maybe "bursting" out?)

Think, think, think! You say you've been given the tools by the best professionals in the field. Use them!

a reply to: Rolci

Okay, so you don't know the answer. Got it.

The original paper we are discussing is here, by the way.

Read it, and see if you can answer my question afterwards.

a reply to: Astyanax

I had already read it a while ago, but thanks anyway. Your pointing in its direction indicates that you read it too. So why are you still asking silly questions? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic you might want to turn to professional sources that can answer your funny (and by the way also irrelevant) questions. Why is a university graduate in physics asking for answers to their questions from an uneducated guy on a conspiracy forum? This topic has been created to investigate possibilities. Nowhere did I offer post-graduate training.

a reply to: Rolci

Because it's easier to debunk the physics than the mumbo-jumbo.

Did you try putting in different values for the stellar mass in the equation and see what time values you got?

I started out from the simple assumption that the "bounce" occurs at the singularity level, where curvature reaches infinity, resulting an infinitely great time dilation, meaning the "white hole" phenomenon becomes irrelevant to the outside world and will only have any meaning for the rest of the universe when the rest of the universe will share the same frame reference as the white hole, which is the crunch.

Yes, it starts with a bold assumption, but unless you assume SOMETHING, "where" (at what point exactly) the bounce takes place, putting in different values for stellar mass will be meaningless, because you don't know what grade of curvature to calculate which, and it is an indispensable part of the equation. I know the paper makes guesses, but that's what they are - guesses. They don't REALLY know when a BH should bounce. The best "outstanding" (special) point is the singularity level with infinite dilation. That's my proposition, as a layman, even if it contradicts the paper by "the best". Which is especially not easy where the paper involves more solid math than theories and conjecture. But there you go.

a reply to: Rolci

I started out from the simple assumption that the "bounce" occurs at the singularity level

The point of this exercise is that there is no singularity.

a reply to: Astyanax

You don't need a singularity for curvature, sufficient density will do the trick, which is what the Nature article is all about.

But I trust you noticed that I was suggesting a slightly modified theory in the OP, simply because I do not consider (and neither should you or anyone) anything in the article FINAL let alone gospel.

a reply to: Rolci

The 'bounce' means no singlularity. The transition between the collapse and the rebound is achieved through quanutum tunnelling.

a reply to: Astyanax

...at which point space-time is curved to a degree that results in a how much delayed appearance for external observers?

(Wait, it says in the article!)

a reply to: Rolci

Oh go away.

a reply to: Rolci

Time is creature, it was created by God.

a reply to: Rolci

Yes this all makes so much sense to me! I have been searching for answers for years, and I have been studying the law of one for a bit, I have so many questions. Thank you for this amazing post!