Section 49 (last updated 02.17.2021)
The claim that the black hole is the centre of the universe requires clarification.
(Add this to black hole as nothing section- and infinity- thesis notes)
Modern science is restrained to the Ancient notion that the universe possesses shape but believes that the possession of shape is equivalent to the finitude of the universe. The idea that the universe is finite challenges the notion that the universe is infinite only because the concept of infinity is misunderstood. The infinite is wrongly understood as that which goes without end, endlessly into unbounded space. Although this is a behaviour of the infinite it does not describe the content of what it actually is. If we closely examine the empirical nature of the phenomena known as “black holes”, what we end up with is an approximation that the observable universe in fact possess form in the shape of infinity. To say that the universe possess shape however is not to proclaim finitude onto the notion of substance. The universe not only possess substance as its essential cause but also what we mean by infinity is defined by a true understanding of substance.
The terminology — “black hole” — actually confuses us about the true nature of the phenomena because it depicts the concept as a particular object among many other objects in space, but does not explain what kinds object it is
(just simply indicates something can be differentiated and sensed but falls short of explaining the unique role of the principle, which in the case of a black hole, the nature of this object is very confusing for the senses. (?))
The term “black hole” is really the classification of the material known as “dark matter”. It is stated that dark matter has never been directly observed but only inferred by its gravitational effect on “ordinary” materials like photons and neutrons. Black holes are the same substance as dark matter but only perceived in a particular way ordinary matter like the energy of stars. Dark matter is the abstract concept of the “black hole” because we have direct observation of a black hole while dark matter is only indirectly inferred from its gravitational effect on objects, a definition precisely characterizing black holes.
Black holes consume energy from stars forming external accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe. These “dark” substances are no ordinary objects in the sense of being particular attributes for the senses, rather they seem to be fundamental processes exhibiting qualities without themselves being a quality, (Aristotle internal relation ted PowerPoints). The notion that something is pure activity is by no means a foreign conception for our thinking process but only seems to be alien in modern times. For example, the Mathematical branch of Arithmetic is the study of the operative relations between numbers and they are symbols of language associated with pure activities.
Numbers are measures of pure quantities meaning that a specific object is excluded by its essence of quantity remains. It’s essence of quantity is either it is individualities or groups and the relation between individual and group, how the group itself is an individual, and how individuals form groups, in other words, there is no such thing as mere group or mere individual as you cannot have a sense of one on its own, hence the definition of quantity as denoting a single measure of many.
A black hole is one of these instances in nature where we observe a pure relation and it is very confusing for the senses. A black hole is not a spatial object because it is not necessarily determined by a position in space since it is infinitesimal, also it is not an object external to other objects as for example a black hole does not orbit around a star. A black hole is observed spatially, that it occupies some place in space, but it is a moment in time in the life of a particular object like a star, e.g, a black hole has always a gravitational interaction with a star at all times either a super massive black hole occupying the centre of some galaxy, or it be an infinitesimal black hole occupying the smallest dense point of an object.
What we observer as isolated black holes in space are abstractions of some black hole at some moment in space relative to some star, whether it be in beginning middle or end of consuming a star or in the case of white holes, excreting out matter. What we see as a black hole is really the end point in a stars life and its descend into a collapsed state, which in other words is the stars life time transition from a particle state into a wavelength, a transformation necessary for the stars life duration to recall back into the particle state which undergoes the experience of the length duration.
The illustration of a black hole consuming a star forming an energy of disk around the event horizon is not the mere interaction between two bodies but is rather the same process of a stars life duration reaching an ideal limit in time. During the last moments of a stars life, all the events constituted its life “flashes” at an infinite speed rate, or become extended as an instantaneous point flash of a wavelength .
The idea wherein the last moment of a duration is also simultaneously the beginning is a very fundamental principle in the concept of simultaneity basic to quantum mechanics. The idea of simultaneity is defined by the notion that the end of a duration is also its beginning, and this relation characterizes what is described as the inverse relation. The inverse relation is not merely that two factors exhibit opposing determinations at the same time, like in the case two ways moving in the opposite direction, but also the relative idea is from the point of one determination the other is opposite by virtue of being an other and not itself. In the inverse relation we have when one way is such the other is not, means that the quality of particularity is a kind of taking a turn being one way and then when that one way finishes taking its turn, it inversely takes the turn of being the other way it was in relation as not being.
Presupposed in a duration is an action being done in a particular way and in doing that action a consequence follows in a different way, but from the inverse position of the consequence, it is itself the action being done in a particular way, and the other particular action is the consequence. For example, when ever there is a killer, there is always someone being killed, from the point view of the killer, the consequence is someone being killed, which is straightforward, but inverse this relation, and the killed is also an action the consequences of which is a killer. This informs us what it means for the end to be the beginning because during a duration like a lifetime. We operate under an abstraction from the subjective point of view that life is moving forward based on the way events follow each other, and so we are directly aware of doing our actions but only indirectly aware of the consequences that our action may cause. But the consequences of actions are themselves fundamentally actions also, in the same way that effects are actions just like causes because
This idea supplements deeply the logic behind the transcendental ethics because every action being done is absolute due to its effect because the effects are the record of the actions value. The difficulty is that we have sense of cause and effect where one necessarily follows the other, my strike of a cup instantaneously makes it fall down, however this is not the case over extended periods of time, where the cause does not necessarily follow with an instantaneous effect. If there is an infinity scale between the cause and the effect, then the effect may come at an arbitrarily different moment after the cause, in an infinite scale of time, I would strike the cup, and the cup would fall down after 30 years. Obviously this goes against our ordinarily laws of physics, the simple action-reaction relation, but in the pure realm of time, it is the content of what constitutes a reaction that is put into question differently than what that constitutes in a purely spatial domain.
The senses only experience one side of the equation at a certain given point in time, we are either doing or something is being done. But at an absolute point in time, the action is both simultaneous with the effect. We experience the duration of events as events concurring after another and we abstracts in this sequence one side of the relation at one time, we either experience doing the action and indirectly experience the effects as an outsider from then or we are a direct experience of the consequences and we experience their cause externally. Where quantum mechanics yields logic to the transcendental morality is in the absolute point in time, or equally in a “quanta”, the cause and the effect both come as a simultaneous packet of energy.
Judgment after death
All religions make the claim that the moment of death is a final judgment of ones action during their lifetime. This judgement is far from being made by an external absolute force we identify as god, but god properly speaking is the universal side of the individual. The universal side takes on an indifferent position in relation to the identification with a particular determination made by the individual. And this indifferent place it takes is not one where it is inept of both determinations but by being both simultaneously so that the particular side of it, the individual, can experience the relative difference between the cause and the effect and therefore the distinction between actions is the standard for a system of values- properly judge something to be right or wrong. This fundamental mechanics is by nature ethical because what is being determined is a relation of difference where when one is the cause the other is the effect and vice versa. At the end of a life time, the entire duration constituting all events become reversed for the individual so that all the actions they normally identified as doing is now being done to them, they take the place of the effect of the actions they cause.
The judgment is in the fact that the once killer at the moment of death experiences the place of the killed etc. And all the consequences of the events caused by the agent is reversed onto them and now they take the place of those actions being done to them. The true essence of transcendental morality is based on this premise, that all actions are absolute due to their ultimate consequences because their effects bears an indivisible entanglement which yields a necessary experience at some point in time. It is only for the senses that actions are either causes or effects because if they are causes there is the sense of initiating them into force whereas if the action is an effect, then their is the knowledge of that effect following the action.
During the last moments of a stars life, it’s entire life reoccurs and becomes deconstructed in an inverted manner at an instant point duration. This phenomenon wherein the last moment of a beings life, the entire life process occurs at an instant is a principle in all life processes in the universe.
Schwartzchild radius- micro black hole within
Empirical science makes the claim that only stars with very large masses become black holes but this is only what is observable. The reality is that an infinitesimal point when perceived relative to a larger object relative to the observer it appears as a force, but in contrast to something relatively small to the observer, a black holes is imperceptible but it is still implicit infinitesimal point in any object,
Schwartzchild radius
Only stars with very large masses can become black holes. Our Sun, for example, is not massive enough to become a black hole. Four billion years from now when the Sun runs out of the available nuclear fuel in its core, our Sun will die a quiet death. Stars of this type end their history as white dwarf stars.
A black hole is the vertex
(Add Aristotle circles always falls into a line)
In what sense is the black hole the “edge” of the universe?
(the edge as the point furthest away from consciousness, the center, of which everything in-between is the content of the conception)
The “edge” is defined as the outside limit of an object, area, or surface; a place or part farthest away from the center. In geometry, an edge is a particular type of line segment joining two vertices in a polygon, polyhedron, or higher-dimensional polytope.[1] A vertex (plural: vertices or vertexes) is a point where two or more curves, lines, or edges meet. In a polygon, an edge is a line segment on the boundary,[2] and is often called a side.
In a polyhedron or more generally a polytope, an edge is a line segment where two faces meet.[3] A segment joining two vertices while passing through the interior or exterior is not an edge but instead is called a diagonal.
In geometry, a diagonal is a line segment joining two vertices of a polygon or polyhedron, when those vertices are not on the same edge. Informally, any sloping line is called diagonal. The word “diagonal” derives from the ancient Greek διαγώνιος diagonios,[1] “from angle to angle” (from διά- dia-, “through”, “across” and γωνία gonia, “angle”, related to gony “knee”); it was used by both Strabo[2] and Euclid[3] to refer to a line connecting two vertices of a rhombus or cuboid,[4] and later adopted into Latin as diagonus (“slanting line”). An angle is a combination of two rays (half-lines) with a common endpoint.
What is the relation between the edge and the center?
In geometry, a centre (or center) (from Greek κέντρον) of an object is the “middle” point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface (line). It is the “middle” because it is the common point equidistant to the points on the edge, in other words, it is what encompasses everything to the “edge”. How the center encompasses is by having the common endpoint with its edge, it meets itself from the other side.
When we say that the center is a point in some sense in the middle of the object, this refers more to the center of a line segment is the midpoint of the two ends. The center of a circle is the point equidistant from the points on the edge. Similarly the center of a sphere is the point equidistant from the points on the surface. According to the specific definition of centre taken into consideration, an object might have no centre. If geometry is regarded as the study of isometry groups then a centre is a fixed point of all the isometries which move the object onto itself.
The center of the circle is characterized by the point. A point in geometry is a location and it is shown by a dot. It has no size i.e. no width, no length and no depth. The concept of a point is meant to capture the notion of a unique location in Euclidean space. Euclid originally defined the point as “that which has no part”. Points, being in themselves a potential value, conform to axioms. An axiom is an established proposition because it is self-evidently true. The point defines the center of the circle as a potential value, and in order for something to be potentially valuable it must be self-evidently true.
several special points of a triangle are often described as triangle centres:
• the circumcentre, which is the centre of the circle that passes through all three vertices;
• the centroid or centre of mass, the point on which the triangle would balance if it had uniform density;
• the incentre, the centre of the circle that is internally tangent to all three sides of the triangle;
• the orthocentre, the intersection of the triangle’s three altitudes; and
• the nine-point centre, the centre of the circle that passes through nine key points of the triangle.
Specifically, in what sense is the line segment on the boundary of the center?
The edge therefore always presupposes the center. The question then becomes: what is the edge of the center? The point is its own center, and its edge (?) the point is the relation, the edge is the where the center point ends with itself.
The edge of the center is where the point connects the sides. The side which is an extended line of a shape, is not only the joining of the vertices, but rather this connection is the boundary where the point is distinguished from itself. Euclid described a line as “breadthless length” which “lies equally with respect to the points on itself”. The line is nothing else but the distinction of the point from itself, and the point having no quantities develops because the line of a point is reference of itself. The line is a reference point, literally,
By definition the diagonal line presupposes that the vertices are not on the same edge. A line is always diagonal because the vertices are not on the same edge. This is why whenever you see the abstraction of a straight line it always involves arrows, which are indicative of a motion that has the potential for diagonal curvature. That there is an edge connected to a vertex follows naturally from the fact that the line lies equally with respect to the points on itself. That is to say, the point in motion away from itself form the connection that is the line.
Let us take the example of calculating the distance to the horizon, to describe how the line is constituted by the same point, or that the line is simply the relation of the point with itself.
The significance of this example here is not to derive the distance of the horizon, which is an inevitable consequence following from what function entails. Rather we have to look at how the center point constitutes the internal relation of two external factors.
When I am looking at an object, where my vision end is the same point as when my vision began. The height from which I began to see and the distance to where my seeing ends relate because of the radius of the center point. In other words, the radius is found both in the height and the distance.
The radius constitutes the height and the distance. Height and distance are the external relation, and the radius is the internal relation.
The radius is the center of the earth insofar as the earth is a sphere and the center of a sphere is the point equidistant from the points on the surface. Equidistant means the same distance apart at every point.
Normally when we try to derive Equidistance of a relation, we think that it is the common grounds of two points at odds. From this calculation we get the confused notion that equidistance is the effect of say the height and distance of the relation. However, what we often forget is that in order to find the equal distance of two points, the “equal” is the central point, that it must already exists prior to the question, there must be an equal length that makes up he line, or that the point itself is somewhat equal as having no sides, length etc.
The equidistant point in this sense is the cause of the height and the distance being at odds because it is the same point found in both, it is the very relation.
The equidistant point is ultimately the place where the line originates from into another point, and this is why it remains at equal distance at all times in relation to any distribution. It is simply abstracted as a third point; however, it is initially the first point of the two. 1+2=3, 3-2=1. If 3 is the result of 2, 1 is the cause.
1 is found both in 2 and 3,
We can demonstrate this by working backwards
The equidistant point is the thought of the entire relation, that there is difference between height and distance and that they are constitute by center point.
the center of the earth in our above example is a finite point because it possesses measurable density and we can say that its core constitutes the center. However what if we apply the same form of this function and instead having a finite center like the center of the earth, we have an infinite center, like the center of the black hole? How will the center of the black hole constitute the height and distance of the event horizon, or in the more general sense, the universe? This is not asking for an exact calculation but rather what is the physical way the infinite point maintain finite points?
Black holes are said to be the heaviest objects, but this is not because the black hole possess its own mass greater than everything else, instead, the density of the black hole determines how heavy it is, it is heaviest due to volume, meaning that it has the greatest volume, and something with the greatest volume contains all mass. There is an important distinction between mass and density that explain in what sense is a black hole heavy?
It is important to point out that quality and quantity are not static categories but rather they are the type of relation involved in an object that makes it a certain kind of determination. For example, every object is both quality and quantity at same time, and quality and quantity are inverse forms of the same thing, inverse not means opposed but the relation of negativity, this is what a positive relation is,
Mass means the total amount of matter of an object which is generally measured in the unit(Kg). On the other hand, density of a object indicates the mass it has in single volume(The total space that object takes up).
Mass is the amount of matter an object contains, while volume is how much space it takes. The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. … Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume. Density tells us how much stuff has been packed into a certain amount of space.
Black holes are primarily characterized by density because they encompass the total mass of objects. Black holes are the “heaviest” because they are the volume of mass. Black hole does not have any mass of its own but is dense because it is the volume containing the mass of objects. It is an odd suggestion that the volume determines the mass. But this is only strange if fail to make the distinction between quality and quantity. Volume in relation to mass is quality This is explained by the so called black hole “formation”, which is done in two way: first, by compressing a fixed amount of matter until reaching the tipping point where it is dense enough to become a singularity. For example, this is how super nova turn the cores of a super-giant stars into black holes. Second, or keep adding matter until it reaches the tipping point where it is so big that it becomes a singularity. For example, when two neutron stars merge they become black hole. In either case it is the volume that determines the mass of the black hole.
Comprehending the “tipping point” of black hole requires knowing a) the Schwarzschild radius, and b) the mass of a spherical object. Schwarzschild actually means “black shield” in German. This radius is the distance from the center below which nothing not even light can escape. The heavier the black hole the bigger the Schwarzschild radius.
The Schwarzschild radius as center point is the total volume of the relation. This is the same point present in differing masses. If the center of the universe is this spherical center point
What is the center of the diameter of the sphere?
Fundamentally the center of the diameter of the sphere is the area or circumference? Area is the inner surface of the sphere, circumference the outer? Difference between circumference and area?
The black hole is infinitely dense, means that it is the form of density, having no mass yet, it is the self-identical unity of activity, the density of the black hole is the structure of something that is always identical with itself, one with itself, whatever change it endurance it remains what it is, nothing, and this is volume because volume is pure capacity. Capacity must itself be held, its quality is self-equality, uniform, correspondence etc. in order to exhibit the quantity of volume.
There is a special problem that arises in the idea that the sphere is the center. The center of a sphere is not determined by position, like the center of a line. If the only feature of the center of a sphere is that it possesses no parts, we attributed it to the capacity of consciousness, that the so called ultimate observer, is the center. However it is precisely at this point that the difficulty of this understanding of the center arises because what exactly is consciousness that constitute as the center of a sphere?
The initial answer is that the nature of activity as the full encompassing substance describes consciousness, that the observer is simply the concept denoting consciousness as pure activity. Activity invariably possess form, and this form being the essence of the matter, we have the character of the activity, whatever it may be. The description of the center being the point with no properties in itself, and therefore not being some particular location, explains precisely something very peculiar about the nature of consciousness.
If we take one part of consciousness as what it becomes, the form of the activity, we are still left with no understanding of what part of consciousness that remains impartial and not limited to some particular form. Since it is the latter that primarily characterizes consciousness. For example, if we take the following view.
The universe from the point of view of the black hole is like looking inside a sphere.
This is meant to show that ultimately there is no outside, the conception of the outside always becomes the internal form disclosing the experience. In the particular sense there is some kind of external surrounding, but in the universal sense, there is only the conception identical with the object.
We have the object of consciousness, the activity taking on form, the milky way, versus the consciousness having no feature observing it. the latter is especially hard to grasp because we often say that in any observation there is the source of it, the observer. this however diverge from the more fundamental question of what is the observer? The answer usually always involves pointing to some particular object that embodies the capacity to observer, and this is what is said to be the observer. For example, that if the observation is the sky, the observer is myself looking at it.
The concern here is not merely to bring up the age old question of what is the “I”, but there is more of a technical concern to this, that is, when I claim to be the observer, I also happen to be an observation to another observer. What is observer that transcendences every observation that which it is ascribed to? If person A and person B are observer each other, they both become an observation to each other, what remains unobserved by both yet observers both as observations? If we look at the above sphere, and take Q as the unobserved observer, and the circumference interior and exterior of the sphere as the observation, what is the nature of Q (nothing?). It is this nature that is the “center”, but not being anything in itself, it is at the same time the whole sphere.
(Jung approaching the unconscious) The nature of the unconscious is a concrete example that operates in this manner. Jung argues that the unconscious is phenomena in nature that is unexplored in the same way the universe is unexplored (find where).
The unconscious does not belong in each person individually like a brain belong as an organ in each head. This is one of the incompetence of Freud’s reduction of the unconscious to the id. The unconscious is dimension like space and time but to ideas. for example, whereas objects are limited to space and time, space and time are not limited to objects.
The unconscious is dimension where ideas are universally binding. Ideas are shared in the unconsciousness. Whenever an individual mind thinks of an idea, this thinking of it is no more compulsion, but it is rather an observation of the idea in the realm of the unconscious. And so two separate individuals can be observing the same idea in the realm of the unconscious they share. For example, the base of the cones that touch is where the idea exists in the unconscious and is being observed, whereas the two top points are the observer.
(, two cones facing each other at the base.
This view of consciousness is contrasted from the more fundamental, which is the same point from which two sphericon form the base.
both of these are only distinguished in the speculation. In truth they form the same sphere. (go to Pierce, law of mind, hyperbola graph, inverse hyperbola)
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light.
Schwarzschild radius is a spherical radius; it is the point where all the mass of the sphere does not surpass, it is not a line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere, it is rather the whole of the circumference as the center point of a sphere. It pretty much explains the formation of a sphere.
Sphere is just infinite circles. The radius of a circle divided by itself.
Radius is half diameter, and circumference is 3 times larger than diameter.
The area of a circle is just another circle, because it is pi, which is circumference times radius times 2. Or circumference times diameter. A sphere is the geometric value for pure potentiality- capability.
How is the black hole to be understood as the center of galaxy in relation to its conception? It forms the circumference of the conception around it.
Thought is universal conception distinguished from particulars as the same point. The black hole is the center in that it is the point equidistant from itself on the surface. Thought is the center point equidistant from the height of my eye and the distance of horizon, thought is the center point because it identifies a reference point as the center, say the center of the earth, the radius of earth as the center is only so because it is a reference point of thought.
According to the nature of the point, a value is only true insofar as it is potentially true. This means that whether you derive a point from a line or a line from the point, equally point to the fact that both are the relation of the same potential value. (add here how the points extends forming the line contrasted with how the line being the connection of the point with itself, is equally to the point itself.)
what you see above is not a black hole but a galaxy conceived by a black hole, the highest form of energy concentrated at the centre and the lowest distributed at the edges of the circumference.
Since the black hole in itself possess no dimensional features anything that does possess dimensional features in relation to it exhibits all its potential dimensional features, of which from a point, which is the center of the black hole, its own potential value, any dimensional feature can be abstracted and isolated. String theory for example makes the fundamental recognition that all of the elementary particles in the universe are composed of vibrating one-dimensional mathematical objects, they call them “strings”.
“Dimension” is the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
Curvature rotation
-Modern common misunderstanding of black hole
A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out. The gravity is so strong because matter has been squeezed into a tiny space.
How Do Black Holes Form?
Scientists think the smallest black holes formed when the universe began.
Stellar black holes are made when the center of a very big star falls in upon itself, or collapses. When this happens, it causes a supernova. A supernova is an exploding star that blasts part of the star into space.
Scientists think supermassive black holes were made at the same time as the galaxy they are in.
A black hole cannot be seen because strong gravity pulls all of the light into the middle of the black hole. But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole. Scientists can study stars to find out if they are flying around, or orbiting, a black hole. When a black hole and a star are close together, high-energy light is made. This kind of light cannot be seen with human eyes. Scientists use satellites and telescopes in space to see the high-energy light. Because no light can get out, people cannot see black holes. They are invisible.
Space telescopes with special tools can help find black holes. The special tools can see how stars that are very close to black holes act differently than other stars. It is inferred from this that the black hole is the rotational center of the galaxy. Scientists have found proof that every large galaxy contains a supermassive black hole at its center. Black holes are currently classified based on their size. Scientists think the smallest black holes are as small as just one atom. These black holes are very tiny but have the mass of a large mountain. Mass is the amount of matter, or “stuff,” in an object.
The black hole’s mass and size determine what kind it is. The smallest ones are known as primordial black holes. Another kind of black hole is called “stellar.” Its mass can be up to 20 times more than the mass of the sun. There may be many, many stellar mass black holes in Earth’s galaxy. Earth’s galaxy is called the Milky Way. The largest black holes are called “supermassive.” These black holes have masses that are more than 1 million suns together. The supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is called Sagittarius A. A supermassive black hole (SMBH) is the largest type of black hole is found in the center of almost all currently known massive galaxies.
This qualification is however mistaken because the size of the black hole is derived from the proportional size of the galaxy, and it is concluded that this is the size of the black hole. This is the way the center of galaxies is usually found.
The black hole being the center of the galaxy is characterized by the geometric meaning of the center point of circle. The black hole being the center point is a potential value, found in every galaxy, the galaxy is the real axiom of the point.
For example:
It is however an abstraction that the size of the black hole is proportional to the size of the galaxy. It seems that the common feature between all galaxies is that they share black hole at their center. However, it cannot be said that the black hole pertaining to each galaxy are in fact different entities because they are different in size, since the size of the black hole is derived from its relative relation to its galaxy. This suggests that the black hole tells us more about the size of the galaxy then the galaxy tells us the size of the black hole. The black hole is a singularity and its size cannot be determined merely by its event horizon relative to some galaxy.
The thing that all galaxies share is that they have a black hole, but what do all these black holes share in relation to the galaxies. There is no many black holes but only one.
The term “universe” means uni-verse, multiple verses, verses mean sections or units (check). Galaxies each have a center, but this center is the same for all galaxies. Galaxies are all units of their center. Their center being the point of consciousness that conceives without conceiving itself, the conception of itself renders it part of the external objects of its exuberance.
supermassive black holes are necessary for galaxies to form in the first place— they provide the gravitational pull to hold galaxies together in their early stages
The fact of many holes is on the one hand an abstraction of the effect that galaxies light warping around the void emphasizing it as some distinct space-time disfiguration. At the same time the emphasis of void by the particular composition of the galaxies somehow characterizes an actual physical individuality of the black hole, that is, the black hole is 3 dimensional entities where each galaxy revolves around it. the void having no identity of its own being itself nothing adopts the identity of the galaxy while remaining in essence void.
Gravitational lensing occurs when the empty void reflects the light of galaxies around it. light does not pass through void and therefore we have what appears to be spherical distortion of the universe. It is not known what this orb of distortion is but only that it is empty of being anything at all therefore reflecting 360 degree of galaxies all around.
http://www.cfhtlens.org/public/what-gravitational-lensing
Void has the dynamic nature of remaining void while conforming to outline the identity of some galaxy. In this way the effect of the galaxy on the void makes it the mass whereby the it revolves around, yet the void so far as light is not absorbed and is deflected is in totality void of anything at all. We have therefore void that is whole where the galaxy does not affect but is affected by, and the effect of the galaxy on the void that remains the same while conforming to disclose the identity of the galaxy. it becomes a sphere within a sphere, both spheres being void are distinguished by the identity of the galaxy.
This brings us to a very important difficulty concerning the nature of distinction operative in nature. The distinctions made by the understanding seems to conform to natural complexities. The understanding on the one hand recognizes that there is a distinction between what appears to be variabilities of galaxies in the universe and invariability of abstract principles.
The distinction between variability and invariability is not the division between them as static categories but rather these constitute a change in the form of spectrum. Where variability ends and invariability begins characterize the passage of nature, the continuity of universal motion.
The galaxy in-between the two red circles, hyperbole, the black hole is the hyperbole of the galaxy.
When we see the black hole we see it as hyperbole, that’s our limited conception of it. When on particular place on the surface of the sphere, you see the surface as hyperbole, portion of the surface.
When two circles merge they become one. How black holes form other black holes. What is really merging together is the event horizon, the black hole in each distinct even horizon is the same substance.
Two black holes merge into one another, bearing one huge black hole. It is the energy around the black hole that merge together.
Formation
The origin of supermassive black holes remains an open field of research. Astrophysicists agree that once a black hole is in place in the center of a galaxy, it can grow by accretion of matter and by merging with other black holes. There are, however, several hypotheses for the formation mechanisms and initial masses of the progenitors, or “seeds”, of supermassive black holes. The most obvious hypothesis is that the seeds are black holes of tens or perhaps hundreds of solar masses that are left behind by the explosions of massive stars and grow by accretion of matter.
Another model involves a large gas cloud in the period before the first stars formed collapsing into a “quasi-star” and then a black hole of initially only around c. 20 M☉, and then rapidly accreting to become relatively quickly an intermediate-mass black hole, and possibly a SMBH if the accretion-rate is not quenched at higher masses.[7] The initial “quasi-star” would become unstable to radial perturbations because of electron-positron pair production in its core, and may collapse directly into a black hole without a supernova explosion which would eject most of its mass and prevent it from leaving a black hole as a remnant.
Yet another model[10] involves a dense stellar cluster undergoing core-collapse as the negative heat capacity of the system drives the velocity dispersion in the core to relativistic speeds. Finally, primordial black holes may have been produced directly from external pressure in the first moments after the Big Bang. Formation of black holes from the deaths of the first stars has been extensively studied and corroborated by observations. The other models for black hole formation listed above are theoretical.
The difficulty in forming a supermassive black hole resides in the need for enough matter to be in a small enough volume. This matter needs to have very little angular momentum in order for this to happen. Normally, the process of accretion involves transporting a large initial endowment of angular momentum outwards, and this appears to be the limiting factor in black hole growth. This is a major component of the theory of accretion disks. Gas accretion is the most efficient and also the most conspicuous way in which black holes grow. The majority of the mass growth of supermassive black holes is thought to occur through episodes of rapid gas accretion, which are observable as active galactic nuclei or quasars.
Observations reveal that quasars were much more frequent when the Universe was younger, indicating that supermassive black holes formed and grew early. A major constraining factor for theories of supermassive black hole formation is the observation of distant luminous quasars, which indicate that supermassive black holes of billions of solar masses had already formed when the Universe was less than one billion years old. This suggests that supermassive black holes arose very early in the Universe, inside the first massive galaxies.
Currently, there appears to be a gap in the observed mass distribution of black holes. There are stellar-mass black holes, generated from collapsing stars, which range up to perhaps 33 M☉. The minimal supermassive black hole is approximately a hundred thousand solar masses. Between these regimes there appears to be a dearth of intermediate-mass black holes. Such a gap would suggest qualitatively different formation processes. However, some models[12] suggest that ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) may be black holes from this missing group.
There is, however, an upper limit to how large supermassive black holes can grow. So-called ultramassive black holes (UMBHs), which are at least ten times the size of supermassive black holes, appear to have a theoretical upper limit of around 50 billion solar masses, as anything above this slows growth down to a crawl (the slowdown tends to start around 10 billion solar masses) and causes the unstable accretion disk surrounding the black hole to coalesce into stars that orbit it.[13][14][15]
(?) The black hole is not the edge in the sense of being the outer layer of the galaxy, that the galaxy is the center and the black hole around it. this is an abstraction. The black hole is the inside edge of the universe. Diagonal edge. The universe is a spherical circumference enclosed around the black hole as the center and content.
In reality, when we empirically perceive the black hole, what we are seeing is not the outer layer of the universe, not its edge in that sense, but rather we are staring into the center of the universe, and our position is the outer layer of that.
Does this really matter, and how does it matter? If I am looking from inside out, black hole outside circumference and universe inside area, from this position, I am looking at the past, as from the first point, the outer black hole to everything in between. But if I am looking from outside in, that the black hole is the area, and the universe is the circumference light around it, then I am looking at the future, the empty void, the potential beyond, which is nothing that can be anything, the speed of light as the limit of matter is at this state, the event horizon.
This is the structure of the mind and the body, that the mind is the center and the body is the circumference around that.
These are the 2 dimension of the black hole, the circumference discloses the body from the inside
Imagine the air inside the balloon is the black hole. The universe is not expanding outwards but rather we, consciousness, is emerging inwards into the black hole.
World evolution is the attainment towards the singularity, this is the direction of the universe, it is returning to what it is in the beginning, pure nothing, but it can only do so once it has been through every single possibility of something.
They are not moving further away from each other but rather we are moving in away from them. The expansion of the universe is an internalization; the expansion is not of distance but rather the development is that the universe is filling with density. Falling into void.
It is estimated that the known universe constitutes about 4% of all matter. The expansion is not an outwards movement, not expanding away; it appears this way from static position looking at a moving object.
If I am still and two things are equally moving away from me, it appears that both are getting wider distance from each other them. how expansion of the universe occurs from the central point, that the center point is moving from the circumference.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
the black hole is what is holding the very fabric of spacetime.
(Add Mexican hat potential here)
This actually shows that the expansion of the universe is governed by the singularity. There is a problem with the above illustration, which is that the gravitational mass of the singularity seems to determine the space-time curvature. However the singularity is described as “In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.”
it is “the point where all laws of physics break down”. This means that where the singularity lies in the universe is not determined merely by the brute force of gravitational mass,
First, the average density of a SMBH (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some SMBHs.[5] This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, the minimum density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of the mass, and thus higher mass black holes have lower average density.
But that the singularity is the center because it is a perfect blackbody is one that absorbs all incoming light and does not reflect any.
This means that it is the point where everything else is contained in. what point can possess everything, that nothing is external from it? This is the mind, but how we determine it as the center relates to the present stage of mind, where everything in the past is contained in it, and everything in the future is contained in it. The singularity is found in the present moment of mind. The reason why the singularity has the strongest gravitational mass is simply because it is the present point where everything is contained in. it is the mass of everything against any one particular thing, this is why a black hole can have density way lower than its galaxy but its mass is much greater. It is small but has more mass then its galaxy. (check)
if I move away from them, the result is the same. it is undistinguishable. Science however seems to conclude that galaxies are moving away from each other expanding out into space. In order for galaxies to move away from each other the distance in space has to be encompassed by their observer. If I am looking at two galaxies moving away from each other, I am also seeing the expanding space whereby their distinct is measured. This must mean that the observer must be conceiving the space whereby the galaxies move into away from each other, and in order for this to happen, the observer must be moving away from the galaxies expanding the view of space. The reality is that it is not the galaxies that are moving away from the observer but that the observer is moving away from the galaxies expanding the space between them.
The use of numbers is so familiar to us that we normally fail to ask the basic question of: what is a number, really?
Numbers are symbols that abstract into categories the sequence that mark off transformations in the activity of thinking as conceived in the mind and reaffirmed in the world. Numbers function to identify and represent relations into static moments of change. The “amount” is usually used to mark off some specific relations between numbers by providing their “total”. Yet each number itself is a total in the sense that it is a particular relation of other numbers. The amount assumes that, relations with differing forms interact in the same relation to form different relations. The notion of totality assumes that the amount of an activity cannot be the whole of it because any movement beyond that whole makes it part.
The question becomes, are numbers qualities or quantities? The short answer is that numbers are both qualities and quantities. This answer indicates a difficulty, that is, can there exists something that is pure quality without being a quantity? The answer to this might be unclear, but the vice versa cannot be true because there cannot be pure quantity without that very fact about it be a quality.
(Find where you talked about this quantity and quality) How then is quantity distinguished from quality? Quantity is result and quality is process. Quantity is a result in the sense that it is the substrate embodying the process, and the process is quality because it is the substance forming the quantity. Numbers are qualities in the sense they represent the quantities of an activity. (not happy with this)
For example each proceeding number in a series signifies “a greater than value (>)” which translates in an increase in amount. The increase in totality is however primarily a logically deduced rule and is not reducible to what is countable. It is of a logical necessity that the occurrence of any particular change omits quantifiable measure. Whenever a change occurs in the process, that is a quantity because it constitutes an instance or event distinguished from the whole of the activity. (Explain Hegel idea of what beauty is how the end is embodiment of the process).
(?) What is countable, like 1 dog, 2 trees etc. supposes that these objects have at one moment been events of change and are maintained as distinct parts of a whole activity. When we count the numbers of dogs we see, we are really isolating a particular form of motion from the totality of movements. This is the very feature of activity that it abstracts into variants that are then active against this very fact. The activity separates into activates that are active to maintain their separation, but in this separation they act…
What is uncountable is the constant change undergoing the dog, and this is practically infinite because any subtle motion, any alteration of a cell or even a molecule, technically omits change in the quantities that make up the dog that we so easily identify as 1 thing. The dog is countable because he is the totality of his activities. He is uncountable because he is the activity of the activities.
We might take it for granted but it is almost surprising that mathematics is able to quantify the nature of activities because just like material movements, the thinking process, as pierce points out, never stands still, not even for one second. However the abilities of mathematics follow customarily from the function of sensation and its neurological effects. Sensations, especially perception, paints a static world where change seems to only occur through locomotion when objects interact with each other as cause and effect.
The reason for this however is that the relation between all the senses form an efficient system -the body- that derives knowledge of the world by interacting with it. The world we see through our perception is the most “stable” for the body to interact in. It is precisely this word, “interaction”, that the senses must first facilitate, so that the body can begin deriving knowledge. This is why certain environment like the ones found in gas planets, are too chaotic for complex living organism to develop in. A planet like earth is about [4?] billion years old whereas the universe generally is about [13?]. This means that earth is itself a product of evolution that constitute a healthy environment where the organs of rationality are able to develop.
(?) The further question is, where does the body begin in its environment to derive knowledge? This concern is one that governs the function of sensation. Sensation initially leads us by telling the mind that knowledge is in the object right before you. Yet the mind intuitively asks, which object? Is truth found in that tree over there -“the tree of wisdom”, or is it found above in the sky, or down here on the ground?
Sensation therefore almost seems to leave the mind in a given place, with the ability to perceive, tells the mind that truth lies in all these objects and wishes upon it “good-luck”. The mind therefore relapses back to the only thing that it trusts, itself, and works to dispense with the environment by distinguishing it the only way possible, by sublating its logical forms onto the material objects. This origination must have in the first place brought it to where it stands now. The world as shown by sensation is the most stable and efficient viewpoint that allows the mind to derive knowledge, yet at the same time, it is perhaps the most limited in its scope because it cannot in the onset encompass the total complexity the mind seems to hint at while interacting with the “stable” bodies around it. “Where to begin?” is not even really a mathematical question. It seems that the structures of mathematics are already presupposed. The structure of logic likewise is by no means arbitrary, but is rather called “rational” because it is balanced,
and invariably makes the infinite as the first step for an objective criterion. A move that does not allow for any loose structure to encompass thought but rather presses thought to dissect and discover the only principle of which everything else is an abstraction from, that is, its very own system of infinity.
Consciousness dissects the infinite into finites without reducing the infinite to a finite. This is only possible if the very notion of the infinite is reiterated into a finitude infinitely. The first principle of arithmetic presupposes the logical variant of the infinite and takes the digit 0 as the fundamental operation for positive and negative series of cardinal and ordinal numbers. 0 is the first digit because it is used as a placeholder in a value system and it can informally be defined as representing the “ought” in philosophy. The reason why 0 is the first point in a series is interrelated to the geometric principle of the circle being the first fundamental shape. The number 0 is the ordinal function of the circle retaining the geometric meaning that the circle is most elementary of the universal shapes. The circle and 0 retain the same meaning of infinity.
The 0 initiates the series of numbers because it is the position presupposed by all numbers, just like the circle is the form found in all shapes. For example “pi” [3.14…] is defined as “the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter”. This means that the circumference is divided by the diameter.
This points to the important question of the relation between form and content. We would normally think that the circumference is the form, and the diameter is the content, at least this is the way an object appears to our senses. However, the nature of the black hole suggests that the inverse is true; the diameter is the form (activity, nothing) and the circumference is the content (object, being), this is why the content (circumference) is divided by the diameter (form).
(maybe put this up)
How can form generate content, and how does the content maintain form? For example, Without the diameter there is no circumference because there would be no distance, and without the circumference there would be no length. (? Check the latter) This is why Pi is so fundamental and found everywhere because it captures the totality of form and content. Specifically, Pi determines the relation between roundness and straightness and this determines all kinds of measurements like length over distance, which characterizes waves like those of light and sound. Pi describes the sequence of change that constitute the circle. Pi is actually the abstractions of all possible relations in the universe, the relations not only between objects but that what makes the object- internal relations.
Why does pi begin with 3?
0,1,2,3.14…
(add here the logic of math from all work, found below and In ALL NOTES)
(?) It describes the logic of being that 0 is nothing, which is infinity, is itself something, being, 1 a finite, proceed into 2 which is the becoming, the relation between nothing and being, 3 is the relation between finite, 1, and 0 and 2, infinity because 2 is the multicity of 1, it is the beginning of difference. 3 sates that the very difference, 2, is the same of the relation, 1.
The operative function of 0 in geometrical terms is that it is the space that allows numbers to be divided, added etc. Technically speaking, in order to operate on any number, a space of 0 is presupposed in the function. The reason why we normally leave it out is because of technical reasons but it is always logically presupposed. For example, the relation 1+2=3 should always be 0+1+0+2=0+3 The inclusion of 0 to each number is logically necessary because it indicates the position for something to come before or after it. Without the presupposition of this ordinal principle, the cardinal result of the addition between 1 and 2, which is 3, has no place to come into the series.
Let a take for example, the Fibonacci number, which is a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. The simplest is the series 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 etc.
(go to ALL NOTES and find everywhere you talk about this)
why does the series initiates with 0, 1, 1? Mathematically this is straightforward because 1 in addition to an empty position is just itself as another 1, [1+0= 1]. Logically speaking, any quality with a function like 0, is attributed as 1 quantity. Why we have 1 as a quantity to begin with points to the fact that the 0 which is just a quality, even if its quality is to be nothing, is still itself quantifiable, and therefore constitutes content. We can therefore derive all following quantities by dividing them from this basic quality, and we can equally multiply the quality into quantities by adding them to each other.
2 comes along when we have the relation of itself as a quality 1, is that quality is a quantity, 1. Quantity measures the sequence of action going into logical thought. The quality that 0 is nothing is 1 quantity, the fact that this nothing is something, is another 1, the relation where these two facts stands against each other, is 2. The form or activity is divided by content simply because the activity itself and whatever goes in it is the content. The content just represent the changing form of the activity.
(when you zoom into an object, its center is a black hole, this is because the black hole is objectively the center of the universe)
This mathematical necessity points to the physical phenomena that when an object is compressed into a small enough space it can technically become a black hole. This is famously stated as the “Schwarzschild radius” of an object. The Schwarzschild radius aims to explain the radius of gravitational force. It does so by being a synthesis between the arithmetic ordinal function of 0 in relation with the geometric function of pie. The radius of a sphere in this case is itself a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light.
All physical objects in the universe with size inherently possess a void space in them such that if the object collapses or condenses into that space, its gravitational density would be so concentrated, that nothing, not even light can escape from it. This empirical phenomena is really a restatement of the logical fact that in the being of all objects lies the concept of nothing, that if being transitions into nothing, it becomes nothing. When an object condenses enough to become a singularity, it transitions into the state of nothing, which is infinite because it is potentially anything.
The very meaning of the term singularity means A), that there is an infinitesimally small point or sphere, and B) that this point exists alone in a state of absolute nothing else and is therefore a singularity. The singularity does not by its own merits specify the peculiarity of being that makes it contrasted from nothing, but rather it simply states that there is a peculiarity present in the state of nothing. From our ordinary empirical perspective there is an absurdity in the notion of the singularity. If an object condenses so as to become a singularity, it ceases to be anything and ultimately becomes a black hole. The empirical implication of the singularity suggests that it is in fact not the object that is a singularity in the state of a black hole, but rather that the black hole is the singularity implicit in the object. This is an extraordinarily crude implication because the condensation of the object means that it is the transition into nothing, a transition that must, in the first place, presuppose being [positive (+) and negative (-) = negative (-)]. Philosophically Nothing is the radius of being such that is being is contained in that radius, being becomes the circumference of nothing. In other words, something mysterious happens when an object turns into a black hole, the object bursts into new matter, something arises. [negative (-) and negative (-) = positive (+)]. This does not mean that being arises out of nothing, but that the concepts we classify as “being” and “nothing” characterize an internal and external relation of an indivisible substance. The physical significance of this ontological view is that the process of becoming is in fact an inversion between being and nothing. In inversion geometry, the term “inversion” means “transformation”. Transform means the transcendence and evolution of form. Transformation occurs because there exists a logically inverse nature in the notions of being and nothing. For example,
Being internally contains nothing inversely means that nothing externally contains being. The inversion here is the conjunction between the two principles that allows us to see them as the same form.
The black hole is literally the plane of matter such that matter takes form around it.
It is important not to conflate dark matter with the concept of space. Space is an externalized nature just like time. Whereas the only characteristic that dark matter exhibits is that it is literally no-thing. Space is similar in the sense that; it is the object without, but it is only so when it is outside something and so it is by logical necessity the place outside the object. In the nature of dark matter, there is a simply internal harmony of nothing, there is no here or there, and in this way, it is something, the thing that is no-thing.
The idea of nothing from our point of view appears to be no-thing and it is therefore unimaginable, yet in itself, this capacity of nothing is it’s very ability to remain producing the world – the light in darkness and darkness in light. This is precisely why it is so difficult to perceive how black holes look like. When we think of the actual image of the black hole, it is by no means straightforward to look at. If for example you go search for an actual image of a black hole from a Hubble telescope or other relevant devices, what you actually see is an obscurity of light in space.
The phenomenon where light bends around objects in space is explained by the concept of “gravitational lensing”. According to generally relativity, the gravitational field of the object bends the so called “fabric” of space and time. For example, stars behind our sun will slightly appear to be in different locations than they actually are because the sun’s gravitational field bends the lights coming from those stars making them appear to be in different location. Blackholes distorts the light of adjacent galaxies in a unique way producing a distorted appearance in space. Light does not enter nor leave black holes, instead light orbits around it portraying a spherical orb forming around an empty dark void.
(add picture here)
Black holes are so mysterious and confusing to modern science because it seems that the laws of physical nature, matter, do not operate “ordinarily” beyond the “event horizon”. The event horizon is the boundary separating the “photon sphere”, which is where the ordinary natural laws of space-time are applicable, from the quantum realm, which is where the physical laws are determined by reason. If a single photon particle enters the gravitational field of a black hole, the photon loses any specific location and becomes everywhere at once. How does the photon be in two places at a single time?
According to quantum mechanics, this is true because of the wave property of a photon. The orbit of a photon particle around a black hole extends it into a wave. (Put here your explanation of particle wave dualism) The nature of a wave is such that it is a single entity extended into a spectrum possessing differences in itself while remaining the same. The photon wave is also holographic which also means that its own content is no different than its form. The regular operations of time also changes beyond the event horizon of a black hole. In elementary mechanics, the law of non-contradiction applies to both space and time. For space, something is either here or there but not both, and as shown above, in the quantum context the wave property of photons makes its own particle units present in two places at the same time by being extended. This is known as “spaghettification” where things appear stretched in the presence of black holes.
In the case with time, the law of non-contradiction states that either something occurs in this way or that way. For example, if my arms are up in the air, they are not down close to my knees, whereas if my arms are down to my knees, they are not up in the air. According to quantum mechanics however, the duration of time loses its context, and theoretically every move of an action appears to be static, as if each move is recorded as its own object. For example, so that the action of my hand being down is present taking on its own concrete form at the same time as the action of my hand being up. This must mean that my arms would double, and I would have 2 sets of arms or 4 arms, two being up and two being down. This is why if someone would jump into a black hole, they would appear frozen.
If we combine the suspension of ordinary laws of physics and take the quantum relevance of space in conjunction with the quantum relevance of time, what we have is a very strange object exhibiting no real distinction between quality and quantity. We will first have A) the black hole, the notion of nothing, as the nucleus. B) an extended photon wave orbiting the black hole as a sphere, and C) this spherical orb of light containing dark matter is in motion, such that each of its action is at the same moment a distinct object.
According to this the basic model of the universe is an atom. That the atom is therefore not a portion taken from the universe in that not the smallest unit, but rather that the very nature of the universe generally is fundamentally an atom. The atom so the most general nature of the universe. It is true that our empirical way of deriving knowledge of the object requires us to go smallest in size, however this does not mean that the atom itself is the smallest unit.
The atom does not possess any particular size, but that given its nature is a fundamental one, the atom possess all possible quantities. It appears that as you enter space through a microscope, things are getting smaller, but in reality, things are getting more fundamental, and the more fundamental things get, the less specific quantitative measurements become. Whether you go at the speed of light (the measure of time) or zoom into matter by a telescopic (the measure of space), the result is the same in that you reach the foundations of nature.
(maybe add this to the progressive development of the atom)
(helium atom)
An opening, a passage of nature.
(lithium atom)
(the atoms of these compounds are not just what particular things are made of, but what the universe is made of generally, the layers of the universe. When we look microscopically into what objects are made of, we are actually looking generally of what the universe is made of.
Whatever a black hole is, it is something that is the limit of matter. The kind of obscurity the black hole portrays in relation to light differs than any other body of object because the black hole is infinite, and so it’s effect on matter must therefore be foundational. The Black holes really show us the “edge” of the universe-the circumference of the world. This is by no means a straightforward notion to grasp because they shape of the universe differs vastly than the shapes of the regular objects we see around us. The shape of the universe is a universal form and so its circumference is not like an exterior of an object produced by vision, nor is to like a simple frame of an artwork. The first way we can try to conceive the shape of the universe is by understanding the “speed of light”. In normal speed, accelerating towards an object makes it appear bigger and bigger. If you travel at the speed of light, while facing an object like a star for example, the object your looking at would appear to be going further and further away from you instead of getting bigger. The reason for this is because as you travel the speed of light, your field of view would vastly increase in size because you will reach the light of distant stars all around you.
Traveling at the speed of light would produce such a large field of view that captures all the matter in the universe. This brings up the next question; where is the center of the universe? The answer from the speed of light is that the center of the universe is everywhere. This is explained by the “cosmological principle” which states that the center of the universe is not some specific location, but rather that wherever you are in the universe, everything will appear to be moving away from you at the same rate. Modern scientist should not be so quick to mock Aristotle’s “geocentric model” of the universe. It is not all that obviously clear that Aristotle took the earth to be the fixed physical center location of the universe, and this is perhaps a misinterpretation. Aristotle’s geocentric model simple explains that the “heavenly bodies” are rotating spheres surrounding the earth, and obvious opinion.
Aristotle proposes that these natural bodies are composed of an incorruptible substance called ether, which by this he implies, ether is time.
a class of organic compounds that contain an ether group—an oxygen atom connected to two alkyl or aryl groups. They have the general formula R–O–R′, where R and R′ represent the alkyl or aryl groups. Ethers can again be classified into two varieties: if the alkyl groups are the same on both sides of the oxygen atom, then it is a simple or symmetrical ether, whereas if they are different, the ethers are called mixed or unsymmetrical ethers.[1]
A typical example of the first group is the solvent and anesthetic diethyl ether, commonly referred to simply as “ether” (CH3–CH2–O–CH2–CH3). Ethers are common in organic chemistry and even more prevalent in biochemistry, as they are common linkages in carbohydrates and lignin.
In organic chemistry, an alkyl substituent is an alkane missing one hydrogen.[1] The term alkyl is intentionally unspecific to include many possible substitutions. An acyclic alkyl has the general formula CnH2n+1. A cycloalkyl is derived from a cycloalkane by removal of a hydrogen atom from a ring and has the general formula CnH2n-1.[2] Typically an alkyl is a part of a larger molecule. In structural formula, the symbol R is used to designate a generic (unspecified) alkyl group. The smallest alkyl group is methyl, with the formula CH3−. [3]
In the context of organic molecules, aryl is any functional group or substituent derived from an aromatic ring, usually an aromatic hydrocarbon, be it phenyl, naphthyl, thienyl, indolyl, etc. (see Chemical nomenclature).[1] “Aryl” is used for the sake of abbreviation or generalization, and “Ar” is used as a placeholder for the aryl group in chemical structure diagrams, though “Ar” is also the chemical symbol for the noble gas argon.
A simple aryl group is phenyl, C6H5; it is derived from benzene. The tolyl group, CH3C6H4, is derived from toluene (methylbenzene). The xylyl group, (CH3)2C6H3, is derived from xylene (dimethylbenzene), while the naphthylgroup, C10H7, is derived from naphthalene.
Arylation is a chemical process in which an aryl group is attached to a substituent.
Time is a biochemical feature of life
Aristotle explains that these bodies orbiting the earth are crystalline spheres that move at different uniform speeds creating the revolution of bodies around the earth. Aristotle’s view is an initial formulation of the prevalent modern “cosmological principle“. The modern significance of the cosmological principles tells us that subjectively the observer is the center of the universe, but more objectively, that the universe is spherical and that on the surface of the universe there is no center. The center of the universe is when one object intercepts with your vision of it, that is the center, and when your vision, shifts to another object, the meeting of your perception with the object is now the center. The frame of reference is the center of the expansion. For example, pick out any object in your environment and focus your attention on it, that object will appear to be the center of your frame of reference and all objects around it will be blurred.
Black holes hold the universe together by way of “negative curvature”. The primary shape of the universe according to Aristotle, is spherical. This is proven true by the way light is distorted, warped, around black hole. (Inversion geometry)
Spherical Projection. It shows that such a plane is topologically equivalent to a sphere. Also, inversion can be thought of as a generalization of reflection. A normal reflection is then a inversion with the inversion circle radius infinitely large.
What is beyond the black hole is potential, the future, what could actually be conceived. The universe is as large as mind can be
-You have to show how the black hole is the dimeter and objects are its circumference not the other way around. The black hole is an internal edge.
One possible counter argument to the idea that black holes constitute the circumference of the universe is as follow: it is generally observed by empirical science that there are numerous black holes with different sizes. If the circumference of the universe is its form, it must be one shape, but how can there be many black holes with different sizes in shape? This is another difficulty brought about by empirical abstractions. The empirical method of deriving knowledge of black hole itself states that the distance between the black hole and the its observations differ. The further the black hole is from the observation the bigger it appears because there is more distant stars whose light is obscured by it.
The problem of seeing black holes as independent body of mass is related to how we view the universe. If we view the universe as a 2D dimensional abstraction like images show, then black holes seem to appear as masses who are cut off from each other unconnected. However if we perceive the universe as a 3D dimensional sphere, then black holes are all masses of the same plane curvature. This problem however points to a real difficulty of how to conceptualize the form of the universe because the form of the universe is not simply a sphere.
If the black hole is the edge end of the universe, and it is a body of mass, why does light produce an event horizon around it rather than simply reflect out from it like a light hitting a mirror? The obvious answer is that nothing escapes black holes because of their infinitely strong gravitational pull. However if the gravitational property of black holes indicate attraction and mass, that does not tell us why nothing is able to escape black holes? The answer to that question must be that the black hole is the limit of physical properties and so it’s gravitational pull of anything physical is the disembodiment of that physical to the most basic state.
The black hole forms the universe in a way very different than how we normally understand the circumference of things. This is the case because a black hole is not only a quantity like in the case of any geometrical shape representation, but it is also a quality in the sense that it actually is an activity that produces shape. The way the black hole contains the universe is not by standing outside of it like an outer layer but rather the entire universe is a reflection stemming from a form internally containing it. Just like an inversion of a moving circle, the motion of the circle is simply the reflection of itself, and that reflection contains it.
http://xahlee.info/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/Inversion_dir/inversion.html
If we have two circles inside each other, and one contains the smaller other, then if we draw a line from the circumference of one across to the circumference of other, then the drawn line will follow the curvature of the circle just like light wraps around the black hole. The black hole contains the universe not in the sense of being the circumference of it, but rather that the universe is the circumference of the black hole. This is a very incomprehensible notion because the black hole must be seen as the centre of the universe that is nothing yet the universe forms around it as something. This is precisely shown by the event horizon phenomena.
(Add this to the organic logic)
(Terence 52:00 “afterlife”) The photon has no antiparticle, there is no antiphoton. This is because positive and positive makes a positive, the absolute principle for being, of which is applicable to nothing.
—–
The earth is living organism (orgainsasim)
The earth is a living organic mind. This stage of reason reaches such a complexity that mind is physically experiencing its own thought, or that it is making its thought living inside of it and experience itself through the living of its own thought. Thought is inside the man but man is the action of thought. The quantum realm is the shared context between the whole of thought and its particular ideas.
If you look at the pictures there is a shared feature in all major cities, that is, a circular centre surrounded by all major highways. (Look up Plato’s laws and see what he says about structure of cities)
Everything artificial is a sublation from the natural. The next organism will be sublation of human. This is why the cities look like human bodies.
(This is to explain sublation) If we compare the amazon forest with the website amazon.com it is not so absurd to suggest that they share generalities, even by name. For example, the website has a variety of kinds of produces in the same way the first has a variety of species of animals. On the website for instance there exists many kinds of MacBook pros with slightly different prices, yet they all belong to the product kind “MacBook Pro”. Moreover you can purchase 1 or 2 or 3 MacBook Pro yet the kind of MacBook pros remains available online. That is to say, as long as there is the ability to make MacBook pros there will be this kind online. And so the relation between universal and particular is that the particulars are individual expression of a type, the type is universal in that makes them all share the same function, and given the individual condition and quality of the particular, it differs in value in relation to the universal function. But the universal is not the sum of all particulars put together, because we still have the universal even if there is not a single particular, but as long as there is the potential for that function to exists. For example, you can buy all the stocks on amazon of MacBook pros, but that kind will not be discontinued for there is always the ability to make more. And so the universal lies as the potential for the particular to exists as well as the activity that grants the existence of the particular, this is what is meant by the claim that the universal is more fundamental than the particular.
The difference between artificial and natural.
Making money, or anything social and artificial is the inverse of nature. Making money means to derive the abstract, quantitative value, from the and concrete, the object. You sell an item for profit, in this sense you made abstract from concrete. In nature its inverse because it is the process of making the abstract into concrete, material object or how a thing looks, is based on form. Art likewise look at the object and derives from it an abstract feeling or form. Law takes natural behavior and attributes to them moral values.
The abstract and concrete are indivisible but their relation differs with art and nature.
One critique is that we attribute morality to the world, or rather, we sublimate our own ethics in everything, when the world involves no ethics. This first has to explain how the human being, who is part of the world, ethical while the world is not.