Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stephen Hawking said to imagine time as a 2D graph. We're on the X-Axis, Imaginary Time is on the Y-Axis.The Living Tribunal1 said:wait, doesnt imaginary refer to the even root of a negative, so wouldnt imaginary time be represented by a complex number
also, the laws of nature specifically break down cuz the current equations say that the singularity is infinitly dense due to the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8
4:20 onwards
tbh nothing might truely break down- but since current theories predict the breakdown, they seem to insufficient to describe a black hole (as said by phycisists)LordXcano said:Stephen Hawking said to imagine time as a 2D graph. We're on the X-Axis, Imaginary Time is on the Y-Axis.The Living Tribunal1 said:wait, doesnt imaginary refer to the even root of a negative, so wouldnt imaginary time be represented by a complex number
also, the laws of nature specifically break down cuz the current equations say that the singularity is infinitly dense due to the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4zlvqOtE8
4:20 onwards
I know what a singularity is and I know things break down but there are ways around that. Plus nothing really "breaks down", we just don't have a Theory of Everything yet so what does happen is incompatible with other models.
Escaping the event horizon of a black hole isn't the same as surviving the singularity, which I think is what the OP was asking about.SlmanFnan said:snip
fictional black holes dont work like real onesDekoshu said:Then how would explain this to an Outer God?
Pretty much this.The Living Tribunal1 said:and anything beyond dimensions doesnt really function in a logical system iirc (if thats what you meant)
m8 black holes make any space time invalid, the number of spatial dimensions effected is the number of spatial dimensions there are in the systemDekoshu said:OK. Now that I think about it, being higher-dimensional alone isn't enough if they could alter the properties of the singularity, right? 3-D? Nah, I'm 10-dimensional. What?! 10-dimensional black holes?! Is that what you meant?
Depends on exactly what degree of higher dimensional you are. Because the singularity of a black hole is literally just a point, but matter is infinitely dense and space-time curves infinitely, and the laws of physics cease to operate as we know them. So technically, you'd have to be on a level which puts you beyond traditional laws of physics in your verse (in real life, I don't know what that would constitute as).Dekoshu said:OK. Now that I think about it, being higher-dimensional alone isn't enough if they could alter the properties of the singularity, right? 3-D? Nah, I'm 10-dimensional. What?! 10-dimensional black holes?! Is that what you meant?
well technically, what u r trying to say is that if there r laws more general than normal, yes, but the argument is more or less null, unless a logical system of such laws is shownAzathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:Depends on exactly what degree of higher dimensional you are. Because the singularity of a black hole is literally just a point, but matter is infinitely dense and space-time curves infinitely, and the laws of physics cease to operate as we know them. So technically, you'd have to be on a level which puts you beyond traditional laws of physics in your verse (in real life, I don't know what that would constitute as).Dekoshu said:OK. Now that I think about it, being higher-dimensional alone isn't enough if they could alter the properties of the singularity, right? 3-D? Nah, I'm 10-dimensional. What?! 10-dimensional black holes?! Is that what you meant?
Yeah, but I guess the problem is we don't know said system, so I suppose something just has to be stated to be "beyond physics" or whatever since it's impossible to determine otherwise due to lack of frame of reference.The Living Tribunal1 said:well technically, what u r trying to say is that if there r laws more general than normal, yes, but the argument is more or less null, unless a logical system of such laws is shown
nah not beyond phys, once your argument sticks to that, you basically dig yourself into a logical ditch, the laws themselves have to be mathematically coherent and empirircally proven, and if they do extend beyond current known laws, then that is no problem (if that is what u meant)Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:Yeah, but I guess the problem is we don't know said system, so I suppose something just has to be stated to be "beyond physics" or whatever since it's impossible to determine otherwise due to lack of frame of reference.The Living Tribunal1 said:well technically, what u r trying to say is that if there r laws more general than normal, yes, but the argument is more or less null, unless a logical system of such laws is shown
This is more what I meant.The Living Tribunal1 said:and if they do extend beyond current known laws, then that is no problem (if that is what u meant)
yes, well personally, once beings go beyond logical systems, i just depend on wog and character statements for finding power relationsAzathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:This is more what I meant.The Living Tribunal1 said:and if they do extend beyond current known laws, then that is no problem (if that is what u meant)
I probably could have phrased it better, but I'm tired.
Being beyond "the laws of physics" entirely is at the point of "it's fiction and I don't have to explain it", so obviously there's no proving that with...logic.
I think that's the only way you can go without going into complete guesswork.The Living Tribunal1 said:yes, well personally, once beings go beyond logical systems, i just depend on wog and character statements for finding power relations