I mean, is it really that hard to believe? In truth, what makes it so hard to see that zero and infinity are only two sides of the same coin? I mean, I study physics on my own with an, unfortunately, amature-level of mathematical knoweledge, thus I use my own reasoning along with it if not more, but when you look into it it's clearly obvious, found within in math, physics, even infromation: it's a paradox, one that somehow exists from the beginning. One interesting thing to think about is surprisingly basic involving the speed of light: On one hand, you have massless particles, aka particles with a mass of zero, that move at the speed of light, but on the other hand for matter with mass to move at the speed of light it would have to have infinite mass. Maybe my previous example was possibly a bad one if I'm proven wrong, but going beyond that what if we apply it to how our universe could have a process of ending/beginning over and over again using this idea. No matter if the universe crunches or freezes doesn't matter, what matters is the one thing that causes the 'end' of matter in these ends: black holes. Black holes have several interesting factors to them but the more important, if not the most important in general, is it's center, the singularity. Apparently, a singularity is infinitely dense, causing anything that collapses into/to it to turn into a state in which it is that of a 6th dimensional potential 'mush'; if we switch the perspectives of where what happens to int going into something that would otherwise being constantly going into itself if we didn't know any better, we see that, along with the fact we apply the event horizon 5th dimensionally, we see that it "splits directions" of itself and what it is, kind of like forcing something through a small hole and getting different strings of mush from it (not strings of M-theory directly, but more of a momentous direction taken by this certain property into an 'infinitely dense' space, though explaining that is for another time. The point I originally wanted to get to is also connected to general reletivity, space time, how particles are constantly froming in-and-out of "nothing," and how it spreads: the fact that it does spread, bends in the presence of mass, and gets sucked into black holes due to it being space time, does that not indicate it has a limit to how much it can be 'pulled' until torn open? Theoretically, since it is based on the idea that it is a lack of energy in the area that literally engulfs that space as space time, it literally needs energy to exist itself, and a tear alone can't not noly exist but be just left like that: it needs to draw out energy from somewhere. This tear, we now see, comes from that of the opposite of a black hole: a singularity if literally 0 density. While that may seem like something dumb, think about it in the sense that 0 would be a 'hole' in a system of something, or literally that of nothing. The universe, however, not only will not allow it to stay as such, it cannot stay as such. Thus, what makes it unlikely that the BH Singularity leads to the singularity that comes from zero space time density? The fact that a singularity is so so small in both size and position it should make sense that not only does it connect to other BH singularities but is that of the same singularity? Not only that, but wouldn't it make sense for that logic to lead to the energy that comes into it to have no choice but lead elsewhere out to 'create energy for this energy-depleted area (the horizons are different from eachother, connecting to only other BH with BH horizon-wise and WH with WH horizons (I'm going to use "white holes" for it as it's the best way of putting it)? Theoretcially, due to the fact that there are certain types of how matter goes into black holes, it could cause a sort of "property shift" that causes it to split into other directions and maybe intertwine with others, causing it to create certain white holes. While I went on and on about this, my main point is this: infinity and 0 are that of the same, only two sides of the same coin. Maybe my reasoning is wrong but I like to think about it like this, so what do you guys think?

@amazethings

11 ай бұрын

My feeling is that there is no big bang or crunch, just an endless loop where the infinite bigness of the expanding universe is the infinite smallness of the next, which exists, and at the same time, doesn't! It's all fascinating to think about.

@shotaaizawa1206

10 ай бұрын

@@amazethings Makes sense I somewhat think it's kind of like Hawking's idea of the multiverse, though "splitting off" is more of that energy that goes through a BH and out a WH of sorts, like blowing into a balloon, eventually it pops but instead of it breaking, think of that one poin t of where it would pop be a hole that blows into another balloon. Atleast, that's how I see it as somewhat. I agree, though, that I wouldn't say that there was really much of a big bang or cruch, since 1) there doesn't really need to be for the "Beginning" of our reality and 2) it's as you say, a infinite loop Time is a peculiar thing, for when you think about it it's truly the only concept of infinity, pushing the events of existence endlessly to no end