# Difficult to Understand, or Infinitely Straightforward?

#### efarina96

If we assume that any mathematical function of infinity, is a function that carries out infinitely in a mathematical way, then we must assume that any given two functions of infinity will both truly be carried out forever. If we therefore conclude that, for example, 6×∞=∞, is a function of 6 truly repeating itself forever in sequence (i.e. 6,12,18,24...∞) and 6^∞=∞ is a function of 6 truly repeating exponentially forever(i.e. 6, 36, 216, 1296...∞), then 6^∞ must represent a more complex form of infinity then 6×∞. That is the mathematical principle that gives infinity its' context, and is the reason that different versions of infinity can co-exist in the universe. If all infinity was the same, then nothing could be infinite without swallowing up everything. Like everything else, infinity is relative, or contextual. To use an example from basic geometry to make this same point, imagine a vector and a line floating in an infinite vacuum. A vector has a single starting point, and extends out into infinity, as such: •-----------⟩ A line extends infinitely outward in both directions, like this: ⟨------------⟩. Each example is a concept of infinity, but they are not the same. Basic logic dictates that the line is more complex than the vector. Now that that is out of the way, here is an explanation of Swarzchild's radius and the slight modification I made that describes the relative nature of the singularity itself, that which lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole: 1)Schwarzchild's equation is a solution of Einstein's equations of relativity that describes the radius needed in regular spacetime for any given object to become a singularity (a singularity being an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense point of defined mass and physical properties) under simplified conditions, in which the singularity is static, i.e it has no spin and no charge, and in which the singularity is concentrated at a central mathematical point. We could input your mass and deduce the necessary radius you would need to achieve to implode into a black hole (under these simplified conditions, of course). r=2GnM/c^2, or radius equals 2 times Newton's constant of gravity times mass divided by light squared. Schwarzchild's equation describes the "observable" radius. Using a primordial black hole (if you don't know, for purposes of this example just know a primordial black hole is a theoretical small black hole from the dawn of time) as an example, imagine you could extend a ruler out over the top and measure the radius- let's say it's exactly 12 inches, the length of the ruler. 3. Now, imagine you could measure the radius by inserting the ruler directly into the black hole. What would happen? The physical properties of the ruler would not change, but following the path of curved spacetime created by the singularity it would bend on an exponential curve inward on itself into infinity. The effect can be described using a slight modification of Swarzchild's equation r=(2GnM/c^2)^∞
If you think back to the initial simplified example of a vector versus a line, this is the analogy I would make: The vector is like the singularity, infinite in one direction relative to our universe, which is like the line, extending out infinitely in multiple directions. Our universe, observed from the perspective of the universe from which it "emerged", or more precisely which it is directly relative to, is a relative infinite curved spacetime with observable physical properties- i.e. a singularity. We perceive a biologically relative slice of it, which we see as essentially a relatively flat disk with a radius of about 46 billion lightyears, because eyesight is based on a biological experience of physical interactions at the speed of light, and redshifting effect allows us to observe a distance based on the combined speed of light with the effect of the expanding universe. Our experience is time-relative, so our quantum collective biological systems resolve the wave function relative to our time-constrained and spatially specific physical existence. Any future possible resolution of the wave function, would be a combined reflection of the infinite physics that perpetuate our reality and imbue possibilities, with the quantum rules that govern the probability of any one particle existing in a given state, and the biological rules of observation that trigger the resolution of the possible quantum states based on the parameters of our existence. This is a reflection of precisely evolved quantum collective biological systems, which anchor our limited experience in a permanently relative infinite state. Elementary particles exist in a relative infinity, where they could theoretically exist any place and time in their infinite wavelength relative to a constrained observer (any lifeform that has evolved/acquired specific, less than infinite senses, or any other less than infinite observation-capable quantum system or system group. (I.e., our experience is constrained by general relativity, which is really just a mathematical understanding of our biological experience of what is truly a relative infinite state. one of the implications of this is that the particles that make up our observable universe, could hypothetically simultaneously exist as part of a different existence within our universe where observation-capable quantum systems make observations according to different rules. We would be unable to directly see this existence, but we could hypothetically observe a relative perspective of their gravitational effect) based on the particular systems that make the observations of the universe. Our observations are constrained by the evolution of our biological systems that evolved specifically to sense our environment. A hypothetical lifeform (or whatever you might call it) that aquired truly infinite sense ,"computing power" (i.e. intellectual capacity), and energy, would know everything that is, was, will be, or could be- and to them it would all be one and the same. Every possibility that could exist based on the parameters of our relative infinite physics, would exist to them in perpetuity and for eternity. But our infinite universe arose from another infinite universe, and by its nature spawns many more- and one infinite purpose by its nature leads to an infinity more. https://www.livescience.com/quantum-gravity-could-scramble-cause-and-effect.html If cause and effect can be scrambled anywhere in our universe given the right conditions, there is no longer any need to assume our universe needed to have a definitive "beginning". Rather, our universe is a relative state of infinity, and it's relativity to other states of infinity is what allows our universe to be infinite and also have context. Frankly we have missed something completely obvious. Infinity is not a barrier to understanding but rather a concept in need of contextualization. Infinity is an endless mathematical function, the context of which relies on the repetitions of a precise function. Our physics *has* been missing something, the relative nature of infinity. Infinity defines endless possibilities, quantum mechanics define the context of those possibilities as prescribed by the physical properties of our relative infinite universe, and biological observation defines the parameters of our reality according to general relativity. When I posted all of this on a NYT comment board about an articlr regarding Italian physicist Angelo Bassi, the NYT was perfectly fine with it until, in the course of concersation, it came up that I am in fact an amateur with relatively limited knowledge. At this point the moderators responded by shutting the entire comment board down and then scrubbing it- every single comment, written by any person whatsoever, deleted forever (or were they? After all, information cannot truly be created or destroyed.) When I state my opinions, people often assume I am an expert because of the way I speak- and the Times was perfectly happy to host my opinions until *I* made it clear I am no such thing. Does that say more about me, or you?