GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes
BURT
of a black hole.
It then violates SR which says matter can never reach the limit of
light speed as it is the fastest moving thing.
Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
doesn't slow down leaving any strength of gravity; but because matter
does while leaving gravity it always will have an escape velocity.
Propulsion changes all that; by matter accelerating outward over time
it can overcome gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
> GR predicts falling at light speed at its extreme of the event horizon
> of a black hole.
This is not true. Relative to ANY locally inertial frame, an infalling object
never exceeds c, even as it passes through the horizon of a black hole. Of
course the locally-inertial frame also falls in....
Yes, the horizon itself moves with speed c relative to any
locally inertial frame. That's OK, as it is not any sort of
physical thing; it is analogous to the international date
line -- a locus in the manifold with no physical presence.
> It then violates SR which says matter can never reach the limit of
> light speed as it is the fastest moving thing.
This is just plain not true: a) GR includes SR as a specific solution to the
field equation, and as an approximation in the local limit of any region of any
manifold, and b) the limit on speed is relative to a locally inertial frame, and
is never violated.
> Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
> doesn't slow down leaving any strength of gravity;
This is also not true. "escape velocity" simply does not apply in GR. There are
many manifolds of GR which contain regions from which light cannot escape,
simply because there are no outgoing null geodesics. In the context of GR, this
geometry _IS_ gravity.
You obviously do not understand very much about GR. You will remain mystified,
and will continue to post nonsense to the net, until you STUDY modern physics.
Tom Roberts
john
they teach about how black holes are
created by gravity?
john
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Black holes would be the extreme of Einstein's theory of gravity that
he rejected in the very beginning.
He did not know the solution was that it has a limit of acceleration
strength and he was right about them not existing.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> GR includes SR as a specific solution to the
> field equation, and as an approximation in the local limit of any region of any
> manifold, and
There is a subtle blunder by the self-styled physicists in the past
100 years. The equation that describes the geometry of Minkowski
(flat) spacetime mathematically represents the realities of absolute
and relative simultaneities at the same time. In general, it does not
satisfy the PoR. As Minkowski spacetime “mutates” into curved
spacetime, the result thus also represent absolute simultaneity. This
is what yours truly has been talking about in the past year that there
is a drastic difference the version of the Lorentz transform that
Larmor came up with and the version that Poincare did. <shrug>
> You obviously do not understand very much about GR. You will remain mystified,
> and will continue to post nonsense to the net, until you STUDY modern physics.
<shaking head>
The self-styled physicists are so illiterate in applied math. Any
misapplication results in voodoo physics with mathemagics as basis.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
> doesn't slow down leaving any strength of gravity; but because matter
> does while leaving gravity it always will have an escape velocity.
> Propulsion changes all that; by matter accelerating outward over time
> it can overcome gravity.
Black holes are manifestations of the Schwarzschild metric (described
below).
** ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
The Schwarzschild metric is a solution, to the field equations, that
is static, symmetrically symmetric, asymptotically flat, degenerative
into Newtonian law of gravity under weak curvature in spacetime.
However, it is by any means the only solution that explains the
Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are infinite such
solutions. One example is the following.
** ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) – (1 + 2 U) dr^2 – r^2 dO^2 (1 + 2
U)^2
Using the same exact coordinate system described in these two
equations above, there is also a solution (also of vacuum) that
describes a flat universe and is degenerative into Newtonian law of
gravity in which the Freedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric cannot
lay claims so. Hang on to your hat. There is even a vacuum solution
(also degenerative into Newtonian low of gravity) that predicts the
accelerated expanding universe. <shrug>
Amazingly, there are no observed boundary conditions that allow one to
declare the validity in one over the others. The latter solution does
not manifest black holes. <shrug>
A conjecture that is able to allow anything possible in its
predictions should be rightfully discarded right in its infancy of
inception. However, the self-styled physicists in the past 100 years
have been hailing GR as the best thing after sliced cheese or
something. <shrug>
Oh, the self-styled physicists have managed to hypnotize themselves
into zealously believing that all solutions to the field equations
describe the same geometry. That should also include the Kerr, the
FLRW, the Lemaitre dust model, and the infinite others. What a joke
that has been. <shrug>
In reality, GR is trash. Realizing the garbage he had created,
Hilbert walked away from the pile of dung and allowed Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit in the
creation of GR. <shrug>
Y.Porat
-----------------
fucken crook!!
and you know about what you are takling about ??!!
shameless parrot demagogue moron pig
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Tom Roberts
> And when one studies this physics, do
> they teach about how black holes are
> created by gravity?
There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black holes form under
certain circumstances. They all have one thing in common: in addition to the
presence of gravity (geometry), there is matter (energy/momentum) coming
together in a region that ultimately has an energy density that is unbounded; a
singularity forms that is a boundary of the manifold a finite distance away from
at least some regions of the manifold.
Tom Roberts
john
And if gravity has a limit?
If you cannot have unlimited energy?
How much of GR is in the trash?
john
john
Tom, Tom, Tom
You cannot have unbounded energy density.
There is as much energy around as there is matter.
Matter *is* energy.
Each atom is taking energy in from every
direction and putting it back out, and it is
the energy from matter that is whizzing every
which way. It is the combined energy of
all the other matter that dictates how much is
available at any one point.
You CANNOT have unlimited or unbounded
energy densities.
Where the f**k do you think it is
coming from???????????????
That's what always amazes me about the suck gravity
crowd. They can't seem to see how it creates a circular error-
the matter is sucking, and the more there is to suck, the
more it *will* suck. How does it do that?
Whence cometh the suck, chillun? How can something which is
both do-er and do-ee increase in anything?
WAKE UP SMELL THE COFFEE
john
PD
Interestingly, black holes still happen with a mass of sufficiently
high, finite energy density. Infinite density is not necessary for
them. However, we know of nothing that would stop the collapse. Your
suppositions that gravity has a limit or that energy density cannot be
infinite are just suppositions, and we know of nothing that makes a
limit or where that limit would be, so we don't assume one.
So the short answer to your question about what if gravity and energy
density have limits, how much of GR would go in the trash, is:
nothing.
PD
John, do you understand the difference between an amount of something
and the density of something? Do you understand how two different
blocks of metal can have identical masses and yet completely different
mass densities? Do you see how a finite amount of mass can have an
infinite mass density?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Black hole is the extreme end of gravity force. The best we have is
Einstein incomplete theory GR with its extreme that fails.
It is incomplete and makes the wrong prediction that violates SR laws
of motion. Black holes are a failure of GR.
Even Stephen Hawking said it but never followed up.
We are not seeing them.
Mitch Raemsch
rasterspace
to believe in black holes?... I mean,
that may be necessary, to believe that.
Koobee Wublee
is total bullshit. <shrug>
hanson
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
Roberts wrote:
GR includes SR as a specific solution to the field equation, and as
an approximation in the local limit of any region of any manifold, and
>
There is a subtle blunder by the self-styled physicists in the past
100 years. The equation that describes the geometry of Minkowski
(flat) spacetime mathematically represents the realities of absolute
and relative simultaneities at the same time. In general, it does not
spacetime, the result thus also represent absolute simultaneity. This
is what yours truly has been talking about in the past year that there
is a drastic difference the version of the Lorentz transform that
Larmor came up with and the version that Poincare did. <shrug>
>
You obviously do not understand very much about GR. You will
remain mystified, and will continue to post nonsense to the net, until
you STUDY modern physics.
>
<shaking head>
The self-styled physicists are so illiterate in applied math. Any
misapplication results in voodoo physics with mathemagics as basis.
<shrug>
>
Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
does while leaving gravity it always will have an escape velocity.
Propulsion changes all that; by matter accelerating outward over time
it can overcome gravity.
>
Black holes are manifestations of the Schwarzschild metric (described
below).
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
The Schwarzschild metric is a solution, to the field equations, that
is static, symmetrically symmetric, asymptotically flat, degenerative
into Newtonian law of gravity under weak curvature in spacetime.
However, it is by any means the only solution that explains the
Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are infinite such
solutions. One example is the following.
U)^2
Using the same exact coordinate system described in these two
equations above, there is also a solution (also of vacuum) that
describes a flat universe and is degenerative into Newtonian law of
gravity in which the Freedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric
cannot lay claims so. Hang on to your hat. There is even a vacuum
solution (also degenerative into Newtonian low of gravity) that
predicts the accelerated expanding universe. <shrug>
>
Amazingly, there are no observed boundary conditions that allow
one to declare the validity in one over the others. The latter solution
does not manifest black holes. <shrug>
A conjecture that is able to allow anything possible in its
predictions should be rightfully discarded right in its infancy of
inception. However, the self-styled physicists in the past 100
years have been hailing GR as the best thing after sliced cheese
or something. <shrug>
Oh, the self-styled physicists have managed to hypnotize
themselves into zealously believing that all solutions to the field
equations describe the same geometry. That should also include
the Kerr, the FLRW, the Lemaitre dust model, and the infinite
others. What a joke that has been. <shrug>
In reality, GR is trash. Realizing the garbage he had created,
Hilbert walked away from the pile of dung and allowed Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit in the
creation of GR. <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
These are 2 great posts by you, Wubli. -- Kudos! --
Of course your equations will go straight over BURT's
head who is in his own way a sweet biblio-physicist,
self styled, needless to say... I haven't seen Roberts take
issue with what you said in your equations either, because
you have touched onto the central failures of SR/GR:
||| KW said: ||| In fact, there are infinite such solutions.
>
In their religious fanaticism of worshipping Albert's
sphincter, Einstein Dingleberries will not be able to see
the trivial reason for the failures of SR & bGR. It's simple.
>
The variable of M, L, T &/or v used in SR, ONLY do need
to satisfy the invariability of ONE single physical (defined as)
constant, "c" . That leaves, as you say, infinite possibilities
open because it does NOT take EM/charge effects as
(e or h) into consideration.
Same goes for GR's infinite # of solutions, cuz in addition GR
does NOT take the effects of G = H^2/rho, Hubble vs. cosmic
mass density, rho, into consideration, but he simply borrowed
G from Newton. Worse, Newton hinted in his Principia, 300
yearsago, at the density, rho, vs. gravity connection, indicating
that G = d^2(1/rho)/dt^2.
>
Looking at the socio-physical aspect of the GR issue it maybe
that Einstein left " 'G' as is" purposely so in GR, because he may
have learned from his humiliating SR debacle for which Einstein
stole E = mc^2 from Pretto after first bragging:
||AE||"The secret to creativity is knowing
||AE|| how to hide your sources" -- AE.
but then in 1907, under academic & public
pressure Einstein confessed and said:
||AE|| It appears to me, Einstein, that the E=mc^2
||AE|| issue has already been solved by other authors...
>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein>
<http://tinyurl.com/Pretto-beats-Einstein-to-Emc2>
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2>
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft>
>
So, KW, keep bagging on the self-style physicists/EDs
adding the above issues of (c,H, h) factor- & product-
-non-compliance to your fine tuned math treatment
showing the pitiful failures of Einstein's crock o'shit.
Thanks for the laughs, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
KW, don't get your hopes up too much. None of the
ED fanatics couldn't even read nor interpret the simple
(M_e /h ) * (2 G/c^2) * 86400 = 38 microsec.
A Salesman, Tom Potter, had to explain it to these self-
style physicists. This becomes understandable when
you see how they celebrate to demonsatre their their
own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
... hahahahaha... AHAHAHA
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
rasterspace
I'd like to get a gravity assist to anywhere.
Sam Wormley
> GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
> is total bullshit.<shrug>
Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
theories.
rasterspace
dark matter, it does not alter the basic things
about relativity ... or galilean rel., either.
john
Yes.
Yes.
No.
You are not playing with a full deck.
Koobee Wublee
SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
would call that the best thing after slice cheese. <shrug>
So, Sam, yours truly’s offer still stands. For only $99,999, yours
truly will design a universe, with the physical laws of your
specifications, that is a valid solution to the field equations. Want
to order one right now?
Martin Brown
It is sufficient but it is not strictly necessary.
Laplace considered the possibility of a dark star so massive than
nothing not even light could escape its gravity using purely classical
physics. Namely using the escape velocity of a massive sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Black_holes
The less well known geologist John Michell also pointed out this
possibility in a letter to Cavendish a decade or so earlier. But he was
out of luck since the letter was then lost of a couple of centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell#Effect_of_gravity_on_light
Both were well ahead of their time with this conjecture.
Regards,
Martin Brown
hanson
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the
same time, and that is total bullshit.<shrug>
>
Sam wrote:
Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation
that contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the theories.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. You should worry, Sam, because professional
teacher types, like you Sam, are immediately suspect of being
VERY BAD INSTRUCTORS, who don't know the subject
matter in depth, but are merely Porat's (copy writed) parrots,
when they insist that the proof of their assertions consist of either
1) you don't understand the theories, or
2) read a text book about physics, or
3) learn physic... etc.
>
Sam, a good teacher faces the issue and explains it so
that any doubter, denier, and common man in the street
says, "WOW.. of course, Sam, Cool. Thanks".
I haven't heard any of that directed at you, Sam.
Give it a try, Sam.. and in advance... Thanks for the
laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
jbriggs444
And anyone can become President if they just try hard enough
and believe. The corrolary, of course, is that if you do not
succeed, it is because you didn't try hard enough or didn't
believe.
It seems to be the case that the myth that there is a teacher
so good that no amount of ignorance can withstand his or
her presence is put to the test in the face of the amount
of ignorance demonstrated here.
Congratulations. Your ignorance surpasses Sam's teaching
skill. Not all of us are so fortunate.
Ludger Marwitz
> BURT wrote:
>> GR predicts falling at light speed at its extreme of the event horizon
>> of a black hole.
>
> This is not true. Relative to ANY locally inertial frame, an infalling object
> never exceeds c, even as it passes through the horizon of a black hole. Of
> course the locally-inertial frame also falls in....
>
> Yes, the horizon itself moves with speed c relative to any
> locally inertial frame. That's OK, as it is not any sort of
> physical thing; it is analogous to the international date
> line -- a locus in the manifold with no physical presence.
>
>
>> It then violates SR which says matter can never reach the limit of
>> light speed as it is the fastest moving thing.
>
> This is just plain not true: a) GR includes SR as a specific solution to the
> field equation, and as an approximation in the local limit of any region of any
> manifold, and b) the limit on speed is relative to a locally inertial frame, and
> is never violated.
.. and an accelerating car has always locally the same constant velocity by
changing the inertial frame accordingly.
So we come to the result that a car has always the same const velocity in
any inertial frame ..
That reminds me of something :)
PD
Why not? density is mass per unit volume. Put a finite number in the
numerator and zero in the denominator. What is the result?
john
> Am Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:45:24 -0600 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BURT wrote:
> >> GR predicts falling at light speed at its extreme of the event horizon
> >> of a black hole.
>
> > This is not true. Relative to ANY locally inertial frame, an infalling object
> > never exceeds c, even as it passes through the horizon of a black hole. Of
> > course the locally-inertial frame also falls in....
>
> > Yes, the horizon itself moves with speed c relative to any
> > locally inertial frame. That's OK, as it is not any sort of
> > physical thing; it is analogous to the international date
> > line -- a locus in the manifold with no physical presence.
>
> >> It then violates SR which says matter can never reach the limit of
> >> light speed as it is the fastest moving thing.
>
> > This is just plain not true: a) GR includes SR as a specific solution to the
> > field equation, and as an approximation in the local limit of any region of any
> > manifold, and b) the limit on speed is relative to a locally inertial frame, and
> > is never violated.
>
> .. and an accelerating car has always locally the same constant velocity by
> changing the inertial frame accordingly.
> So we come to the result that a car has always the same const velocity in
> any inertial frame ..
> That reminds me of something :)
>
>
QM.
"All fog above and all fog below, and
in the middle where we are- merely foggy."
>
>
>
> >> Light can always escape gravity because it has no escape velocity and
> >> doesn't slow down leaving any strength of gravity;
>
> > This is also not true. "escape velocity" simply does not apply in GR. There are
> > many manifolds of GR which contain regions from which light cannot escape,
> > simply because there are no outgoing null geodesics. In the context of GR, this
> > geometry _IS_ gravity.
>
> > You obviously do not understand very much about GR. You will remain mystified,
> > and will continue to post nonsense to the net, until you STUDY modern physics.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Feb 15, 7:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/15/11 6:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
> > > is total bullshit.<shrug>
>
> > Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
> > contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
> > fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
> > theories.
>
> SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
> would call that the best thing after slice cheese. <shrug>
Newton's second law predicts speeding up, slowing down, constant
speed, and no motion at all. Geez, it's completely useless!
john
> On Feb 16, 2:24 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/15/11 6:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
> > > > is total bullshit.<shrug>
>
> > > Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
> > > contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
> > > fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
> > > theories.
>
> > SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
> > would call that the best thing after slice cheese. <shrug>
>
> Newton's second law predicts speeding up, slowing down, constant
> speed, and no motion at all. Geez, it's completely useless!
>
>
through a spherical volume around an axis
drawn right through those two warps in their edges that
most can be shown to have.
It also predicts that atoms will be shown to be
flat discs at any instant, and they can be manipulated
in certain fields to all present themselves
edge-on simultaneously, which makes the material
completely permeable to all forms of radiation from some
directions. *That* will not be useless.
john
PD
> On Feb 16, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 2:24 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 7:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/15/11 6:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > > GR predicts black holes and no black holes at the same time, and that
> > > > > is total bullshit.<shrug>
>
> > > > Not to worry, Koobee--there has never been an observation that
> > > > contradicts a prediction of relativity. It remains a viable
> > > > fruitful tools of physics. Even if you don't understand the
> > > > theories.
>
> > > SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
> > > would call that the best thing after slice cheese. <shrug>
>
> > Newton's second law predicts speeding up, slowing down, constant
> > speed, and no motion at all. Geez, it's completely useless!
>
> Well, the Galaxy Model predicts that spiral galaxies precess
> through a spherical volume around an axis
> drawn right through those two warps in their edges that
> most can be shown to have.
And how would you propose this be observed?
> It also predicts that atoms will be shown to be
> flat discs at any instant, and they can be manipulated
> in certain fields to all present themselves
> edge-on simultaneously, which makes the material
> completely permeable to all forms of radiation from some
> directions. *That* will not be useless.
No, it certainly wouldn't. So when you say "certain fields", please
describe the circumstances that would need to be established for this
phenomenon to exhibit itself.
>
> john
hanson
>
Einstein Dingleberry & useless teacher "jbriggs444"
And anyone can become President if they just try hard enough
and believe. The corrolary, of course, is that if you do not
succeed, it is because you didn't try hard enough or didn't
believe.
It seems to be the case that the myth that there is a teacher
so good that no amount of ignorance can withstand his or
her presence is put to the test in the face of the amount
of ignorance demonstrated here.
Congratulations. Your ignorance surpasses Sam's teaching
skill. Not all of us are so fortunate.
>
How come, Briggs, that you are beating on Sam, when
YOU didn't try yourself, Briggs? You are an intellectual
coward, Briggs! But of course OTOH, your very own
self-aggrandizement is worthy every bit of your own
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
wherein you delivery it front center... Kudos! Bravo! And
see, in your case, Briggs, it didn't even require that
1) you don't understand the theories, AND
2) you haven't read a text book about physics, AND
3) you never learned physic... etc. BUT
Briggs, you are just one of those damaged good aka an
Einstein Dingleberry who worships Albert's sphincter
and believes that Albert's rectum looks like the curved
bent space that Einstein advocates... & you loudly
cheer about it like here in your own
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel!
.... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> Laplace considered the possibility of a dark star so massive than
> nothing not even light could escape its gravity using purely classical
> physics. Namely using the escape velocity of a massive sphere.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Black_holes
>
> The less well known geologist John Michell also pointed out this
> possibility in a letter to Cavendish a decade or so earlier. But he was
> out of luck since the letter was then lost of a couple of centuries.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell#Effect_of_gravity_on_light
>
> Both were well ahead of their time with this conjecture.
During these two men’s time, electromagnetism was still yet to be
characterized. After done so, it rendered the classical ballistic
theory of light obsolete which means Laplace/Michell’s dark star or
black hole just cannot exist under the then understanding of physics.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Feb 16, 2:24 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > SR and GR predict just about any possible outcomes. Only dumb asses
> > would call that the best thing after slice cheese. <shrug>
>
> Newton's second law predicts speeding up, slowing down, constant
> speed, and no motion at all. Geez, it's completely useless!
Geez, there is absolutely no connections of what you said, and this
reflects how poorly your understanding of physics is. The institution
that awarded you that phd degree ought to be ashamed. If you have any
integrity, you should convince that institution to revoke your degree
and ask for a complete refund on your lack of education. <shrug>
BURT
That means limit on motion by its own mass resisting. The speed limit
of the universe Einstein is what brought to science.
> Where the f**k do you think it is
> coming from???????????????
>
> That's what always amazes me about the suck gravity
> crowd. They can't seem to see how it creates a circular error-
> the matter is sucking, and the more there is to suck, the
> more it *will* suck. How does it do that?
> Whence cometh the suck, chillun? How can something which is
> both do-er and do-ee increase in anything?
>
> WAKE UP SMELL THE COFFEE
>
> john
I woke up and drank the coffee.
rasterspace
of course applies to aether theories; eh?
however, to say that Newton's corpuscle was
in any way a classical theory, belies the fact that
it was not a theory, at all, consdidering that
it got refraction completely wtong. which is hard to do,
if he really answered Liebniz chaallenge
on teh brachostochrone -- supposedly *the* classical problem
to initiate the caclulus by Bernoulli et al.
go ahead & shrug me!
rasterspace
if interepreted in terms of refraction. however,
Minlowski's useless spacetime slogans seem
to have been used by the British Pyshcological Research Soc.
to create a popular misconseption, known as Flatland.
and Minkowski was a great "N-d" geometer,
viz his generalization of Pick's theorem.
:Scoll ye God-am palimpsesT:
to say that Newton's corpuscle was
in any way a classical theory, belies the fact that
it was not a theory, at all, consdidering that
it got refraction completely wtong. which is hard to do,
if he really answered Liebniz's chaallenge
on the brachostochrone -- supposedly *the* classical problem
BURT
> there is nothing weird about space being "curved,"
> if interepreted in terms of refraction. however,
> Minlowski's useless spacetime slogans seem
> to have been used by the British Pyshcological Research Soc.
> to create a popular misconseption, known as Flatland.
>
> and Minkowski was a great "N-d" geometer,
> viz his generalization of Pick's theorem.
>
> :Scoll ye God-am palimpsesT:
> to say that Newton's corpuscle was
That corpuscle is what Einstein eventually rejected but not the wave.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
> On Feb 15, 9:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black holes form under
>
> And if gravity has a limit?
There is no known limit on gravity (whatever that means). In GR, there are no
"limits" on the curvature of spacetime, though it is true that one must delete
from the manifold any regions where it is truly infinite. That is not a "limit",
it is merely a recognition that at such a locus the laws of physics as we know
them must break down.
> If you cannot have unlimited energy?
The black hole manifolds have finite energy, regardless of how one defines it
(including the appropriate pseudo-energy-momentum tensor).
> How much of GR is in the trash?
Your unfounded speculations and guess have no ability to put any theory "in the
trash". While there are some observations that have the potential to refute GR,
none of them involve any such limits.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Feb 15, 9:04 am, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black holes form under
>> certain circumstances. [...]
>
Why? What God whispered in you ear and told you this?
> There is as much energy around as there is matter.
Not really.
> Matter *is* energy.
Not in any generally accepted theory of physics, assuming your "*is" means
equality (which seems to be your intent). In GR, matter contributes to energy,
but is not at all the whole story.
> Each atom is taking energy in from every
> direction and putting it back out, and it is
> the energy from matter that is whizzing every
> which way. It is the combined energy of
> all the other matter that dictates how much is
> available at any one point.
>
> You CANNOT have unlimited or unbounded
> energy densities.
So you claim. But your previous paragraph, which you appear to think establishes
this claim as a conclusion, does not do so. Unsubstantiated claims like this are
useless -- might as well claim "invisible blue faeries".
> Where the f**k do you think it is
> coming from???????????????
I think that energy packed into a small enough region can have arbitrarily large
energy density. Assuming the Einstein field equation holds [%], this implies
that at sufficiently large energy density an uncontrollable collapse will occur.
[%] For which there is LOTS of evidence, and no definitive refutation.
> That's what always amazes me about the suck gravity
> crowd. They can't seem to see how it creates a circular error-
> the matter is sucking, and the more there is to suck, the
> more it *will* suck. How does it do that?
It is not "circular", its just that there is more going on than you seem to
think. Collapse to a black hole does so according to the Einstein field
equation. At a sufficiently large density [#], the pressure in the collapsing
region no longer opposes the collapse and actually INCREASES the rate of
collapsing [&]. At this point there is no stopping it and complete collapse is
inevitable (according to the field equation).
[#] The value depends on the details, specifically the equation
of state of the collapsing energy/matter.
[&] In GR, the "source" of gravitation is the energy-momentum
tensor, not just matter or mass; increasing pressure increases
various components of the tensor.
Note also that there are many astronomical objects for which being a black hole
is the best description we have. Most astronomers and astrophysicists have
dropped conditionals when discussing them, and simply call them "black holes".
One of the rarely mentioned observations supporting GR is the fact that the
energy density at which an uncontrolled stellar collapse begins is at a
reasonable value. It might have been at a density lower than the earth's or the
sun's, in which case GR would have been quickly refuted. Instead, it occurs just
above the density of neutron stars, permitting them to exist as long as their
mass is less than ~1.5 solar masses; larger-mass neutron stars cross the
threshold and are predicted to collapse into a black hole; in direct support of
GR's predictions, no such neutron stars are observed, but black hole candidates
certainly are.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> .. and an accelerating car has always locally the same constant velocity by
> changing the inertial frame accordingly.
> So we come to the result that a car has always the same const velocity in
> any inertial frame ..
> That reminds me of something :)
It "reminds me" that you don't understand basic English, or the construction of
logical arguments. Your "argment" is flawed at many levels.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> you believe that GR is sufficient
> to believe in black holes?... I mean,
> that may be necessary, to believe that.
"Belief" is not necessary. What is necessary is to understand that the GR black
hole manifolds are the best descriptions we have for many OBSERVED astronomical
objects.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Laplace considered the possibility of a dark star so massive than nothing not
> even light could escape its gravity using purely classical physics. Namely using
> the escape velocity of a massive sphere.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Black_holes
Yes, but this is not a black hole in the sense of GR. In particular, in
Laplace's situation, light can emerge from the surface, but is ultimately pulled
back. So light can escape from his "black star", it just cannot get very far away.
In a black hole, light cannot emerge from the horizon at all. Light emitted from
the horizon in an outward direction goes inward. (I.e. there are no outgoing
null geodesics at the horizon, all timelike and null paths go inward, regardless
of their initial direction at the horizon.)
There are many other consequences of a black hole in GR that are missing from
Laplace's physical situation.
Tom Roberts
john
You are obviously heavily invested in these ideas.
I encourage you to contemplate the cause/effect idea
wrt gravity.
PD
John, the investment in an idea comes from looking at experimental
evidence that is compared to the predictions of the idea. Becoming
invested in a different idea entails doing the same thing with that
other idea. This is how science works, bottom line.
*Contemplation* of different ideas is something that poets and mystics
can do, but that has nothing to do with science.
The key, John, is recognizing the difference between the *scientific*
investigation of natural phenomena, and the *contemplative*
investigation of natural phenomena.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD, I also encourage you to look at the cause/effect idea
wrt gravity.
You suck gravity/black hole people don't seem
to twig that there is no clear cause for the gravity.
Just 'being there' i.e. geometry, is not good enough.
You seem to think that the denser something is,
the more gravity it will have in a limitless kind of way,
so if you get matter concentrated past a certain point,
it will trigger a collapse.
This is wrong in two ways.
First, and most importantly, matter is AN ARRANGEMENT OF SPACE
FACILITATED BY ENERGY AND MAINTAINED BY ENERGY.
Matter is not energy per se. Matter is an investment.
If you squish it, you have squished matter- same as
in the LHC.
Second, surprise, surprise, energy does not
exist in limitless amounts in any one region
in space. It may be
limitless in terms of vast
regions of the universe, but in our region of space,
there is a certain density. You can only
get as much gravity as space will give you. It
is not up to the individual piece of
matter. If it were, one could get into some kind of silly
feedback loop, like a black hole.
I encourage all you suck gravity
crowd to think long and hard about cause and effect.
john
PD
OK, let's just focus on that statement there.
You say that "geometry" as a cause is "not good enough." What, in your
mind, are the NECESSARY and INDISPENSIBLE ingredients of an
explanation that IS good enough?
rasterspace
I fail to see how light could escape and
come back, unless it was some sort of corpuscular ideal.
BURT
> GR's predictions, no such neutron stars are observed, but black hole candidates
> certainly are.
But we know neutron stars have been observed and they can't be ruled
out but the black hole can.
I challenge you on the account that the redshift for a neutron star
will be measured identical
to what we would consider a black hole redshift. No. black holes by
theory are disproven.
And neutron forms for quasars and other smaller things unrightly
called black holes look the same by measurement math.
If we can't see any difference and there is no failure in GR theory
for huge neutron star red shift
then we have to air for what has not been theoretically disproven. All
the rest is just your nonsense doubt.
Hawking already demonstarted one point of GR wrongsness only in the
case of the black hole and not lesser gravity.
> Tom Roberts
john
> > Just 'being there' i.e. geometry, is not good enough.
> OK, let's just focus on that statement there.
> You say that "geometry" as a cause is "not good enough." What, in your
> mind, are the NECESSARY and INDISPENSIBLE ingredients of an
> explanation that IS good enough?
>
Unless you think there's power in the
five-pointed star or maybe Timmy's
fairy godmother's wand?
>
> > You seem to think that the denser something is,
> > the more gravity it will have in a limitless kind of way,
> > so if you get matter concentrated past a certain point,
> > it will trigger a collapse.
> > This is wrong in two ways.
> > First, and most importantly, matter is AN ARRANGEMENT OF SPACE
> > FACILITATED BY ENERGY AND MAINTAINED BY ENERGY.
> > Matter is not energy per se. Matter is an investment.
> > If you squish it, you have squished matter- same as
> > in the LHC.
> > Second, surprise, surprise, energy does not
> > exist in limitless amounts in any one region
> > in space. It may be
> > limitless in terms of vast
> > regions of the universe, but in our region of space,
> > there is a certain density. You can only
> > get as much gravity as space will give you. It
> > is not up to the individual piece of
> > matter. If it were, one could get into some kind of silly
> > feedback loop, like a black hole.
>
> > I encourage all you suck gravity
> > crowd to think long and hard about cause and effect.
>
BURT
Shape counts with gravity and it can be tested by small iregular
objects in space and verified.
Mitch Raemsch
john
frickin cause, nor is
it the carrier of anything.
PD is piddling diahrea :)
john
BURT
The circumfrence of the gravity field that is around the shape counts.
Shap dictates curvature.
The cause of gravity is God.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
Apparently, your understanding is very biased and very faulty in basic
classical physics. The black hole does not have to be as big as its
event horizon. It can be much smaller. So, when its surface emits a
photon, the photon arrives at the event horizon and is pulled back,
executes a geodesic U-turn due to grossly curved spacetime, or
whatever any imagination can come up with. Laplace’s black hole and
yours are only different in philosophical concepts within the same
question of whether a glass is half full or half empty. <shrug>
Martin Brown
> On 2/16/11 2/16/11 - 3:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Laplace considered the possibility of a dark star so massive than
>> nothing not
>> even light could escape its gravity using purely classical physics.
>> Namely using
>> the escape velocity of a massive sphere.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Black_holes
>
> Yes, but this is not a black hole in the sense of GR. In particular, in
> Laplace's situation, light can emerge from the surface, but is
> ultimately pulled back. So light can escape from his "black star", it
> just cannot get very far away.
Fair comment, but for an observer at astronomical distances away from it
the overall appearance would be pretty similar give or take.
We are never likely to get close enough to one to be able to resolve it
as a disk. Observational data are strictly limited to watching things in
the accretion disk go down the plug hole spectroscopically. Things
inside the innermost stable circular orbit don't last long.
>
> In a black hole, light cannot emerge from the horizon at all. Light
> emitted from the horizon in an outward direction goes inward. (I.e.
> there are no outgoing null geodesics at the horizon, all timelike and
> null paths go inward, regardless of their initial direction at the
> horizon.)
Answers obtained by incorrectly applying classical physics at these
extreme limits tend to be wrong by the odd factor of two or so. But the
fact remains that you do get roughly the same qualitative behaviour when
the mass of the object becomes too large in relation to its radius.
I think this is a useful if inaccurate way of explaining it to the
layman and shooting down the lunatic fringe of anti-Einstein nutters. GR
is necessary for the most accurate description of these phenomena, but
classical physics though misapplied in this domain doesn't do too badly.
>
> There are many other consequences of a black hole in GR that are missing
> from Laplace's physical situation.
Dragging of inertial frames by Kerr-Newman black holes is about the only
thing I can think of with serious astrophysical implications.
I can't see anyone measuring the surface impedance of a back hole any
time soon for instance. But if the LHC ever manages to create some nano
BHs then maybe experimentalists will get their chance in the lab.
Regards,
Martin Brown
PD
You haven't answered my question. WHAT exactly ARE the necessary and
indispensible ingredients of an explanation that IS good enough?
john
You got squat.
Answer some of my questions, like WHAT is it
about matter that CAUSES gravity?
You need a PROBABLE CAUSE.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
> > There are many other consequences of a black hole in GR that are missing
> > from Laplace's physical situation.
>
> Dragging of inertial frames by Kerr-Newman black holes is about the only
> thing I can think of with serious astrophysical implications.
That, and GR's contributions to stellar structure (neutron stars,
pulsation modes of stars, etc), the large scale structure of the
universe, and dark matter if that suits your fancy.
PD
You haven't answered the question, John. It's a simple question.
> You got squat.
>
> Answer some of my questions, like WHAT is it
> about matter that CAUSES gravity?
>
> You need a PROBABLE CAUSE.
I don't know what qualifies as "probable" for you. That's what I'm
asking for from you. What are the CRITERIA that you apply to any
offered explanation that have to be met for you to consider it
acceptably probable?
The problem is, you see, I don't think you know. I think you're
operating on a "I'll know it when I see it" basis.
Koobee Wublee
> On 2/15/11 2/15/11 - 9:49 AM, john wrote:
> > Matter *is* energy.
>
> Not in any generally accepted theory of physics, assuming your "*is" means
> equality (which seems to be your intent). In GR, matter contributes to energy,
> but is not at all the whole story.
Someone is overly interpreting (E = m c^2). It should be clearer to
connect the dots between matter and energy if one is not under the
influence of any mind stimulating agents. <shrug>
> It is not "circular", its just that there is more going on than you seem to
> think. Collapse to a black hole does so according to the Einstein field
> equation. At a sufficiently large density [#], the pressure in the collapsing
> region no longer opposes the collapse and actually INCREASES the rate of
> collapsing [&]. At this point there is no stopping it and complete collapse is
> inevitable (according to the field equation).
For the future scholars studying these posts, by no means the
Schwarzschild metric, which manifests black holes, is the only
solution to the field equations that are static, symmetric,
asymptotically flat, and degenerative to Newtonian law of gravity. In
fact, there are infinite such solutions. That means there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, that are static,
symmetric, asymptotically flat, and degenerative to Newtonian law of
gravity, that do not manifest black holes. Below is such an example
as compared to the Schwarzschild metric. <shrug>
Schwarzschild metric (manifest black holes):
ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2
Another metric that does not manifest black holes:
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) – (1 + 2 U) dr^2 – r^2 (1 + 2 U)^2 dO^2
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
> Note also that there are many astronomical objects for which being a black hole
> is the best description we have. Most astronomers and astrophysicists have
> dropped conditionals when discussing them, and simply call them "black holes".
Interpreting such observations as evidence of black holes is very
suggestive and not evidential. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black holes form under
> certain circumstances. They all have one thing in common: in addition to the
> presence of gravity (geometry), there is matter (energy/momentum) coming
> together in a region that ultimately has an energy density that is unbounded; a
> singularity forms that is a boundary of the manifold a finite distance away from
> at least some regions of the manifold.
<boo>
The manifestation of black holes under Schwarzschild metric has
nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. In fact, it is merely
the Ricci tensor equations with null (a null energy momentum tensor).
Besides, both energy and momentum are observer dependent quantifies.
The self-styled physicists need to be reminded that they cannot play
god, and they cannot affect the geometry through an observation.
<shrug>
john
let me see.
Logic.
Logic is nice!
And...fits the observations without any
completely new and invisible aids like DM, DE, etc.
And...gives us insights into the
workings of energy that will allow us to
harvest it without burning and polluting. That would be nice.
And, and....let me see, makes sense to most (not brain-dead) people-
isn't that the aim of science? To provide explanation at a level that
can be understood by everyone?
Also, PD, look around.
There are scientific results everywhere.
It is no longer necessary to "do" an experiment.
If there is an over-arching truth to be
displayed, it will be possible to do that now
simply through the internet.
PD
Yes, and this is not something that the geometric causation story
lacks. It is completely logical, unless you can find the part that is
inherently self-contradictory in it.
Perhaps you are confusing "logical" and "consistent with my common
sense"?
>
> And...fits the observations without any
> completely new and invisible aids like DM, DE, etc.
Well, let's talk about this for a minute.
Why is "doesn't contain anything completely new" an essential and
indispensible ingredient for a physical explanation? If that were
true, then the only viable physical explanations would contain only
those elements that were known to the Greeks.
But in fact, your own "explanations" don't meet that. You refer all
the time to neutrinos, something that were completely new in 1930 and
were as invisible as dark matter. Thus, by your metric, anything
involving neutrinos should not be part of a satisfactory explanation.
Thus, you can see why I don't really believe that YOU have a clear
idea of what an "acceptable explanation" is even in your own mind.
>
> And...gives us insights into the
> workings of energy that will allow us to
> harvest it without burning and polluting. That would be nice.
Well, yes, it would be nice, but remember that what we're looking for
is a model of how nature really works, not a model that looks like
something we can exploit without environmental damage. We can't judge
an explanation of how stars work, for example, and then say, "Oh, but
that model looks like it could be abused and wreck the planet, so
we'll chuck that model out as unacceptable," or "Oh, but there's no
way to use this model in practical way in the foreseeable future, and
so we'll chuck it as unacceptable."
>
> And, and....let me see, makes sense to most (not brain-dead) people-
> isn't that the aim of science? To provide explanation at a level that
> can be understood by everyone?
NO! And here we have a serious problem. The answer to this one is
definitely NO. A model is what it is, and sometimes nature involves
sufficient complexity that in order to understand it, you have to have
more training than what the average person on the street will have.
This isn't unfair, and it isn't a failure of science if that isn't
corrected. It is NOT the objective of science to make molecular
biochemistry transparently understandable by everyone. It is NOT the
objective of science to make optoelectronics understandable by
everyone. There are some subjects that require expertise. Law,
surgery, pharmacy, aeronautics -- physics is not special in this
regard.
>
> Also, PD, look around.
> There are scientific results everywhere.
> It is no longer necessary to "do" an experiment.
> If there is an over-arching truth to be
> displayed, it will be possible to do that now
> simply through the internet.
I *completely* disagree with this, John. A lot of these things are
hopeful *wishes* on your part, but they are not in fact reality.
Tom Roberts
> On Feb 15, 7:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black holes form under
>> certain circumstances. They all have one thing in common: in addition to the
>> presence of gravity (geometry), there is matter (energy/momentum) coming
>> together in a region that ultimately has an energy density that is unbounded; a
>> singularity forms that is a boundary of the manifold a finite distance away from
>> at least some regions of the manifold.
>
> nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor.
You are supposed to read what I write, and not make up fantasies in your own
mind, responding to your fantasies as if they were what I wrote.
I said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the Schw. solution. Elevate your eyes and look
at where I said "show how black holes form", which the Schw. solution manifestly
does not do, and where I said "matter (energy/momentum) coming together", which
the Schw. solution manifestly does not have.
> In fact, it is merely
> the Ricci tensor equations with null (a null energy momentum tensor).
Yes, for the Schwarzschild manifold the energy-momentum tensor is everywhere
zero. Yes, in that case the Einstein field equation can be reduced to:
Ricci = 0
(Plus a cosmological term if Lambda != 0.)
> Besides, both energy and momentum are observer dependent quantifies.
But the energy-momentum TENSOR is not. That, of course, is why we use it.
[I will respond only to serious replies.]
Tom Roberts
john
Here's a serious reply for you:
Black Holes are a really, really stupid idea.
BURT
Tom. You don't know hat your talking about. Google people don't know
the original predicttions and add their own spin interpretation to
Einstein's theory.
If black holes are a failure how are you going to prove they exist?
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> On 2/18/11 2/18/11 - 11:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 7:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > There are a number of manifolds in GR that show how black
> > > holes form under certain circumstances. They all have one
> > > thing in common: in addition to the presence of gravity
> > > (geometry), there is matter (energy/momentum) coming
> > > together in a region that ultimately has an energy density
> > > that is unbounded; a singularity forms that is a boundary
> > > of the manifold a finite distance away from at least some
> > > regions of the manifold.
>
> > The manifestation of black holes under Schwarzschild metric has
> > nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor.
>
> You are supposed to read what I write, and not make up fantasies in your own
> mind, responding to your fantasies as if they were what I wrote.
Excuse me. <shrug>
> I said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the Schw. solution. Elevate your eyes and look
> at where I said "show how black holes form", which the Schw. solution manifestly
> does not do,
But black holes come out of the Schwarzschild metric. Just what other
solutions of GR that you are thinking of that manifest black holes?
> and where I said "matter (energy/momentum) coming together", which
> the Schw. solution manifestly does not have.
That is correct. So, how can energy/momentum come together when the
Schwarzschild metric demands energy/momentum to be null?
> > Besides, both energy and momentum are observer dependent quantifies.
>
> But the energy-momentum TENSOR is not. That, of course, is why we use it.
The field equations are derived from Hilbert’s Lagrangian which
involves the mass. Clearly, the resulted (what you have called)
energy/momentum tensor involves both mass and momentum, and both
quantifies are observer dependent. <shrug>
> [...] Cosmological Constant [...]
On the subject of the Cosmological constant, it was credited to the
ingenuity of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to ever
so suggest just that. What the nitwit did had nothing to do with GR.
The nitwit merely took the Poison equation and applied negative mass
density to vacuum to act as antigravity. After generalizing the
Laplace equation into the Poison equation, that must have come across
Poison’s mind, but Poison had rightfully rejected any nonsense in
negative mass density. <shrug>
> [I will respond only to serious replies.]
Please do one more of your graceful retreats. <shrug>
The moral of the story is that the self-styled physicists have
DIVINELY interpreted what the mathematics of GR represents with
spectacular consequences to justify the complexity and divinity of GR
--- black holes, worm holes, whatever holes, etc. The results are
more fantasies full of all colors of holes --- not just the black
ones. <shrug>
BURT
The people who stay with Einstein's original GR see that gravity
inside does not drop off.
It does not drop of both way. Albert Einstein says inside there is
equal strength gravity
and it is maximum to the center of the Earth.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
> The black hole does not have to be as big as its
> event horizon.
Sure it does! -- That's what we MEAN by "black hole".
> It can be much smaller. So, when its surface emits a
> photon, the photon arrives at the event horizon and is pulled back,
Not true. Inside the horizon of a black hole, there are no outgoing timelike or
null geodesics. That is, if a light beam is emitted inside the horizon [#], it
travels inward regardless of the direction of its emission.
[#] emitted by an infalling object, of course.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> [to me]
>
> You are obviously heavily invested in these ideas.
The "investment" is in study time and intellectual effort to understand the
theories of modern physics. It is not emotional (as you imply).
Like any other physicist worth the name, I would be DELIGHTED to participate in
an experiment that displayed a violation of some modern physical theory, or that
resulted in an expanded new theory.
But MIS-understanding the theories is not at all the same. Sadly, that's mostly
what goes on around here. People like yourself who propose some "bold new
theory" do not have the breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding to
evaluate their "theory" objectively and systematically in the light of current
experiments.
> I encourage you to contemplate the cause/effect idea
> wrt gravity.
I encourage you to study modern physics. There is no instance in the history of
physics in which someone ignorant of then-current theories and experiments made
any significant contribution. So if you want to do more than just post nonsense
to the net, you must STUDY. I know that I am.
Tom Roberts
BURT
Einstein believed the action of gravity was in space as a curve
surrounding the center of the Earth.
Push theory should be added. But the scientist taking credit for "push
theory" won't go along so there
can be no progress amoung ego's in science. Denying Einstein because
your theory has to do it all
is Popycock nonsense.
I say they belong together working together for a greater order and
that is the superior theory of gravity. Also I add my own third
peice to the equation of gravity. The curve is round with center; and
the push cannot push matter to the speed
of light. I introduce limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The black hole does not have to be as big as its
> > event horizon.
>
> Sure it does! -- That's what we MEAN by "black hole".
>
> > It can be much smaller. So, when its surface emits a
> > photon, the photon arrives at the event horizon and is pulled back,
Oh, I see that you are playing word game. <shrug> I meant the actual
object that created this black hole does not have to be as big as its
event horizon. So, it could very well be Laplace’s black hole.
<shrug>
> Not true. Inside the horizon of a black hole, there are no outgoing timelike or
> null geodesics. That is, if a light beam is emitted inside the horizon [#], it
> travels inward regardless of the direction of its emission.
>
> [#] emitted by an infalling object, of course.
Where and what is the mathematics that gives insight to model what
inside the event horizon is? If none, your speculation is as valid or
invalid as mine. <shrug>
BURT
How can the end of "space and time" singularity move around?
Koobee Wublee
> Like any other physicist worth the name, I would be DELIGHTED to participate in
> an experiment that displayed a violation of some modern physical theory, or that
> resulted in an expanded new theory.
Well, you still don’t get it.
Say we have a classical conjecture named A that predicts all
experimental results handicapped by the current technological
advancement. Suddenly, an experiment comes along and necessarily
renders conjecture A to be modified into conjecture B. Later on,
another experiment comes along and necessarily renders conjecture B to
be modified into conjecture C. In this case, it looks like going from
A to B and then finally to C is a natural and valid evolution of
scientific development.
We are now at B, and that is exactly what you picture your situation
is. However, this is not the case. Our current situation mirrors the
follow scenario.
Starting with conjecture A (Newtonian physics), it was modified into
conjecture B (SR and GR) after a monumental experiment (the MMX)
through some embarrassingly stupid interpretations of the same
experimental results (the Poincare/Einstein/Hilbert fiasco). Thus,
the evolution of scientific devilment is total invalid, but
nevertheless, it was accepted due to the lack of intellectual might of
the self-styled physicists. Expecting another conjecture C to be a
better model of conjecture B, where conjecture B is self-inconsistent
and manifests illogical predictions, is therefor totally invalid that
fails at scientific methodology. In another words, any other
conjectures built on top of faulty conjectures are just bogus and
stupidity. If conjecture C satisfies all experimental results so far,
it must be of a direct evolution from conjecture A in which conjecture
C has nothing to do with conjecture B. <shrug>
Don Stockbauer
"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup.
They slither while they pass; they make their way across the Universe."
john
Black Holes are nonsense.
You are studying them.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its the mainstream replacing Einstein with nonsense.
rasterspace
apparently.
