Light stopped in its tracks.
S D Rodrian
"Police Box" <poli...@win.bright.net> wrote:
> I think you missed a fundamental point.
Perhaps I had too much caffeine that day.
> Having enough gravity to stop light
> is the definition of a black hole!
Then my blanket's a black hole (since
I can get dark & cozy under there
even when the lights are blazing in my room).
> You have mistakenly extrapolated
> Newton's gravity inside the object generating it.
Hot dog! That means I've finally gotten
inside the matter.
> As you move inside the
> object, the inverse square relation ceases
> to hold. The singularity that
> you would expect from the inverse square rule
> never happens. It just kind
> of rounds itself off.
That only happens with a singularity that ALSO
HAPPENS TO BE a wino. For all other sources
of gravity... Newton's law of greater proximity
equaling greater gravitational strength holds:
If you're going to come as close to an atom nucleus
as does an electron, then you had better be moving
at fast as electrons move... because the gravitational
strength "that close" to the nucleus is so strong
they actually refer to it as "the strong" force.
Albeit, it is true that one would expect the absolute
center of (a black hole?) to be rather devoid of any
gravitational strength--as gravity is canceled/neutralized
by the surrounding "matter" [and this is precisely what
we see in/of our universe of matter--which lies at just
or near such a center of an imploding "singularity" --i.e.
the universe of matter itself: the relatively "weak"
strength of gravity which makes galaxies et al possible
in our portion/regions of the universe must mean that "we"
are nearer the edge of the galactic universe than nearer
its center... but still "inside" that "disk" of the universe
in which gravity must be extremely powerful].
If you look at our cosmos, or even at your coiffure, you
will notice just how weak IS the force of gravity "here"
at the "center" of the universe's imploding singularity of
matter (or, more correctly near the inner edge of its
thickest accretion disk). Moreover, at the absolute center
of the universe of matter I expect to find absolutely nothing
(as the forms of matter, or the energy/motion in/of them)
literally unwind/unravel and return everything which was once
material ... into non-matter Absolute Rest).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:951e98$rdt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [...SNIP!...]
> > So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
> >hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
> >need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
> >is "its" same-strength force of gravity:
> [...SNIP!...]
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"Rex" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "JHS" <john.s...@BINntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7A03FC...@BINntlworld.com...
> >
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your imploding Universe.
Well, you're in good company: My 97-year-old
grandfather also disagreed with it (as well as with
any notion that people had walked on the moon; AND
try as we might we could never convince him that
the world was a ball hanging out in the middle of
emptiness near'bout as far as Hercules could throw
a cat).
> > See my post 'exploding the big bang'
> > on the a.s.p.new-theories.
> > JHS
>
> Actually, what destroy's his theory of an imploding Universe
... is your superstition that it's been destroyed?
> is the problem of temperature. As matter becomes more
> dense, temperature increases. As matter becomes less
> dense, temperature decreases. The temperature of the
> Universe is decreasing.
Well, we'll just leave the matter of hydrogen-burning
stars vs helium-burning stars aside for the moment.
Concentrate on this: Only atomic particles engage in
fusion/fission nuclear processes; gravity does not.
[Once atomic particles are ripped apart/asunder inside
a black hole, for example, the question of "temperature"
becomes moot--Since there "probably" are no particles,
as we know of them, inside a super-massive black hole:
it's likely that super-massive "coldness" is the order
of the day inside it.] "Energy is motion/motion energy"
means that "friction" plays no role with respect to energy
[and this is the old conundrum faced by our limited
human understanding... where it is nearly impossible
for us to conceive of motion WITHOUT some "thing"
(material, or "made of matter") moving]. But once
energy winds up [no pun intended] in/as.into "matter"
(or what we call particles), then those particles CAN
rub up against each other the wrong way and produce
friction--the level of which IS in direct proportion
to the level of energy/motion of which the rubbing
particles are composed (and it really doesn't matter
what form this "friction" takes, nuclear, chemical, or
rubbing your hands together--the important thing is
that "particles" rub up against each other).
So just keep in mind that "gravity is a force is energy
is motion." And that "matter" is a super-construct of
gravitational sub-systems extending down to such depths
of lower and lower levels that all distinctions between
motion and moving "things" become meaningless (in strictly
human terms).
> However, from what little I have read of his theory, he
> claims that matter is "shrinking" not becoming denser.
> How this "shrinking" is achieved, I have no idea.
Well, I do hate to sum it up in a few words because
then so many persons out there come back saying that
I provide no proofs of my "claims." But, in any case,
here's a brief summation of "the whys" ...
1) Look at what is unquestionably possible (under the
laws of physics) and what is clearly NOT possible.
1) Everywhere you have matter... it tends to move
toward itself and NEVER away from itself [e.g.
it's not even necessary to explain why the universe
is imploding... while it would require a very
concrete and inevitable/irrefutable reason to explain
why the universe would be exploding/expanding]. And
the "only" such explanation so far advanced for an
expanding universe is the apparent recession of the
galaxies from each other (a "trick" which "absolutely"
contradicts what the laws of physics tell us matter
does and does not do).
2) Therefore... the galaxies "absolutely" CAN NOT be
receding from each other (but must be doing something
which makes it appear as if that's what they're doing;
and, not coincidentally, many effects can be both
absolutely false at the same time they are true
relativistically)... in an imploding universe: While
the universe is absolutely imploding, the galaxies ARE
relativistically receding from each other: Nothing here
contradicts the laws of physics... because it's just so
darn easy to visualize (put all the pieces together of)
exactly what's going on:
1) The universe is imploding, therefore
2) The forms of matter CAN NOT be fundamental
otherwise we would be witnessing fusion/fission.
3) Therefore, the forms of matter MUST be shrinking
(and since there are NO fundamental "particles"
there can NOT be any "one thing" that's shrinking
but it must be a shrinking towards/at every
possible\imaginable coordinate in the universe).
1) The result is that the universe retains
its overall "form/shape" as it shrinks
(since it doesn't collapse towards center
as does the usual collapsing star).
2) If the forms of matter are NOT fundamental
then they are NOT becoming denser and denser
(and, if E=MC^2, then energy must be something
which can unwind as easily as it winds up
... into matter. Or, "motion" (because all the
energy we know of IS\or is in one or another
form of motion).
1) Energy is motion, matter is what's moving.
1) If you unravel matter, it will eventually
boil down to motion (less and less motion,
obviously, is getting closer/closer to
absolute rest).
1) Absolute rest is a perfect description
of the universe of energy which gave
birth to the universe of matter. And
2) ... down, down, down into absolute rest
are all the motions of (that are) "matter"
headed.
2) And, how does anyone arrive at such a conclusion? Well,
you don't have to be a magnificent thinker to know that
when a magician pulls an elephant out of his hat... it's
a trick (and illusion) and that he REALLY didn't do any
such a thing). And the same holds for all other similar
events which might "seem" physically unlikely to be true:
1) The matter of whether they ARE true or are NOT true
can also be resolved (without knowing how the magician
manages his trick, but) by whether or not the "trick"
goes against the laws of physics or not.
1) Then you ought to understand a couple of very
basic facts:
1) None of the forms of matter are fundamental
[that is, they are ALL divisible complex
gravitational constructs of more & more basic
gravitational constructs from galaxies/black
holes to that state of relativistic "absolute
rest" which describes (from our point of view)
the universe of energy which gave birth to the
universe of matter]... and not the galaxy, and
not the atom, nor any other so-called material
thing. All the forms of matter are just that:
"forms" (constructed/shaped by/from/at many
different levels of matter-organization... such
as that of stars, atoms, quarks, and so on down
to "absolute rest."
2) If it is difficult for you to visualize energy
existing without existing as matter, then you
will need to understand that the difference between
energy/matter is one of those distinctions without
much of a difference... since they are merely
quantitative differences. [E=MC^2 but hints at just
how profoundly apart are those quantities.] But
inertia, mass, et al, on the macro level (the human
level) become very apparent as a wrecking ball knocks
against the side of a building: the energy of the
moving ball which crashed against the wall, while
seemingly massive to us, is such a small percentage
of the energy of the ball (of which the ball is
composed)... that only the energy acquired by the
ball's motions are transferred to the wall... the
energy wound-up in the mass/material of the ball
itself is held together with such gravitational
bonds that it would take equally huge investments
of energy from outside (in the form of caloric
or nuclear, etc. "friction") to weaken them. [It is
the same way even in outer space, where... were two
such wrecking balls moving even rather slowly towards
each other, even though they weigh nothing out there
in space... they would still crush into juice anyone
trying to stop them from crashing by "standing"
spreadeagled between them.]
3) Therefore higher quantities of energy do not necessarily
go hand-in-hand with higher temperatures. [Remember that
it is only nuclear particles which engage in nuclear
interactions ("frictions"): Gravity, the force of, never
does. Therefore, in a universe which is ultimately
composed of energy/motion/the force of gravity ONLY
... it should not surprise anyone if its constructs (the
forms of matter) do NOT collect in a pile-up
of fundamental particles at its center... but rather
unwind/slow down/reduce all its energy/motion as they
continue their on-going existence--with the result that
the imploding universe shrinks without losing its
form/shape: The universe's singularity of matter
is not collapsing towards "a" center in the matter of
a collapsing star... rather, it is imploding/shrinking
towards its every imaginable coordinate throughout. And
it will keep on doing this (going on like this) NOT until
its mass (of matter) collects at some centralized point,
but until its forms of matter no longer have enough
energy/motion in them to hold "their forms" and it all
quite, quite literally vanishes back into the universe of
energy... whence it all came.] And until then.. the
universe will continue to have the form it now has and
has always had--with just a few slight changes over time
(such as the apparent recession of the galaxies.. which
are not absolutely receding while relativistically
doing exactly that).
1) S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
1) > Rex
>
>
1) I'll try not to be this brief
next time.
S D Rodrian
"Police Box" <poli...@win.bright.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I overestimated your understanding of the matter.
>
> Your blanket doesn't use gravity to stop light!
You mean my blanket is not possessed
(of an event horizon)?!?!?! How do you know this?
You're never been close enough to my blanket to
study the matter objectively: Perhaps you fear
being sucked into it and never being heard from
again--Which tells me that in spite of all your
protestations.. you DO at least think about the
possibility that my blanket MAY just be a black hole!
Gotcha there, my friend. Moreover, as proof that
my blanket IS a black hole I will submit my own
personal testimony that everything I eat in bed
eventually ends up within its threads--How do you
explain THAT?!!!
> Newton's inverse square law only applies
> when you are far enough away that
> the source can be treated as
> a perfect homogeneous sphere.
> Gravity and the strong force are two
> distinct effects. In fact, it is not
> clear that the strong force is a field,
Well, perhaps it's an illusion and electrons
are too tiny for us to "see" that they're all
really little itty bitty flying chickens (it
could happen: being that tiny, chicken would
be able to fly).
> unless particles can be thought of
> as fields as well.
If particles are particles then there's
a particle some distance from my house
where all the neighborhood dogs "go."
> We know how strong the strong force is,
> but not how it works.
Translation: I can see the magic trick
being done, but I can't tell whether it is
or it isn't magic.
> It may be
> that the particles simply get tangled up
> in each other like cotton balls.
That might explain how God was able to "weave"
the universe together (and how there are some
people--confidence tricksters mostly--who can
literally live on a "string" of lies): It's all
starting to make sense now... a stitch in time
and why folks get ruffled so easily when needled,
why babies pucker and--My God!... even why my
blanket is pleated!!!!!
> However, we do know that it doesn't
> fit the behavior of gravity.
Mmmmm... I might've read wrong here, but
I could have sworn you said somewhere else
in this post that you didn't know all that much
about the workings/nature of the strong force!
I could be wrong (I could even be
Alfred E. Newman, for all I know,
just kidding).
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:95l4ho$rcg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > re:
> >
> > > "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > news:951e98$rdt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > [...SNIP!...]
> > > > So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
> > > >hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
> > > >need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
> > > >is "its" same-strength force of gravity:
> > > [...SNIP!...]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >