!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

oc Instead of champagne could we make that Bud lite. The head of beer
is more like the quantum foam of space. It is to bad oc the word
"vacuum",by definition has nothing in it. You and I know better. Using
the uncertainty principle we know space has energy,but we don't know how
much. oc it could be the smaller the space size the greater the amount
of energy,but in my last post you heard me say nature won't let us in. I
have the tiniest volume of space in a continuos state of fluctuation.
That way I( can think about it in terms of momentum,velocity and
theorise how its energy is interchangeable. Fluctuations in the energy
in the vacuum foam I relate to as fluctuations in an electron cloud. We
know particle physicist don't measure the mass of the electron in any
units of mass or weight. They tell us the electron's "rest mass" is a
"lump" of energy that is equivalent to a million electron volts. oc its
an energy measurement,and I like that. Well how many times must I say
space energy is 1,000 times greater than all the other universe's energy
combined. Well Moby is getting very attached to me When I place those
Ipswish clams in his tank he use to go for them right away. Now he curls
his arms around my hand and I have trouble getting him to let go. oc
this shows you companionship is more important than food. I would like
to get him a pet fish,but he would end up eating it. I'm thinking of
putting a mirror on one side of his tank,but I know he is much to smart
for that. Bert PS To those that think space has no energy than the
Casmir plates are pushed together by nothing.

"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message news:cWFAc.820$we5.630@newsfe3-gui...
I was wondering what virtual particles are? By virtual are we talking about
a "non-existing" particle (i hear laughter), or a yet to be discovered REAL
particle?


The great 20th century physicist Paul A. M. Dirac came up with the
idea that empty space is actually filled with a sea of virtual
particles, popping in and out of existence so fast that they don't
violate the conservation of mass and energy laws, but they can affect
things in our physical universe. They can be used to explain a lot of
things, such as gravity, inertia, and electromagnetic fields.

Where do they come from? Some say that the observable universe of
matter may be only the froth or foam on top of a great underlying sea
of virtual particles.

It is known that when high-energy photons collide, they can produce
real particles and their antiparticles. Where do these particles come
from? It may be that they are coming from the underlying sea, and are
given enough energy from the photons to become real particles.

Thinking of virtual particles as unreal is an unfortunate misnomer,
because if they affect the real universe, then they are actually real.


My reference to 2 universes: If the particle does not exist in our universe,
I wondered if "virtual" meant that it existed in "the other" universe.


Some speculate that virtual particles may be coming and going from
other dimensions. So you could speculate that these other dimensions
are parts of other universes.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
news:5xnAc.1608$eX3.1217@newsfe5-win...
Is this a description of 2 universes, in identical locations per
particle,
interacting at the lowest level?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvv
v



?????

Double-A

"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message news:cWFAc.820$we5.630@newsfe3-gui...
I was wondering what virtual particles are? By virtual are we talking about
a "non-existing" particle (i hear laughter), or a yet to be discovered REAL
particle?


The great 20th century physicist Paul A. M. Dirac came up with the
idea that empty space is actually filled with a sea of virtual
particles, popping in and out of existence so fast that they don't
violate the conservation of mass and energy laws, but they can affect
things in our physical universe. They can be used to explain a lot of
things, such as gravity, inertia, and electromagnetic fields.

Where do they come from? Some say that the observable universe of
matter may be only the froth or foam on top of a great underlying sea
of virtual particles.

It is known that when high-energy photons collide, they can produce
real particles and their antiparticles. Where do these particles come
from? It may be that they are coming from the underlying sea, and are
given enough energy from the photons to become real particles.

Thinking of virtual particles as unreal is an unfortunate misnomer,
because if they affect the real universe, then they are actually real.


My reference to 2 universes: If the particle does not exist in our universe,
I wondered if "virtual" meant that it existed in "the other" universe.


Some speculate that virtual particles may be coming and going from
other dimensions. So you could speculate that these other dimensions
are parts of other universes.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
news:5xnAc.1608$eX3.1217@newsfe5-win...
Is this a description of 2 universes, in identical locations per
particle,
interacting at the lowest level?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvv
v



?????

Double-A

From Double-A

Some (Dirac, et al) say that the
observable universe of may be only the
froth or foam on top of a great underlying sea....

Well, Dirac's quantum foam begs the next question, "a foam of *What*?
He's certainly 'on the scent' that space is most profoundly Something,
that it is pre-existant to matter, and that it is of a sub-quantum
'granularity'. oc

From Double-A

Some (Dirac, et al) say that the
observable universe of may be only the
froth or foam on top of a great underlying sea....

Well, Dirac's quantum foam begs the next question, "a foam of *What*?
He's certainly 'on the scent' that space is most profoundly Something,
that it is pre-existant to matter, and that it is of a sub-quantum
'granularity'. oc

Hi oc Quantum foam as I see,and so does Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of "spacetime"on ultra
sub-microscopic vacuum fabric scales.oc I use a point-particle
perspective to help me visualize this. GR gives us no help. Even QM is
rather "dippy" to me on this. I can make better use of my "spin is in
theory,and do" Brian Greene a great string thinker must be trying to
tie this in with vibrating strings coming out of the inner dimensions of
Planck size spacetime. Bert

Hi oc Quantum foam as I see,and so does Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of "spacetime"on ultra
sub-microscopic vacuum fabric scales.oc I use a point-particle
perspective to help me visualize this. GR gives us no help. Even QM is
rather "dippy" to me on this. I can make better use of my "spin is in
theory,and do" Brian Greene a great string thinker must be trying to
tie this in with vibrating strings coming out of the inner dimensions of
Planck size spacetime. Bert

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:

1. The jury is still out on the speed of gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity and "gravity waves" are the same
thing is mute until point 1 is resolved.
3. There are lots of models of the structure of the universe and thus lots
of opinions. These change with time and with new facts (a good example of
this type of change was displayed when they dropped a probe into jupitar and
had to reevaluate the accepted model for its nature and its creation).



"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
...
How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape
speed is greater than the speed of light?

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:

1. The jury is still out on the speed of gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity and "gravity waves" are the same
thing is mute until point 1 is resolved.
3. There are lots of models of the structure of the universe and thus lots
of opinions. These change with time and with new facts (a good example of
this type of change was displayed when they dropped a probe into jupitar and
had to reevaluate the accepted model for its nature and its creation).



"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
...
How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape
speed is greater than the speed of light?

How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape
speed is greater than the speed of light?

Good question Buffy.
Most physicists think that by the exchange of virtual particles, what goes on at the sub-atomic level can be explained. I had
always thought this description was meant as an analogy, not actually real.
It made sense for quantum physics but no sense for the larger real world. People are exchanging things all the time, and it don't
always change them into something different.

Matter in chemical reactions is probably the reason this virtual exchange idea grew from, as elements combine into compounds the
physical properties of the new stuff was quite different from the originals properties. But this is understood now based on our
knowledge of the atoms structure and why these reaction occur.
Energy is conserved.

To have any virtual particle exchanged to explain Gravity begs the answer NO to the obvious question; "Are Gravitons repelled by
massive objects in proportion to their size?"
And how does that result in our constant weight pulling us down?
I don't accept the fluid space argument either. To many reasons to list, it just doesn't make sense. (sorry Bill)

What we are left with Buffy is just a description of the effect of Gravity.
It seems to be simply a line of force that grows stronger in proportion to the size of the objects mass. In a Black Hole (BH),
these lines have become circular. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, and this is still true in a bh. even
when the line is a circle.
To add to confusion, at the centre of any bh, the line is a point. This point is your typical mathematical location point, with no
length or width. Most people just reject this conclusion, not surprisingly there are few other explanations that make better sense.
In the weird world of BH just remember this is a region of space, not a solid object, where the force of gravity is emanating from.

My thoughts are that the real question should be: "How does matter that has no physical shape or presence, produce this gravity?
My answer is one you are not going to like. I think it is to do with information, and how this Universe can function with the rules
it has. In a bh these simply break down, so the thing is sealed off. You can't find out what is going on down in there, any more
than you can see into the future.
The gravity of a bh must continue to exist, because the past can't be changed. Matter is crushed out of existence - right? But the
laws say you can't destroy energy, only change it's form, but the thing is destroyed.
So there is a paradox. The Universes answer is to say everything that falls into a bh is 'out a time', and the rest of the Universe
is now in its past - permanently. But it leaves behind its gravity as a marker.

It may be possible to reverse this process and get something out of a BH, but that will require some patience - some 10^1000 years.
By that time... but that's another story.


Regards
Robert




"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message news:cWFAc.820$we5.630@newsfe3-gui...
I was wondering what virtual particles are? By virtual are we talking about
a "non-existing" particle (i hear laughter), or a yet to be discovered REAL
particle?

My reference to 2 universes: If the particle does not exist in our universe,
I wondered if "virtual" meant that it existed in "the other" universe.


"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
news:5xnAc.1608$eX3.1217@newsfe5-win...
Is this a description of 2 universes, in identical locations per
particle,
interacting at the lowest level?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvv
v



?????

Double-A




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.705 / Virus Database: 461 - Release Date: 12/06/2004