Escape From A Black Hole

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG writes,

Granted, you won't get the small scale
gravitational waves that "are induced by
co-orbiting masses, oscillating masses,
accelerating or exploding masses" you
mentioned before, because these all take place within the Event
Horizon.

And to complicate things even further, there's predicted to be a
phenomenon called 'ringdown'- immediately following a binary BH merger,
the merged mass, Jello-like, is still undergoing convulsive oscillation,
which induces the event horizon to convulse in and out in sympathy, thus
emitting 'gravity wave' radiation outside the EH. Try a Google on 'Black
hole ringdown' and 'Binary black hole merger'.
'Ringdown' is still not the propagation of gravity.

Please explain why you reject the
clumsily labelled 'frozen field' model.

Because it's stupid.
I think that sums up your arguments

BTW, Scott, in another post, expertly and deftly answered the question
"How does gravity defeat the EH?" under the 'curvature' model.
Then there is the FS modelg, which streamlines
everything and eliminates all the confusion. oc


Actually you are right. This is a very pointless discussion.

Just to prolong it for a little longer though, I have one more observation.

Imagine a hollowed out spherical planet containing a vacuum.

According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the sphere
there is no gravitational gradient, and therefore no graviataional
acceleration.
According to flowing space theory there is a flow from the vacuum towards
the shell, thus at any point (apart from the very centre) there is an
acceleration away from the centre.

This represents a very real difference between N&GR and FS. Do you still
claim that N&GR and FS are 'the same, only FS is the real thing'?

OG writes,
According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the
sphere there is
no gravitational gradient, and therefore
no graviataional acceleration.
According to flowing space theory there
is a flow from the vacuum towards the
shell,...

Nope. All the flow would be coming in omnidirectionally from outside the
sphere. There would be zero gradient inside the sphere, just as in your
N and GR example.

Do you still claim that N&GR and FS
are 'the same...?

In this respect, yes oc

John writes,
Even if, under this purely fantastical
unbridled speculation, I accept the fact
that protons and the like suck space, I
don't see how you get to the strong
force. You're going to have to introduce
additional suckage.

There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a
spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that
the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as
a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH, likewise intaking thru its
poles. You don't like bathtub drain vortices either, so you would never
accept the inflows as vortices, with their _direction of spin_ assigning
the 'N' and 'S' sign to the flows, or that this spin component of the
strong force is the cause of magnetism. You would never accede to the
seat of the strong force being the root of both magnetism and gravity in
the 'Unified Field of Spatial Flows', or that the Four Forces are 1.)The
strong nuclear 2.)magnetism 3.)gravity 4.electric flow

And what about the weak and
electromagnetic forces. You don't want
to include them in unification?

Electroweak, because it operates entirely in the subnuclear domain, does
not *directly* participate in spatial flows 'out here' in spacetime.
That's why Wolter did not include EW in his 'Four', even though we do
get radioacive decay ejecta from "down in the hole", sorta like Drano
shooting junk up the spout.g
Electric flow in a conductor is not to be confused with
*electron flow* in free space (as in a vacuum tube). In an electrical
conductor, when a pressure gradient (voltage) is applied across the
lattice, a flow occurs electron to electron, transferreing in a 'bucket
brigade' manner down the line, with the electrons themselves remaining
essentially in place. Meanwhile, the _polar alignment_ of the atoms
stands 90 degrees to the direction of flow, which of course is the basis
of electromagnetism.

Are we to sweep them under the carpet
like the "Roach Motel" abode of sucked
space and the "Super-Duper Cosmic
Toaster"???

You object to the 'roach motel' issue, the SCO and other imponderables
of the expanded model, yet you readily accept other imponderables like
"What came before the BB?" and "What lies outside our horizon of
visibility?" Do you also have a problem with quantum nonlocality?
Einstein objected to it strongly, as "spooky action at a distance". But
it has since been proven in the lab.
Wolter's unification theory has been given numerous times
here, in much greater depth and detail than this little sketch. It came
to him unsought and unsolicited, as a 'spin-off' of his FS model. The FS
model itself was one of numerous sidebars of his overarching theory,
called the Contiunous Big Bang (or CBB) model, which subsumes but does
not negate the 'singular BB'. The CBB model has been expounded here
numerous times also. No sense posting it again, as it is just so much
baloney to you.
You're a cool dude, and nothing personal, but the Good
Book says something or other about "Not casting your pearls before the
swine, lest they turn an rend you." This would be a good time to end the
discussion if youse guys would be so obliged.
Have a good day, enjoy your void-space paradigm. Live
Long and Prosper.
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG writes,
According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the
sphere there is
no gravitational gradient, and therefore
no graviataional acceleration.
According to flowing space theory there
is a flow from the vacuum towards the
shell,...

Nope. All the flow would be coming in omnidirectionally from outside the
sphere. There would be zero gradient inside the sphere, just as in your
N and GR example.


You're making this up as you go along aren't you?

If flow is from a vacuum towards matter then what's stopping it from flowing
in the example I proposed.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
John writes,
Even if, under this purely fantastical
unbridled speculation, I accept the fact
that protons and the like suck space, I
don't see how you get to the strong
force. You're going to have to introduce
additional suckage.

There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a
spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that
the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as
a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH,

Well, that's not supported by experimental evidence, the high magnetic
moment and electon scattering experiments both suggest the proton has
internal structure.


DaveL

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
John writes,
Even if, under this purely fantastical
unbridled speculation, I accept the fact
that protons and the like suck space, I
don't see how you get to the strong
force. You're going to have to introduce
additional suckage.

There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a
spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that
the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as
a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH, likewise intaking thru its
poles. You don't like bathtub drain vortices either, so you would never
accept the inflows as vortices, with their _direction of spin_ assigning
the 'N' and 'S' sign to the flows, or that this spin component of the
strong force is the cause of magnetism. You would never accede to the
seat of the strong force being the root of both magnetism and gravity in
the 'Unified Field of Spatial Flows', or that the Four Forces are 1.)The
strong nuclear 2.)magnetism 3.)gravity 4.electric flow

The four fundamental forces are strong nuclear, weak nuclear,
electromagnetic and gravity.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...funfor.html#c1


And what about the weak and
electromagnetic forces. You don't want
to include them in unification?

Electroweak, because it operates entirely in the subnuclear domain, does
not *directly* participate in spatial flows 'out here' in spacetime.

"Electroweak Unification"
"The theory suggests that at very high temperatures where the equilibrium kT
energies are in excess of 100 GeV, these particles are essentially identical
and the weak and electromagnetic interactions were manifestations of a
single force."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../unify.html#c1


That's why Wolter did not include EW in his 'Four', even though we do
get radioacive decay ejecta from "down in the hole", sorta like Drano
shooting junk up the spout.g
Electric flow in a conductor is not to be confused with
*electron flow* in free space (as in a vacuum tube). In an electrical
conductor, when a pressure gradient (voltage) is applied across the
lattice, a flow occurs electron to electron, transferreing in a 'bucket
brigade' manner down the line, with the electrons themselves remaining
essentially in place. Meanwhile, the _polar alignment_ of the atoms
stands 90 degrees to the direction of flow, which of course is the basis
of electromagnetism.

Are we to sweep them under the carpet
like the "Roach Motel" abode of sucked
space and the "Super-Duper Cosmic
Toaster"???

You object to the 'roach motel' issue, the SCO and other imponderables
of the expanded model, yet you readily accept other imponderables like
"What came before the BB?"

I don't ever recall accepting this question as a well posed question.


and "What lies outside our horizon of
visibility?" Do you also have a problem with quantum nonlocality?
Einstein objected to it strongly, as "spooky action at a distance". But
it has since been proven in the lab.
Wolter's unification theory has been given numerous times
here, in much greater depth and detail than this little sketch. It came
to him unsought and unsolicited, as a 'spin-off' of his FS model. The FS
model itself was one of numerous sidebars of his overarching theory,
called the Contiunous Big Bang (or CBB) model, which subsumes but does
not negate the 'singular BB'. The CBB model has been expounded here
numerous times also. No sense posting it again, as it is just so much
baloney to you.

I don't accept FS (and certainly not as interpreted by Wolter, Lindner
et.al.) as the literal mechanism of gravity because it creates more
"imponderables" than it purports to resolve. I think Occam would have
something to say about this.


You're a cool dude, and nothing personal, but the Good
Book says something or other about "Not casting your pearls before the
swine, lest they turn an rend you." This would be a good time to end the
discussion if youse guys would be so obliged.

OK, lets let the thread die.


Have a good day, enjoy your void-space paradigm. Live
Long and Prosper.
oc

Hi oc Nice to hear the four forces are all modifications of the force
of gravity. How many times have I posted that idea? Wolter's theory has
space flow as an inward push,and uses the intrinsic energy of space to
move everything inward. I use the intrinsic energy of space plus the
force of gravity to create the big bang. I go with GR in the macro
world,and quantum gravity emerging with the super string theory for the
micro realm. I think in the opposite direction then Wolter,and use the
intrinsic force of space to push outward in the macro realm and this is
the force we can measure universe inflation with. In the beginning
nature used one force. That is why G=EMC^2 is a good equation,and
my creation theory is very short and easy to understand. Thinking
about the first second before the big bang,at the moment of the big
bang,and 300,000 years after the big bang in my theory all fit. Best
to always keep in mind gravity controls the flow of time Bert

John,
I thought we had formally closed the thread. Guess not.
Let's try it jus' one more time.
In your argument, you still fail to ask or address the
most fundamental question of all. You speak of the 'curvature' and the
Painlev=E9-Gullstrand 'flow' metric, recognizing them to be parallel
descriptions of the same thing. But you competely gloss over and evade
the question *What* is curving? *What* is flowing? All you're giving us
is a pair of 'metrics', mathematical constructs, describing something,
much like a schematic describes a radio in cryptic symbology.
In string theory, there is a vast ocean of vibrating
strings; in QM there is "quantum foam". But the questions remain,
Energetically vibrating strings of what? A froth of what? To believe all
these phenomena, 'curvatures' and 'flows' are somehow happening in a
'void' is superstition and belief in magic. It's not one whit removed a
medieval religionist invoking imps and angels.
Some day when you can intelligently address these
questions of *What*, come back and start anew. Meanwhile there's Darla,
poor thing. She indicates she lacks any of the appropiate curves for a
lady. No doubt she would be interested in acquiring some of those
magical 'curvatures' and 'curvatures added onto curvatures'. Darla, you
there? By all means check with Mr. Zinni on this.

BTW John, when you quoted my statement about the "curving-uncurving
undulation of the spacetime metric, propagating at c", you conveniently
lifted it out of context. In context, I was speaking from _your_ frame
of referance, 'talking your lingo'. You apparently have some learning to
do about context, as well as analogies and metaphors.

So let us now formally, with decorum and civility, close the thread, OK?

Thank ya. Thankya vera much.

oc

John It is nice you have Darla and I on equal footing.I know we will
dance together someday. Great minds like ours make it possible for the
universe to see itself. We were not put here to argue. We were put here
to comprehend. Darla has come to our planet in peace. Why can't we be
more hospitable? Bert