Escape velocity at the speed of light

Hi oc Thank you for explaining that to Dave. Another reason for a BH
having a positive charge is quarks have a positive charge,and I read in
a few books }blackholes could be called quark stars. Electons can be
striped away from atoms,but not the nuclei,and that is composed of
positive quarks. Bert

Bill:

Do not radiant gravitational existents that are emitted from matter
having mass have trajectories that are at 90 degrees to the lines of
magnetic force that surround mass objects?

Radiant gravitational existents intersect with matter, and by a process
that I cannot describe here, cause the matter to be accelerated towards
the source of the radiant gravitational existents. The radiating mass
object are recharged after the loss of gravitational existents by the
radiant gravitational existents from other entities on the universe as a
type of gravitational background radiation. The creationists needed the
BB, and they searched for evidence in the IR, when, on the other hand,
had they known that existents exist in a continually existing, or
eternally existing universe, they would have been searching for radiated
emissions of actual physical gravitational existents.

The specific mechanism of the source of radiant gravitational existents
and of the accelerations of matter towards the sources of radiant
gravitational existents is described in my manuscript that is on file at
the Library of Congress. Should anyone want to help to promote the
publication of this type of material, I will be happy to correspond and
to send the LOC number and copy of the manuscript. Otherwise, a search
of the LOC may be done at the reader's expense in terms of the
considerable LOC fees. Some financial participation would be of help in
that venture, e.g., spelling and content checking, word processing,
formatting, marketing to publishers, and administration.

This theory says that emissions of gravitational existents are radiant,
and that the gravitational existents are discrete real however small
entities. The flux of such existents are what Einstein's "curvature" of
space should have described in terms of mathematical vector value
surfaces that represent the intensity of the gravitational accelerations
at every point. Einstein was committed to a view that mathematical
existents, that is, ideas, are actual metaphysical existents in the
universe. There is a error of logic, there. Ideas are not physical
things. My addition to that theory is that the gravitational
accelerations of nearby mass objects are due to a flux of physical
radiated gravitational existents from a radiating mass object. The
theory of Gravitons is also existence based. What I have done is to
explain a way that matter is dimensionally displaced by the effect of
the gravitational existents. My explanations are presented in the form
of deductive logical proofs that are easily checked by anyone who knows
Euclidean geometry and the basics of Aristotelian conventional logic. It
is a not too unexpected coincidence that the existence theory of gravity
in the universe has been rejected by the antagonists of logical proof
and Euclidean geometry.

If BHs actually exist, and there appears to be only secondary evidence
for that, the existents that reach out to nearby matter and photons, and
that cause the inward accelerations and dimensional motions of the
matter and photons towards the BH, would deplete the BH of the
gravitational existents. Gravitational existents are either replenished
from an inflow of same from the outside or that matter and photons are
converted into gravitational existence. There is an enormous amount of
power that is radiated as physical existents out from say the Earth that
causes the accelerations of mass objects towards the Earth. Gravity is
physical not is not caused by mathematical ideas. Math only describes
and measures the properties and functionings of physically existing
entities. Something is radiated outwards from existence-based mass
objects that causes external material existents to fall towards the
radiant mass object. Conservation is maintained. Existence continues to
exist. Gravity is caused by the properties of physically existing
entities in inelastic interactions with the properties of other
physically existing entities.

I don't have all the answers to the cause of gravity, and I have
something to add to a more general understanding.

Ralph Hertle





Bill Sheppard wrote:

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have
to be positive.

Why?

Dave


Since the flow is always *into* (as opposed to 'away from') a BH, it
would be an electrical anode, or (+) terminal. Same with the proton as a
microcosmic analog of a BH.

Flow is always 'away from' the cathode or (-) terminal. oc

Bill:

Do not radiant gravitational existents that are emitted from matter
having mass have trajectories that are at 90 degrees to the lines of
magnetic force that surround mass objects?

Radiant gravitational existents intersect with matter, and by a process
that I cannot describe here, cause the matter to be accelerated towards
the source of the radiant gravitational existents. The radiating mass
object are recharged after the loss of gravitational existents by the
radiant gravitational existents from other entities on the universe as a
type of gravitational background radiation. The creationists needed the
BB, and they searched for evidence in the IR, when, on the other hand,
had they known that existents exist in a continually existing, or
eternally existing universe, they would have been searching for radiated
emissions of actual physical gravitational existents.

The specific mechanism of the source of radiant gravitational existents
and of the accelerations of matter towards the sources of radiant
gravitational existents is described in my manuscript that is on file at
the Library of Congress. Should anyone want to help to promote the
publication of this type of material, I will be happy to correspond and
to send the LOC number and copy of the manuscript. Otherwise, a search
of the LOC may be done at the reader's expense in terms of the
considerable LOC fees. Some financial participation would be of help in
that venture, e.g., spelling and content checking, word processing,
formatting, marketing to publishers, and administration.

This theory says that emissions of gravitational existents are radiant,
and that the gravitational existents are discrete real however small
entities. The flux of such existents are what Einstein's "curvature" of
space should have described in terms of mathematical vector value
surfaces that represent the intensity of the gravitational accelerations
at every point. Einstein was committed to a view that mathematical
existents, that is, ideas, are actual metaphysical existents in the
universe. There is a error of logic, there. Ideas are not physical
things. My addition to that theory is that the gravitational
accelerations of nearby mass objects are due to a flux of physical
radiated gravitational existents from a radiating mass object. The
theory of Gravitons is also existence based. What I have done is to
explain a way that matter is dimensionally displaced by the effect of
the gravitational existents. My explanations are presented in the form
of deductive logical proofs that are easily checked by anyone who knows
Euclidean geometry and the basics of Aristotelian conventional logic. It
is a not too unexpected coincidence that the existence theory of gravity
in the universe has been rejected by the antagonists of logical proof
and Euclidean geometry.

If BHs actually exist, and there appears to be only secondary evidence
for that, the existents that reach out to nearby matter and photons, and
that cause the inward accelerations and dimensional motions of the
matter and photons towards the BH, would deplete the BH of the
gravitational existents. Gravitational existents are either replenished
from an inflow of same from the outside or that matter and photons are
converted into gravitational existence. There is an enormous amount of
power that is radiated as physical existents out from say the Earth that
causes the accelerations of mass objects towards the Earth. Gravity is
physical not is not caused by mathematical ideas. Math only describes
and measures the properties and functionings of physically existing
entities. Something is radiated outwards from existence-based mass
objects that causes external material existents to fall towards the
radiant mass object. Conservation is maintained. Existence continues to
exist. Gravity is caused by the properties of physically existing
entities in inelastic interactions with the properties of other
physically existing entities.

I don't have all the answers to the cause of gravity, and I have
something to add to a more general understanding.

Ralph Hertle





Bill Sheppard wrote:

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have
to be positive.

Why?

Dave


Since the flow is always *into* (as opposed to 'away from') a BH, it
would be an electrical anode, or (+) terminal. Same with the proton as a
microcosmic analog of a BH.

Flow is always 'away from' the cathode or (-) terminal. oc

Ralph:
What on Earth are you smokin'? I might like a snort of
that.G oc

Ralph:
What on Earth are you smokin'? I might like a snort of
that.G oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

And BTW ("for the newbies"), the Schwartzchild BH model
is a theoretical representation only, meant to illustrate the event
horizon concept. In the real universe, it can safely be assumed that all
stars rotate, and that when a star collapses to a BH, angular momentum
spins it up to a very high spin rate.

Please tell me that you have, at least, heard of a Kerr BH!!!

Consider the "Black Holes have no Hair" theorem.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...irTheorem.html
This tells us that the only things we can know about a black hole are its
mass, charge and angular momentum.

Lets assume that the BHs we wish to consider will all have Mass 0.
This will leave us with four basic configurations for a BH.

1) Charge = 0, Angular Momentum = 0
2) Charge = 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0
3) Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum = 0
4) Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0

These four configurations correspond to four different mathematical
descriptions of a BH named after the individuals who discovered the exact
solutions to Einstein's field equations that describe them.

1) Schwarzschild Black Hole ( Charge = 0, Angular Momentum = 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...ole/types.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

2) Kerr Black Hole ( Charge = 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...le/types3.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

3) Reissner-Nordström Black Hole ( Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum = 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...le/types2.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

4) Kerr-Newman Black Hole ( Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0 )
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html


In the BH inflow diagram you cite,
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/trajrbig_gif.html , what happens to the
flow lines under conditions of very high equatorial spin? The
centrifugally-repellant equator
forces the inflow to favor the poles. And the higher the spin rate, the
more acutely the _TWO_ spiraling inflows will align on the polar axis.
And what does this say about the essential *gravitic bipolarity* of all
(spinning) BHs? A little factoid of basic physics that seems to be lost
on the mainstream. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

And BTW ("for the newbies"), the Schwartzchild BH model
is a theoretical representation only, meant to illustrate the event
horizon concept. In the real universe, it can safely be assumed that all
stars rotate, and that when a star collapses to a BH, angular momentum
spins it up to a very high spin rate.

Please tell me that you have, at least, heard of a Kerr BH!!!

Consider the "Black Holes have no Hair" theorem.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...irTheorem.html
This tells us that the only things we can know about a black hole are its
mass, charge and angular momentum.

Lets assume that the BHs we wish to consider will all have Mass 0.
This will leave us with four basic configurations for a BH.

1) Charge = 0, Angular Momentum = 0
2) Charge = 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0
3) Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum = 0
4) Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0

These four configurations correspond to four different mathematical
descriptions of a BH named after the individuals who discovered the exact
solutions to Einstein's field equations that describe them.

1) Schwarzschild Black Hole ( Charge = 0, Angular Momentum = 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...ole/types.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

2) Kerr Black Hole ( Charge = 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...le/types3.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

3) Reissner-Nordström Black Hole ( Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum = 0 )
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/natur...le/types2.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html

4) Kerr-Newman Black Hole ( Charge =/= 0, Angular Momentum =/= 0 )
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...BlackHole.html


In the BH inflow diagram you cite,
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/trajrbig_gif.html , what happens to the
flow lines under conditions of very high equatorial spin? The
centrifugally-repellant equator
forces the inflow to favor the poles. And the higher the spin rate, the
more acutely the _TWO_ spiraling inflows will align on the polar axis.
And what does this say about the essential *gravitic bipolarity* of all
(spinning) BHs? A little factoid of basic physics that seems to be lost
on the mainstream. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

You yourself have deliberately *******ized it with your "sucking"
implication. You might start with correctly representing the
flowing-space model that the "kooks" have independantly deduced and
presented.

It has already been described. It was described a long time ago.

The "Free-fall coordinates" in which "Schwarzschild geometry looks like
ordinary flat space, with the distinctive feature that space itself is
flowing radially inwards at the Newtonian escape velocity."
(http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html#freefall) is also known as
"Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates" first described by "Painlevé, P., C. R.
Acad. Sci., 173, 677, (1921)" (Note: that is 1921, long before the kooks you
reference had the thought that sucking their thumb might be a good idea).

I do not object to the "flowing-space" interpretation (Note the word
"interpretation") of GR. It is, in certain circumstances, a valid
interpretation of the mathematical model of GR and was mathematically
described as early as 1921. What I do object to is the characterization of
the kooks you reference as anything even close to gravitational theorists.
They simply have not done their homework.

If we move to your "Radio" analogy were GR is the schematic of a radio, then
what these guys describe is closer to three yahoos in there basement saying
something along the line of ...
"We'll build this box, and like, stick a bunch of electronic thingies in it,
and it will be able to get signals and stuff from far away and we could hear
folks talking and playing music and stuff and we'll call it a 'Radio'"

I'm particularly amused by Shifman's call to the scientific community ...
"The challenge for the scientific community is to pursue this line of
reasoning and attempt to construct a mathematical depiction of this model."

This is tantamount to one of the yahoos saying ...
"Yah, someone should really build one of those 'Radio' things."

Is gravity "Warped Space-time" of "Flowing Space"? I have no idea. It could
be something completely different, but I guaranty that these kooks do not
have the answer.

PS. Here is an interesting paper on the psychology of the kooks you
reference.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

You yourself have deliberately *******ized it with your "sucking"
implication. You might start with correctly representing the
flowing-space model that the "kooks" have independantly deduced and
presented.

It has already been described. It was described a long time ago.

The "Free-fall coordinates" in which "Schwarzschild geometry looks like
ordinary flat space, with the distinctive feature that space itself is
flowing radially inwards at the Newtonian escape velocity."
(http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html#freefall) is also known as
"Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates" first described by "Painlevé, P., C. R.
Acad. Sci., 173, 677, (1921)" (Note: that is 1921, long before the kooks you
reference had the thought that sucking their thumb might be a good idea).

I do not object to the "flowing-space" interpretation (Note the word
"interpretation") of GR. It is, in certain circumstances, a valid
interpretation of the mathematical model of GR and was mathematically
described as early as 1921. What I do object to is the characterization of
the kooks you reference as anything even close to gravitational theorists.
They simply have not done their homework.

If we move to your "Radio" analogy were GR is the schematic of a radio, then
what these guys describe is closer to three yahoos in there basement saying
something along the line of ...
"We'll build this box, and like, stick a bunch of electronic thingies in it,
and it will be able to get signals and stuff from far away and we could hear
folks talking and playing music and stuff and we'll call it a 'Radio'"

I'm particularly amused by Shifman's call to the scientific community ...
"The challenge for the scientific community is to pursue this line of
reasoning and attempt to construct a mathematical depiction of this model."

This is tantamount to one of the yahoos saying ...
"Yah, someone should really build one of those 'Radio' things."

Is gravity "Warped Space-time" of "Flowing Space"? I have no idea. It could
be something completely different, but I guaranty that these kooks do not
have the answer.

PS. Here is an interesting paper on the psychology of the kooks you
reference.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Mr. Zinnie sezz..
Please tell me that you have, at least,
heard of a Kerr BH!!!

Yes indeed. And note that all the rotating BH models you cited are
*hypothetical* and from their inception are mandated to conform to the
void-space ('no medium') paradigm. Kerr at least recognizes the
centrifugal effect in his 'ring singularity'.

Even under void-space, the essential bipolarity of every (spinning) BH
should be glaringly apparent to any junior physics student capable of
reasoning. Or do the basic laws of physics somehow go out the window in
relation to collapsed, high spin-rate, massive objects?

Try a little original, rational thought (for once) instead of rote
recitation. You might find it refreshing. oc