Light climbing out of an apparent black hole has a finiteredsh...

Y'all might want to read up on the 'River' model of black holes, which
is actually being circulated in mainstream venues. It's based on the
old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric, which describes gravity as the
accelerating flow of space into mass, but now updated to include black
holes.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...&cop=&ei=UTF-8

However, the authors are careful to clarify that the model is
'heuristic' or allegorical and not meant to imply that a *literal*
medium is literally flowing/accelerating. They're constrained to
operate under the 'no medium' doctrine, and so have to portray an
allegorical river as accelerating relative a fixed background rather
than admit the obvious and self-evident : the "background space" IS
literally the 'River' that is literally flowing/accelerating into the
BH.
There is no other explanation for the mechanism that
powers the most energetic gravitational phenomena in nature, like
super/ hypernovae and quasars. Either gravity *is* exactly what it
appears to be and behaves as, or it's angels, imps and Sky Pixies all
the way down. :-)

On Nov 2, 5:44*am, oldcoot wrote:
Y'all might want to read up on the 'River' model of black holes, which
is actually being circulated in mainstream venues. It's based on the
old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric, which describes gravity as the
accelerating flow of space into mass, but now updated to include black
holes.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...iCHimN3wV?p=ri....

Uh.. the intended, original paper didn't show up in that batch. So
here it is -

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0411/0411060v2.pdf

...with the caveat that it's portraying an allegorical rather than
literal flow of space, requiring a rather convoluted mathematical/
geometrical representation of how the allegorical flow "spirals and
twists" relative to the flat background. A much simpler, math-less
depiction would just let the 'background' itself do the spiraling/
twisting flow into the BH.

On Nov 2, 5:24 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
BG My point is gravity lengthens photon waves and great heat can make
them short. So around a black hole we see an accretion disc,and that
disc I relate to photons leaving the fusion core of a star is gamma
photons,but again by the time they break through the stars surface we
see these photons as white light. When looking at the hub of spiral
galaxies it looks very bright white. That is what I tried to bring out
in my post. White light is all photons waves mixed. I see it clearly as
two forces Gravity and EM. Gravity is the stronger force,but distance
can make them equal(natures balancing act) or weaker or stronger as the
case may be Go figure TreBert

I do believe that gravity has a pulling affect on behalf of stretching
those photons.

However, the human eye sees perhaps 0.0001% of the photon spectrum.

Even if we could see 0.1% with the aid of advanced optical technology
that included UV and IR, we'd be considered legally blind by the
cosmic way of such matters.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
http://www.alaskapublishing.com
http://www.guarddogbooks.com

On Nov 2, 5:38 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Jeff I must post this once a week Photons can not go faster or slower
than 186,242 mps Photons do not bounce. Photons do not age
Time does not exist for photons. If a person was in a space ship going
at c he could be every where in the universe instantaneously. Photons
can only travel in pairs like matter particles. If electron could go at
c only one electron would be needed to service the universe(Feynman and
Wheeler fooled with that idea) Photons are both a wave and a particle.
Gamma photons more like a particle,and radio photons more like a wave.
Photons can be made to do many forms of work. Being very polite by
opening doors for humankind. I like that TreBert Ps not all of this
post comes from my mind alone,some of it also comes from other great
thinkers

Question; are stars (like our sun) visually dark inside?

You'd think the stellar interior (say whatever’s within 0.99r) would
become mostly of UV or higher frequency photons (certainly hotter than
the outer photosphere), so visually dark seems likely. Perhaps the
solar visual spectrum wouldn't happen until 1.01r or greater, and
solar IR a little beyond that.

Solar 1.01r = 6.94e5 km + 6.94e3 km = 6.947e5 km

Of what we visually detect as the outer photosphere may in fact not be
the solar surface.

A narrow bandpass of EUV(extreme UV) might suggest the solar surface
radius as being less than the visual photosphere radius. In TRACE
observation format, our sun seems to have a semisolid though extremely
active surface.

http://www.cuodan.net/gallery/v/misc...ce_uv.jpg.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html (major download)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
http://www.alaskapublishing.com
http://www.guarddogbooks.com

Nothing in the Sun is solid, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Where oh where do you come up with this NONSENSE?

Saul Levy


On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:10:32 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
wrote:

Question; are stars (like our sun) visually dark inside?

You'd think the stellar interior (say whatever’s within 0.99r) would
become mostly of UV or higher frequency photons (certainly hotter than
the outer photosphere), so visually dark seems likely. Perhaps the
solar visual spectrum wouldn't happen until 1.01r or greater, and
solar IR a little beyond that.

Solar 1.01r = 6.94e5 km + 6.94e3 km = 6.947e5 km

Of what we visually detect as the outer photosphere may in fact not be
the solar surface.

A narrow bandpass of EUV(extreme UV) might suggest the solar surface
radius as being less than the visual photosphere radius. In TRACE
observation format, our sun seems to have a semisolid though extremely
active surface.

http://www.cuodan.net/gallery/v/misc...ce_uv.jpg.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html (major download)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

BG Inside a star core its heat and pressure that are its identities.
Light breaks into the macro realm when it leaves the stars surface
TreBert

On Nov 4, 10:49 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
BG Inside a star core its heat and pressure that are its identities.
Light breaks into the macro realm when it leaves the stars surface
TreBert

But it’s the kind of heat that our genetically deficient evolved human
eye can’t see, so it’s likely dark inside of a star.

Besides photons getting away from a conventional main sequence star
being easier said than accomplished, photons should have a really
tough time getting through all of that cosmic ISM of black diamond, as
perhaps representing dark matter.

For all we know, a black hole could be a solid carbon black dwarf, as
a solid sphere of black diamond (possibly with a thorium core for good
measure).

~ BG

Bg Inside the Sun just before the core is the Radiative Zone It has
photons in the wave length of light Its this zone that photons bounce
between the layer particles so many times that each photon takes 200,000
years to reach the convective zone. So it is written TreBert

On Nov 4, 2:34 pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Bg Inside the Sun just before the core is the Radiative Zone It has
photons in the wave length of light Its this zone that photons bounce
between the layer particles so many times that each photon takes 200,000
years to reach the convective zone. So it is written TreBert

You're saying that we can see slow moving gamma photons? (I don't
think so)

Extreme gamma and extreme IR are each of photons far outside of the
human visual spectrum.

~ BG

BG Never said photons slow down(they can not) I said visible light
photons become visible once leaving the sun surface. Read it right,so
you can quote it right, Do not be a Cactus Saul TreBert