|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Before, TreBert said nothing could slow down light.
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... 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. That's a hekuva theory, oc, except of course for as you say their automatic "nullification disclaimer"... ". . . The picture of space falling like a river into a black hole may seem discomfortingly concrete, but the aetherial overtones are no more substantial than in the familiar cosmological picture of space expanding. . . ." How can such educated people write 16 *amazing* pages about space flowing like a river and yet fail to "get" that space actually does just that?! Their model is nullified in the same way the "cosmological picture of space expanding" is nullified by the belief that space is a void nothing! When are they going to accept the obvious truth that space is a high-grade vibrating energy of such tight and tiny wavelengths that it appears tremendously "particle-like"? Very much like a river, it flows into matter. And causes gravity. Where's the beef? Why are these learnčd people such freakin' wussies?! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "A little bad taste is like a nice dash of paprika." Dorothy Parker P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Superman Could Crush Coal Into Diamonds (was - Before, treBert said . . .)
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
... . . . 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 A "solid carbon" black dwarf star? How can this be? It is probable, Brad, that there are neutron stars that are so dense with neutrons that they are almost black holes. But not quite. And there are probably black holes that are just a little bit more dense than a neutron star. Carbon atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons. So why would a black hole revert back from being a densely packed mass of neutrons to being made of carbon atoms? How could atoms of any kind remain stable under that much pressure? Does anybody know the mass limits? What is the mass upper limit for a neutron star just before it would be massive enough to not allow even light to escape and therefore be a black hole? We must keep in mind that the theoretical "quark star" might be a transitional state, although i would think that there would always be at least a neutron crust until a certain level of black hole mass is reached. Hopefully it's obvious that one would not expect a BH to be made of carbon, diamond or otherwise, since the tremendous gravitational field would crush any such atoms into neutrons and possibly degenerative quark matter. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "A little bad taste is like a nice dash of paprika." Dorothy Parker P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Superman Could Crush Coal Into Diamonds (was - Before, treBertsaid . . .)
On Nov 8, 9:23 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message... ... . . . 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 A "solid carbon" black dwarf star? How can this be? It is probable, Brad, that there are neutron stars that are so dense with neutrons that they are almost black holes. But not quite. And there are probably black holes that are just a little bit more dense than a neutron star. Carbon atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons. So why would a black hole revert back from being a densely packed mass of neutrons to being made of carbon atoms? How could atoms of any kind remain stable under that much pressure? How about we think antimatter, and perhaps consider the interior of a given BH hosting the antimatter core as offering a near absolute vacuum between this core and the event horizon. Black diamonds might like their getting created in such a vacuum. Does anybody know the mass limits? What is the mass upper limit for a neutron star just before it would be massive enough to not allow even light to escape and therefore be a black hole? I certainly don't. Gravity total redshift to that extent is not something I've even run across, but I'm certain that such has been computer simulated. We must keep in mind that the theoretical "quark star" might be a transitional state, although i would think that there would always be at least a neutron crust until a certain level of black hole mass is reached. Hopefully it's obvious that one would not expect a BH to be made of carbon, diamond or otherwise, since the tremendous gravitational field would crush any such atoms into neutrons and possibly degenerative quark matter. But then a Guth Antimatter BH (GABH) could just as easily contain a black diamond filled interior. ~ BG |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Before, TreBert said nothing could slow down light.
Painius wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message... ... 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. That's a hekuva theory, oc, except of course for as you say their automatic "nullification disclaimer"... ". . . The picture of space falling like a river into a black hole may seem discomfortingly concrete, but the aetherial overtones are no more substantial than in the familiar cosmological picture of space expanding. . . ." How can such educated people write 16 *amazing* pages about space flowing like a river and yet fail to "get" that space actually does just that?! Their model is nullified in the same way the "cosmological picture of space expanding" is nullified by the belief that space is a void nothing! When are they going to accept the obvious truth that space is a high-grade vibrating energy of such tight and tiny wavelengths that it appears tremendously "particle-like"? Very much like a river, it flows into matter. And causes gravity. Where's the beef? Why are these learn�d people such freakin' wussies?! Now you say "freakin' wussies". I agree, 99.9% wussies they have been for going on decades. btw, I like your flowing space that causes gravity, because it goes along with my 1e100 flow of photons per atom. ~ BG |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Superman Could Crush Coal Into Diamonds (was - Before, treBert said . . .)
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
... On Nov 8, 9:23 pm, "Painius" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message... ... . . . 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 A "solid carbon" black dwarf star? How can this be? It is probable, Brad, that there are neutron stars that are so dense with neutrons that they are almost black holes. But not quite. And there are probably black holes that are just a little bit more dense than a neutron star. Carbon atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons. So why would a black hole revert back from being a densely packed mass of neutrons to being made of carbon atoms? How could atoms of any kind remain stable under that much pressure? How about we think antimatter, and perhaps consider the interior of a given BH hosting the antimatter core as offering a near absolute vacuum between this core and the event horizon. Black diamonds might like their getting created in such a vacuum. So you're thinking antimatter-crystalized carbon? Even though the AM carbon atoms are matrixed, they are still under waay too much pressure for the atoms not to be crushed into, at the very least, antineutrons. Does anybody know the mass limits? What is the mass upper limit for a neutron star just before it would be massive enough to not allow even light to escape and therefore be a black hole? I certainly don't. Gravity total redshift to that extent is not something I've even run across, but I'm certain that such has been computer simulated. The upper limit for a neutron star is set presently at 2 Solar masses. And the lower limit for a BH is now set at about 5 Solar masses (minus the mass lost during the super/hypernova event. In between, from 2-3 Solar masses, astronomers hypothesize the "quark star". The neutrons degenerate under so very much pressure (gravitational) into their constituent parts: up quarks and down quarks. And these might then become what they call "strange quarks" and form "strange stars"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter The hypothetical quark stars and strange stars are fit in between the neutron stars and black holes, ranging from 2-3 Solar masses. It is logical to consider that the small volume, densely packed center of a BH would be far too much pressure for any atom, or even any neutron, to keep its individuality. We must keep in mind that the theoretical "quark star" might be a transitional state, although i would think that there would always be at least a neutron crust until a certain level of black hole mass is reached. Hopefully it's obvious that one would not expect a BH to be made of carbon, diamond or otherwise, since the tremendous gravitational field would crush any such atoms into neutrons and possibly degenerative quark matter. But then a Guth Antimatter BH (GABH) could just as easily contain a black diamond filled interior. ~ BG Matter or antimatter, a BH is too dense, and too powerful gravitationally, to retain any atomic structure. I do like the "antimatter" idea, though, Brad. It might explain what happened to all the original antiparticles that, at some place and time, "disappeared" from the Universe, leaving only the matter particles and quarks... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Asymmetry It should be noted that physics discriminates between "particles" and "matter" by defining the latter as being made up of particles. So by definition, "antimatter" would follow as being made up of antiparticles. An antielectron (positron) hooking up with an antiproton would result in an antihydrogen atom of antimatter. Once the atomic structure is lost, though, it's no longer considered to be "matter", but instead "particles", and particles are made of "quarks". happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "A little bad taste is like a nice dash of paprika." Dorothy Parker P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Before, TreBert said nothing could slow down light.
On Nov 8, 8:42*pm, "Painius" wrote:
*When are they going to accept the obvious truth that space is a high-grade vibrating energy of such tight and tiny wavelengths that it appears tremendously "particle-like"? *Very much like a river, it flows into matter. *And causes gravity. *Where's the beef? Why are these learnčd people such freakin' wussies?! Their biggest and most recurring objection seems to be the 'roach motel' issue, i.e., "where does the stuff go once it's injested through the atomic nucleus?" Because the FS model does not directly address this issue, they declare the model invalid. In that case, their Big Bang model is likewise invalid, and for the same reason. It does not address where the stuff 'comes from'. Yet they have no problem accepting the BB. It stands to reason that whatever strange, inverted, nonlocal realm the stuff "goes to" in the process of gravitation is the same 'ground state' where it's repressurized and "comes from" in the Big Bang process. Gravitation and the BB comprize a natural dipole sharing a common 'ground state'. To view the process of gravitation is to view *quite literally* the reverse of the BB process, the Continuous Big Bang. Or Big Bloom if you will. :-) |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Superman Could Crush Coal Into Diamonds (was - Before, treBertsaid . . .)
On Nov 9, 1:18 am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message... ... On Nov 8, 9:23 pm, "Painius" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message... ... . . . 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 A "solid carbon" black dwarf star? How can this be? It is probable, Brad, that there are neutron stars that are so dense with neutrons that they are almost black holes. But not quite. And there are probably black holes that are just a little bit more dense than a neutron star. Carbon atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons. So why would a black hole revert back from being a densely packed mass of neutrons to being made of carbon atoms? How could atoms of any kind remain stable under that much pressure? How about we think antimatter, and perhaps consider the interior of a given BH hosting the antimatter core as offering a near absolute vacuum between this core and the event horizon. Black diamonds might like their getting created in such a vacuum. So you're thinking antimatter-crystalized carbon? Even though the AM carbon atoms are matrixed, they are still under waay too much pressure for the atoms not to be crushed into, at the very least, antineutrons. No, at least not quite. Try thinking of a BH as having a core of antimatter, with nearly absolute vacuum existing between it's core like surface and the outer +/-'c' event horizon, whereas black diamonds could coexist within this BH interior domain. Remember that you do not require pressure for the makings of such black diamonds. Does anybody know the mass limits? What is the mass upper limit for a neutron star just before it would be massive enough to not allow even light to escape and therefore be a black hole? I certainly don't. Gravity total redshift to that extent is not something I've even run across, but I'm certain that such has been computer simulated. The upper limit for a neutron star is set presently at 2 Solar masses. And the lower limit for a BH is now set at about 5 Solar masses (minus the mass lost during the super/hypernova event. In between, from 2-3 Solar masses, astronomers hypothesize the "quark star". The neutrons degenerate under so very much pressure (gravitational) into their constituent parts: up quarks and down quarks. And these might then become what they call "strange quarks" and form "strange stars"... Then perhaps Sirius B at its original 7+ solar mass could have been or at least become a BH that should have sucked the life out of Sirius A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter The hypothetical quark stars and strange stars are fit in between the neutron stars and black holes, ranging from 2-3 Solar masses. It is logical to consider that the small volume, densely packed center of a BH would be far too much pressure for any atom, or even any neutron, to keep its individuality. But countless photons could safely coexist along with a BH core of antimatter. We must keep in mind that the theoretical "quark star" might be a transitional state, although i would think that there would always be at least a neutron crust until a certain level of black hole mass is reached. Hopefully it's obvious that one would not expect a BH to be made of carbon, diamond or otherwise, since the tremendous gravitational field would crush any such atoms into neutrons and possibly degenerative quark matter. But then a Guth Antimatter BH (GABH) could just as easily contain a black diamond filled interior. ~ BG Matter or antimatter, a BH is too dense, and too powerful gravitationally, to retain any atomic structure. I do like the "antimatter" idea, though, Brad. It might explain what happened to all the original antiparticles that, at some place and time, "disappeared" from the Universe, leaving only the matter particles and quarks... I can safely agree with that analogy, of a BH core of antiprotons or antineutrons being more likely than conventional compressed atoms. The LHC should create a great many samples of antistuff shortly before it implodes upon itself while fusion burning through 200 tonnes of helium. Other than creating a terrestrial star, what else could possibly go wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Asymmetry It should be noted that physics discriminates between "particles" and "matter" by defining the latter as being made up of particles. So by definition, "antimatter" would follow as being made up of antiparticles. An antielectron (positron) hooking up with an antiproton would result in an antihydrogen atom of antimatter. Once the atomic structure is lost, though, it's no longer considered to be "matter", but instead "particles", and particles are made of "quarks". Then I change my argument to specify the GABH core of hosting antiparticles or antiguarks instead of antimatter. What better place to safely hide antistuff than within a GABH. ~ BG |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Before, TreBert said nothing could slow down light.
On Nov 9, 7:12 am, oldcoot wrote:
On Nov 8, 8:42 pm, "Painius" wrote: When are they going to accept the obvious truth that space is a high-grade vibrating energy of such tight and tiny wavelengths that it appears tremendously "particle-like"? Very much like a river, it flows into matter. And causes gravity. Where's the beef? Why are these learnčd people such freakin' wussies?! Their biggest and most recurring objection seems to be the 'roach motel' issue, i.e., "where does the stuff go once it's injested through the atomic nucleus?" Because the FS model does not directly address this issue, they declare the model invalid. In that case, their Big Bang model is likewise invalid, and for the same reason. It does not address where the stuff 'comes from'. Yet they have no problem accepting the BB. It takes faith in order to so devoutly believe in the singular BB. It stands to reason that whatever strange, inverted, nonlocal realm the stuff "goes to" in the process of gravitation is the same 'ground state' where it's repressurized and "comes from" in the Big Bang process. Gravitation and the BB comprize a natural dipole sharing a common 'ground state'. To view the process of gravitation is to view *quite literally* the reverse of the BB process, the Continuous Big Bang. Or Big Bloom if you will. :-) How about the BCI (big cosmic implosion), or the BGF (big god fart)? ~ BG |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Gravity is a 4-D field that, over eons, gets spent.
I have no use for Painius' “ Flowing Space ” notions.
Gravity is a 4-D field that, over eons, gets spent. Einstein was right, Painius and OldCoot are wrong. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Superman Could Crush Coal Into Diamonds (was - Before, treBert...
Painius Saw on sci channel that it takes 100 miles of Earth rock to have
enough weight(pressure) to make carbon into a diamond. My theory is all those trillions of space diamonds relate well with trillions of bucky balls found on Earth surface around a meteor crater TreBert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
light inside a black hole | RichD | Astronomy Misc | 32 | September 16th 08 05:20 PM |
light in a black hole | RichD | Astronomy Misc | 5 | May 16th 08 09:25 PM |
Quasar light variability linked to black hole mass (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 3rd 07 12:57 PM |
Quasar light variability linked to black hole mass (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | January 9th 07 12:42 AM |
Light inside a black hole? | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 27 | January 8th 07 05:20 PM |