A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 9th 08, 05:42 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 06:23 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 07:57 AM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 08:20 AM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 10:18 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 04:12 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 05:35 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 05:47 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 06:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Jeffâ–˛Relf[_31_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default 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  
Old November 9th 08, 07:26 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.