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

"BradGuth" wrote in message...
...

. . .
btw, I like your flowing space that causes gravity, because it goes
along with my 1e100 flow of photons per atom.

~ BG

Thank you, Brad! It makes more sense to me than
rabid gravitons somehow reaching up from matter
and "pulling" us down.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Do what you do so well that they will want to
see it again and bring their friends."
Walt Disney

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message...
|g...

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.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it,
Jeff! Einstein's four dimensions of time and space lead
science to erroneous conclusions about physical reality.
This is the reason that physics hasn't yet come up with
anything close to a unified field theory or a viable theory
of quantum gravity.

But you go ahead and keep your head stuck in the sand
like all the rest. Watch out for those rabid gravitons,
though! They get real nasty when you fall! g

And as oc might ask, why don't you take a stab at
esplaining precisely how Einstein's insubstantial curving
of space, his mathematical model of gravity, has the
overwhelming and tremendous power to sometimes end
in a super/hypernova?

And if we can fairly easily deduce what causes a star's
outward pushing force (against gravity), which is surely
generated within the star, why can't physics explain
what causes the inward "pulling" of gravity, and where
or how this gravitation is purportedly ALSO generated
within the star?

Does it really make sense that BOTH forces would be
generated by the star? Doesn't it more logically follow
that the outward force is generated by the star, and the
inward force is generated by something else? something
that comes from OUTSIDE the star?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Do what you do so well that they will want to
see it again and bring their friends."
Walt Disney

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"BradGuth" wrote in message...
...
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.

Sirius B is a bit of a puzzle because it was believed
to possess 5 Solar masses before it entered the red
giant phase about 120 million years ago. So it very
well could have, perhaps *should* have, become a
BH. Instead, it wound up as a cooling white dwarf
with only about 1 Solar mass condensed into a ball
about the size of Earth. IOW, Sirius B shed way too
much mass when it began to burn helium in its core.
Had it shed only 1 or 2 solar masses instead of 4, it
would probably be a BH, or at least a neutron star
today.

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.

I don't see why not. Unable to escape the gravitational
force of the BH, those countless photons would be zipping
all over the place inside the horizon. Might be fabulous to
actually see it.

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?

Well, it might be postponed again? g

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

I strongly agree that a BH is the likely place for the
missing antiparticles that would account for the non-
symmetry of the Universe and the preponderance
of regular matter (anti-antimatter) throughout the
Cosmos!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Do what you do so well that they will want to
see it again and bring their friends."
Walt Disney

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

What do gravitons have to do with gravity or Einstein ? nothing.
You and OldCoot haven't yet come to terms with entropy accrual.

Over gigayears, the 4-D fields get spent.
3-D space accrues as entropy accrues.

Your inability to conceptualize 4-D fields doesn't mean
you're right and Einstein was wrong.

On Nov 9, 11:15 am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



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 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.

Sirius B is a bit of a puzzle because it was believed
to possess 5 Solar masses before it entered the red
giant phase about 120 million years ago. So it very
well could have, perhaps *should* have, become a
BH. Instead, it wound up as a cooling white dwarf
with only about 1 Solar mass condensed into a ball
about the size of Earth. IOW, Sirius B shed way too
much mass when it began to burn helium in its core.
Had it shed only 1 or 2 solar masses instead of 4, it
would probably be a BH, or at least a neutron star
today.

I'll stick with my 7+ solar mass Sirius B that shed 6+ solar masses,
and somewhat more recently. The hydrogen flash-over(s) and possible
helium flash-over(s) of losing 6+ solar masses should have been
downright impressive, perhaps adding one solar mass over to Sirius A,
and otherwise losing its tidal radius grip on most all of its planets
(conceivably including Earth, or at least Venus and our Selene).


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.

I don't see why not. Unable to escape the gravitational
force of the BH, those countless photons would be zipping
all over the place inside the horizon. Might be fabulous to
actually see it.

Unfortunately, due to the human limited perception of our rather
pathetically evolved visual spectrum (most other life on Earth sees
better than we do), at best we might perceive 0.0000001% of those
photons, or perhaps fewer than one out of a trillion, if even that
much.


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?

Well, it might be postponed again? g


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

I strongly agree that a BH is the likely place for the
missing antiparticles that would account for the non-
symmetry of the Universe and the preponderance
of regular matter (anti-antimatter) throughout the
Cosmos!

That's good to hear that I'm not the one and only village idiot that's
posting my deductive though often a bit too dyslexic encrypted logic,
plus observationology pertaining to Guth Venus.

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

On Nov 9, 12:46 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

Your inability to conceptualize 4-D fields doesn't mean
you're right and Einstein was wrong.

Nobody's sayin' Einstein was "wrong", amigo. What you're displaying
here is `your` inability to conceptualize what '4-D fields' aka "space-
time" represents. It's a surrogate, a euphamism, an abstract
*description* _of an effect_ of something. That 'Something' is the
very real and literal, fluidic, universe-filling, dynamic and highly
mobile Plenum of space (vis-a-vis the 'void' of space). When Uncle
Albert unceremoniously kicked out the "aether" instituting the Void-
Space Paradigm (VSP), then a surrogate, a 'Something that is yet
Nothing' had to take its place. "Space-time"/'4-D fields' became that
surrogate, a mathematical/geometric description _of the effects_ of
the dynamic and fluidic spatial medium. The description of the effect
of gravity, "curvature of space-time", substituted for the
_explanation of the cause_ of gravity.
Nobody's sayin' the math and geometry of GR is
"wrong", far from it. GR's predictive value has been proven correct
over and over. But *if* you're interested in the causal mechanism of
gravity and not just descriptions of the effect of gravity, you
recognize that "curvature of space" is GR's readout of the *rate of
acceleration* of flowing space. Simultaneous with that, you 'get' with
crystal clarity the reason for gravity-acceleration equivalence which
Uncle A *described* so eloquently in his famous 'space elevator'
scenario.

What do gravitons have to do with gravity or Einstein ? nothing.

Agreed.

You and OldCoot haven't yet come to terms with entropy accrual.

Remember there are two kinds of entropy, entropy of order and
thermodynamic entropy. We're discussin' the latter. If the sitting
paradigm holds true that a singular, 'one-shot' BB gave rise to a
cosmos of ever-accelerating expansion unto entropic heat death, then
you're right. But IF on the other hand, the universe is a perpetually
self-renewing closed loop, whether as a 'bang-crunch, bang-crunch'
oscillation, or the turbine-like CBB process, there is a point of
*maximum expansion* which transitions into Contraction. Like the
'solstice' point where a pendulum stops cold still, it marks the onset
of *reversal of thermodynamic entropy*.

Over gigayears, the 4-D fields get spent.
3-D space accrues as entropy accrues.

Say wha.. ??

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message...
|F...

What do gravitons have to do with gravity or Einstein ? nothing.
You and OldCoot haven't yet come to terms with entropy accrual.

Oversimplified, it was Einstein who led science to the
so-called graviton. Such a transfer particle is inevitable
if space is a void. Doesn't the inability of physics to find,
to discover gravitons all these many years of looking say
anything at all to you? They found neutrinos for crissakes!
Not the least little wisp of a particle. And yet still no rabid
gravitons. Still no unified field theory. And still no viable
quantum theory of gravity.

If Einstein was so right, after all, then why doesn't his
theory jive with the equally successful (in a practical
sense) quantum mechanics? Why is relativity diametrically
opposed to quantum mechanics? Why can't the two ideas
be reconciled?

Over gigayears, the 4-D fields get spent.
3-D space accrues as entropy accrues.

Your inability to conceptualize 4-D fields doesn't mean
you're right and Einstein was wrong.

And your inability to utilize the Oh-So-Correct Einsteinian
_description of effects_ of gravity to explain super/hyper-
novas is duly noted.

Einstein was not incorrect, his work was incomplete. He
never gave the **CAUSE** of gravity in detail, but only
in vague, wispy, nebulous phrases and sentences in the
published writings of his later years.

Now say again... how do these 4-D fields cause a super/
hypernova to collapse?

As for the whizzing along of entropy, i shall make haste
to be ready, for there is no time to waste! g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Do what you do so well that they will want to
see it again and bring their friends."
Walt Disney

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Nov 9, 3:20*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Why is relativity diametrically
opposed to quantum mechanics? *Why can't the two ideas
be reconciled?

'Member as to how this was discussed numerous times, in relation to
the humble Casimir effect. Two super-smooth, uncharged plates are
brought into extreme proximity, and they're mysteriously "attracted"
toward each other. So what's going on? Under the VSP and quantum
electrodynamics, "quantum fluctuations" are doin' it. But under the FS
paradigm, the accelerating inflow into the atomic nucleus constitutes
the Strong nuclear force. More distantly from the nucleus, when many
atoms are aggregated en masse, that self-same inflow toward their
collective nuclei causes the effect we call gravity. It's one and the
same Flow at different levels of manifestation.
The Casimir effect is nothing more or less than the
interface zone between gravity and the SNF. It is simultaneously the
attenuated SNF and the amped-up gravitational force between the two
plates. The collective inflow into the plates' constituent nuclei is
creating a zone of lower pressure between them, and is literally
*pushing* the plates together. Nothing mysterious about it. The
Casimir effect is an utterly simple but profound demonstration of
gravity-SNF unification.

Invoking the 'River' analogy again, there's a tranquil, slow-flowing
river. Gradually its channel narrows and the river's flow accelerates.
The channel continues narrowing, forcing the river to accelerate more
and more, breaking into rapids just before plunging over the
waterfall. The 'rapids' are the "quantum fluctuations" so popular with
the QED crowd. The "fluctuations" are not the _cause_ but a side
effect of the Casimir flow.

But as long as space is deemed 'void', there is nothing to flow. The
fundamental forces will remain disparate and disconnected, QM and
relativity will remain divorced, and unification of gravity will
amount to chasing the rainbow, receding forever from grasp.

oldcoot wrote:

snips

The Casimir effect is nothing more or less than the
interface zone between gravity and the SNF. It is simultaneously the
attenuated SNF and the amped-up gravitational force between the two
plates. The collective inflow into the plates' constituent nuclei is
creating a zone of lower pressure between them, and is literally
*pushing* the plates together. Nothing mysterious about it. The
Casimir effect is an utterly simple but profound demonstration of
gravity-SNF unification.

This is incorrect. The Casimir Effect is entirely electromagnetic;
gravity and the strong nuclear force have no part in it.

snips

If you and Painius had your way ( you won't )
then 4-D gravitaional fields, infinite in extent,
― i.e. the very definition of “ Up � and “ time � ―
are “ null and void � ! a field is a field, not a “ void �.

4-D fields are more “ real � than your 3-D ( virtual ) notions.
While 4-D fields are the Whole Story,
quantum mechanics is about guesses.

Where might I be tomorrow ? I can give you an educated guess,
and, given enough data, I can assign a probability;
but I can't tell you the exact location.

This, in a nutshell, is what quantum mechanics is about.
4-D gravitational fields are not like that, for obvious reasons.

And “ no �, painius, I don't care to speculate about
what causes supernovas ― maybe it's stars impacting stars.