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

oc Ed Witten had this to say Studying the string theory it would give
you gravity even without Newton String theory goes with gravitons,and
has these gravitons vibrating twice as fast as photons. Is a graviton
another name for Higgs ? Does a graviton have to go at c ? Do three
gravitons held together by a gluon make a proton? Do gravitons create
matter particles and give them also their mutual attraction? None of
these questions upset any of my theories,and even makes my G equation
reality. bTreBert

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Nov 11, 12:19 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Jeff?Relf" wrote...

It has no true beginning or end, nothing caused it.

Suppose we give you that much, Jeff. After all, it's not
like it's something that can be proved one way or the
other. Does it have to mean that *other* things about
the Cosmos are the same? that other things have no
cause, they just are?

Gravity, for instance. Is gravity something that just is?
That's pretty much what Newton thought. And since his
bent was religious, he attributed all things without any
explanation, things that "just are", to God. God made
gravity. Einstein didn't do much better. He still gave
us no cause for gravity.

What do *you* think causes the pressure that keeps
your feet on the pavement? While your body is trapped
by gravity, your mind doesn't have to be imprisoned by
anything such. Your mind can soar.

What do you see when your mind soars?

Do you not realize that at no other time in human history, we now have
a true and bona fide 'litmus test' for any theory of the _cause_ of
gravity?

Actually, the realization has been slow in coming to me,
to be truthful. But each time we have discussed this with
mainstreamers over the years, the certified fact is that
they have no prepared arguments either...

1) for precisely how the presently accepted model, which
includes gravitons, actually causes gravity, or

2) against the Wolterian sidebar of flowing space as the
cause of gravity.

In all these years nobody has been able to challenge you
on this #2 issue with any kind of a strong argument. So,
yes, the realization is upon me. There is nothing in the
literature that i can find that can come close to explaining
the questions on the litmus test using any existing model
that's being considered seriously by physicists.

Just think - before the discovery in recent decades of super/
hypernovae and quasars, there was no absolute example that would
challenge prevailing theories. Take any of these theories, equations,
geometry, metrics, "curvature" of 'Something that is yet Nothing',
"gravitons", and demand that it demonstrate the mechanism that
literally POWERS these stupendous gravitational phenomena. What do
these theories, these euphamisms and abstract *descriptions of
effects* offer?

Often it's -

"It just is."

Doh.

More often, after some hand-waving, a mainstream
protagonist just...

D I S A P P E A R S

I have yet to see anyone who can "fill in your blank".
And it's been a lotta years, Bro.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Personally I'm always ready to learn,
although I do not always like being taught."
Winston Churchill

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

On Nov 11, 7:46 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
oc Ed Witten had this to say Studying the string theory it would give
you gravity even without Newton String theory goes with gravitons,and
has these gravitons vibrating twice as fast as photons. Is a graviton
another name for Higgs ? Does a graviton have to go at c ? Do three
gravitons held together by a gluon make a proton? Do gravitons create
matter particles and give them also their mutual attraction? None of
these questions upset any of my theories,and even makes my G equation
reality. bTreBert

There you go again, asking those pesky questions, that which the
answers are strictly need-to-know or otherwise taboo/nondisclosure to
those of us without a sufficient brown nose along with only kind words
for the Zionist/Nazis (aka republican Mafia) in charge of most
everything.

~ BG

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I read for a black hole to form rather than a neutron star the
supernova would have to be 3 times greater. Greater meaning 3 times mass
density. So if you squeezed 3 neutron stars together without creating a
greater surface area it would have an event horizon. I think
Shwartzchild would agree with that TreBert

Well, Bert, the figures i've seen are much lower than
that. In the "neutron star" Wikipedia article, neutron
stars range from 1.35 to 2.1 Solar masses. Odysseus
points out that another article in WikiP has conflicting
limits for neutron stars - 1.5 to 3 Solar masses.

Black holes are said to form from stars that have at
least 5 Solar masses, and when this 5-Solar-mass
minimum star collapses to form a black hole, it must
lose some mass during this violent event, a supernova
or a hypernova. (Sirius B is believed to have been a
5-Solar-mass star about 125 million years ago before
it went into red-giant phase. But it must have lost a
lot more mass than it should have to become a BH,
because it is now only about a 1-Solar-mass white
dwarf star.)

So the minimum mass a stellar BH can have has to be
the same as the figures Odysseus found on this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-...-Volkoff_limit

and the figures are 1.5 to 3 Suns. So a stellar BH can
be almost as small in mass as a neutron star. Almost.
But not quite. OR, a minimum-sized BH might be as
much as 2 times as great as the largest neutron star,
and still fall within the limits stated here. And it is at
least partly because of this uncertainty that some
astronomers think that there might be "in-between"
types of stars, stars that have masses that would be
between 1.5 to 3 Solar masses. They call these damn
spiffy objects "quark stars" or "strange stars"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

That is SO cool! It would be almost like one gigantic
neutron!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Personally I'm always ready to learn,
although I do not always like being taught."
Winston Churchill

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

On Nov 11, 10:33*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" sed :

Do you not realize that at no other time in human history, we now have
a true and bona fide 'litmus test' for any theory of the _cause_ of
gravity?

Actually, the realization has been slow in coming to me,
to be truthful. *But each time we have discussed this with
mainstreamers over the years, the certified fact is that
they have no prepared arguments either...

1) *for precisely how the presently accepted model, which
includes gravitons, actually causes gravity, or

2) *against the Wolterian sidebar of flowing space as the
cause of gravity.

In all these years nobody has been able to challenge you
on this #2 issue with any kind of a strong argument. *

Their most frequent arguments are usually "Nonsense!" and
"BWAHA.....!", while the most cogent one is the 'Roach Motel' issue of
"where does the stuff go when it's injested through the atomic
nucleus?" Yet paradoxically they abide the BB model freely with no
concern over "where does the stuff 'come from' when it explodes forth
in the BB?"
Wolter's Flowing Space model came as an unsolicited
spinoff or 'sidebar' to his overarching CBB model, arrived at "from
the top down" so to speak. But to a number of people worldwide (like
Shifman, Warren, Lindner, Paxton, Martin, Huenefeld, Stefanko et al),
the `cause of gravity` was their primary, front burner issue. And each
one, working independantly "from the bottom up", deduced a FS model
whose core mechanism is *identical* to Wolter's, that is, a monopolar
"reverse starburst" inflow of the spatial medium into mass with mass
synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain). Their models differ
only superficially, but all recognize the very same core mechanism.
With multiple people independantly seeing essentially the same thing,
it's a no-brainer realization like "Doh. The Earth really is round and
revolves around the sun."

So, yes, the realization is upon me. *There is nothing in the
literature that i can find that can come close to explaining
the questions on the 'litmus test' using any existing model
that's being considered seriously by physicists.

Just think - before the discovery in recent decades of super/
hypernovae and quasars, there was no absolute example that would
challenge prevailing theories. Take any of these theories, equations,
geometry, metrics, "curvature" of 'Something that is yet Nothing',
"gravitons", and demand that it demonstrate the mechanism that
literally POWERS these stupendous gravitational phenomena. What do
these theories, these euphamisms and abstract *descriptions of
effects* offer?

Often it's -

* * * * * * * *"It just is."


More often, after some hand-waving, a mainstream
protagonist just...

* * * * * * * * * * * * D I S A P P E A R S

I have yet to see anyone who can "fill in your blank".
And it's been a lotta years, Bro.

Well, the floor's always open for some intrepid VS'er to step right up
to the plate and "fill in the blank"____________ .

When it comes to supernovae, much is presumed, sans evidence.
I suspect they're just super-massive, high-speed collisions.

You two ( Painius and OldCoot ) are troubled about
what might exist here, locally, pressing butts against chairs.

I trust that the structure of spacetime is the answer,
so I'm not so worried about it ― I've got other fish to fry.
If people avoid your threads, perhaps that's why.

Your inability to comprehend warped spacetime
is no indication that it doesn't exist.
You pretending it's a “ void �, or “ fluid �, doesn't make it so.

The “ graviton � notion is a giant step backwards
― yet Painius is convinced it's avant-garde, beyond Einstein.

Quantum Mechanics is just a heap of data ― statistics.
General Relativity has no randomness, no acausalities
― the timescape is truly spatial, 4-D static, 4-D motionless,
at once “ everything � yet also “ nothing �, truly changeless.

Gravity is equal and opposite to all other forms of energy
― it is the cosmos, well and truly, sans beginning or end,
truly changeless.

Our puny minds can't imagine warped spacetime, much less see it,
because we're forever being surprised by this and that
― we're trapped inside our virtual, 3-D, mindscapes.

In this world, this fantasy ― the virtual mindscape ―
no true choices exist.

Should I live faster and die sooner, like poor people ?
or should I live slower and longer, like the rich,
― by burning fossil fuels, riding on the backs of the unborn,
on the backs of the poor ? it doesn't matter.

No, to us, all that matters is this:
“ Can I afford to live where I want, can I obey the rules ? �.

All Jeff will come up with, Paine, is another WACKO program like X.EXE
that no one else wants! lmfjao!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:39:56 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

Everything is hunky-dory, eh?

Wake up, friend Jeff, because physics is anything BUT
hunky-dory.

You parrot far too much. Maybe you ought to consider
obtaining a new "thinking cap"?

To think in a logical sense is not nearly so easy as to
parrot a list of broken-record ideas over and over. The
4-D crap is just that... CRAP. It is morosely insufficient
to explain WHAT CAUSES GRAVITATION, Your Grace.

So as i said, your choices are to keep your noble head
buried in sand, or lift your thoughts to a more creative
level. Who knows what you might come up with?

Programmers tend to like the code they write, Paine. lmfjao!

All's well until someone else looks at it in detail.

Then there's the little problem of NO DOCUMENTATION!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:45:02 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Programmers"... sheesh.

g

I wonder if, after sitting for a time and creating great code,
Jeff looks at his work and says, "There's no cause for this
code...

i t j u s t i s."

?

I'm giving X.EXE a user interface to report-on, select,
download and display comic strips ― I won't sell it, it's just for me.

The code is being designed as I walk though campus, watching the yachts,
and smoking in the blowing rain ― and when I lie in bed, half awake.

I have cost-free, ad-free, HTML-free, quick access to 7.1 years of
“ The Other Coast � ( for example ) ― 117,552 strips. Here's one:
Assets.Comics.COM/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/30000/4000/400/234487/234487.zoom.gif

Thanks to Comics.COM, GoComics.COM, etc.
I have about a hundred artists to choose from,
e.g. “ Monty �, “ Dilbert � and “ Doonesbury �.

X.EXE presents something like a web page, listing comics
so I can select one ( e.g. Dilbert ) and, with my mouse wheel, notch
forward and/or backward one day, to see if I've viewed it.

A double-click downloads the comic strip and displays it.
Most strips ( .GIF files ) are 1,000 pixels wide,
but X.EXE blows them up to the width of its window: 1,280 pixels.

Some comics ( especially editorial ones )
are portrait ( instead of landscape ); so, to avoid scrolling,
X zooms them to the hight ( not width ) of its window.

Some of this code ( Visual C++ 9 ) looks like this:
“ #include GDIPlus.H
#pragma comment( lib, "GDIPlus.LIB")
using namespace Gdiplus;
inline float er( double X , double Y ) { return X Y ? X : Y ; } �

“ LnP FileName = L"..\\ZZ.GIF";
Image Img( FileName );
if ( Img.GetLastStatus() != Ok ) {
Sh( L"%c“ %c%s%c � didn't load.", ChNew, ChOdd, FileName, ChNew );
goto Next_Event ; }
double W = Img.GetWidth(), H = Img.GetHeight(), SX = WinW / W
, SY = ( WinH - CharH * ToolBarLines ) / H, Sca = er( SX, SY );
ImgW = W * Sca, ImgH = H * Sca ;

Trash( ImgSur ), UseKey = 0, NewSur( ImgSur, ImgW, ImgH );
HDC DC ; Chk( ImgSur-GetDC( & DC ) );
{ Graphics Plus( DC ); Rect R( 0, 0, ImgW, ImgH );
Plus.DrawImage( & Img, R, 0, 0, W, H, UnitPixel ); }

Chk( ImgSur-ReleaseDC( DC ) ); Sh( L"%c", ChImg );
goto Next_Event ; �

I'd love to list a bunch more code, but I'll spare you.
For a closer look, X.CPP is at: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/X.CPP �.

The code I wrote for myself ( e.g. X.EXE ) has some documention.
My professional code is documented from here to hell and back.

There are administrator manuals for the code I wrote,
as well as manuals for students and instructors.
These manuals have been updated continually over the past 15+ years.

Also ― an ungodly amount of money, over several years,
was spent to document the source code itself ( Visual C++ 9 ).

Lots of people worked on it, including ( software ) professors
and high-up ( current and retired-rich ) MicroSoft coders.