!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape
speed is greater than the speed of light?

Good question Buffy.
Most physicists think that by the exchange of virtual particles, what goes on at the sub-atomic level can be explained. I had
always thought this description was meant as an analogy, not actually real.
It made sense for quantum physics but no sense for the larger real world. People are exchanging things all the time, and it don't
always change them into something different.

Matter in chemical reactions is probably the reason this virtual exchange idea grew from, as elements combine into compounds the
physical properties of the new stuff was quite different from the originals properties. But this is understood now based on our
knowledge of the atoms structure and why these reaction occur.
Energy is conserved.

To have any virtual particle exchanged to explain Gravity begs the answer NO to the obvious question; "Are Gravitons repelled by
massive objects in proportion to their size?"
And how does that result in our constant weight pulling us down?
I don't accept the fluid space argument either. To many reasons to list, it just doesn't make sense. (sorry Bill)

What we are left with Buffy is just a description of the effect of Gravity.
It seems to be simply a line of force that grows stronger in proportion to the size of the objects mass. In a Black Hole (BH),
these lines have become circular. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, and this is still true in a bh. even
when the line is a circle.
To add to confusion, at the centre of any bh, the line is a point. This point is your typical mathematical location point, with no
length or width. Most people just reject this conclusion, not surprisingly there are few other explanations that make better sense.
In the weird world of BH just remember this is a region of space, not a solid object, where the force of gravity is emanating from.

My thoughts are that the real question should be: "How does matter that has no physical shape or presence, produce this gravity?
My answer is one you are not going to like. I think it is to do with information, and how this Universe can function with the rules
it has. In a bh these simply break down, so the thing is sealed off. You can't find out what is going on down in there, any more
than you can see into the future.
The gravity of a bh must continue to exist, because the past can't be changed. Matter is crushed out of existence - right? But the
laws say you can't destroy energy, only change it's form, but the thing is destroyed.
So there is a paradox. The Universes answer is to say everything that falls into a bh is 'out a time', and the rest of the Universe
is now in its past - permanently. But it leaves behind its gravity as a marker.

It may be possible to reverse this process and get something out of a BH, but that will require some patience - some 10^1000 years.
By that time... but that's another story.


Regards
Robert




"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message news:cWFAc.820$we5.630@newsfe3-gui...
I was wondering what virtual particles are? By virtual are we talking about
a "non-existing" particle (i hear laughter), or a yet to be discovered REAL
particle?

My reference to 2 universes: If the particle does not exist in our universe,
I wondered if "virtual" meant that it existed in "the other" universe.


"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message
news:5xnAc.1608$eX3.1217@newsfe5-win...
Is this a description of 2 universes, in identical locations per
particle,
interacting at the lowest level?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvv
v



?????

Double-A




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.705 / Virus Database: 461 - Release Date: 12/06/2004

From EvolBob:

I don't accept the fluid space argument
either. To many reasons to list, it just
doesn't make sense....
What we are left with Buffy is just a
description of the effect of Gravity.

Yep, we're left "with just a description of the effect of gravity."
That's what gravity's "attraction" is- an effect. And GR's 'curvature'
abstractly describes an effect. So when are ya gonna deal with
_explanations_ of the literal cause of gravity, instead of downstream
descriptions of effects?

It seems to be simply a line of force that
grows stronger in proportion to the size
of the objects mass.

In the weird world of BH just remember
this is a region of space, not a solid
object, where the force of gravity is
emanating from.

So gravity "emanates from", huh?

oc

From EvolBob:

I don't accept the fluid space argument
either. To many reasons to list, it just
doesn't make sense....
What we are left with Buffy is just a
description of the effect of Gravity.

Yep, we're left "with just a description of the effect of gravity."
That's what gravity's "attraction" is- an effect. And GR's 'curvature'
abstractly describes an effect. So when are ya gonna deal with
_explanations_ of the literal cause of gravity, instead of downstream
descriptions of effects?

It seems to be simply a line of force that
grows stronger in proportion to the size
of the objects mass.

In the weird world of BH just remember
this is a region of space, not a solid
object, where the force of gravity is
emanating from.

So gravity "emanates from", huh?

oc

From Bert:

Quantum foam as I see,and so does
Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of
"spacetime"on ultra sub-microscopic
vacuum fabric scales.

OK Bert, well let's pursue this line of thinking about frothy foam and a
"sea of virtual particles" a little further.
It's a foam of *what*, and particles of *what*? Again,
we come back to that analogy of the bubbles in the champagne and the
foam on your Bud Lite. The bubbles and the foam are properties of the
_underlying medium_ (the champagne or the Bud). Likewise the 'quantum
foam' or 'sea of particles' (virtual or otherwise) are properties of the
_underlying spatial medium_ , which is obviously of a much finer
'granularity' and higher energy-density than the ephemeral foam and
'particles' it supports.

The collider guys into building accelerators of higher and higher
energies to subdivide the atomic nucleus down into finer and finer
particles. But nobody's devoting any research into the corresponding
finer and finer 'granularity' and higher and higher energy states of the
spatial medium... the medium that _supports_ the quantum foam and the
particles.
I wonder why? Oh yeah.. there is 'no medium'. Heh.
oc

From Bert:

Quantum foam as I see,and so does
Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of
"spacetime"on ultra sub-microscopic
vacuum fabric scales.

OK Bert, well let's pursue this line of thinking about frothy foam and a
"sea of virtual particles" a little further.
It's a foam of *what*, and particles of *what*? Again,
we come back to that analogy of the bubbles in the champagne and the
foam on your Bud Lite. The bubbles and the foam are properties of the
_underlying medium_ (the champagne or the Bud). Likewise the 'quantum
foam' or 'sea of particles' (virtual or otherwise) are properties of the
_underlying spatial medium_ , which is obviously of a much finer
'granularity' and higher energy-density than the ephemeral foam and
'particles' it supports.

The collider guys into building accelerators of higher and higher
energies to subdivide the atomic nucleus down into finer and finer
particles. But nobody's devoting any research into the corresponding
finer and finer 'granularity' and higher and higher energy states of the
spatial medium... the medium that _supports_ the quantum foam and the
particles.
I wonder why? Oh yeah.. there is 'no medium'. Heh.
oc

From Bert:

Quantum foam as I see,and so does
Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of
"spacetime"on ultra sub-microscopic
vacuum fabric scales.

OK Bert, well let's pursue this line of thinking about frothy foam and a
"sea of virtual particles" a little further.
It's a foam of *what*, and particles of *what*? Again,
we come back to that analogy of the bubbles in the champagne and the
foam on your Bud Lite. The bubbles and the foam are properties of the
_underlying medium_ (the champagne or the Bud). Likewise the 'quantum
foam' or 'sea of particles' (virtual or otherwise) are properties of the
_underlying spatial medium_ , which is obviously of a much finer
'granularity' and higher energy-density than the ephemeral foam and
'particles' it supports.

The collider guys into building accelerators of higher and higher
energies to subdivide the atomic nucleus down into finer and finer
particles. But nobody's devoting any research into the corresponding
finer and finer 'granularity' and higher and higher energy states of the
spatial medium... the medium that _supports_ the quantum foam and the
particles.
I wonder why? Oh yeah.. there is 'no medium'. Heh.
oc

From Bert:

Quantum foam as I see,and so does
Brian Greene is a
frothy,writhing,tumultuous character of
"spacetime"on ultra sub-microscopic
vacuum fabric scales.

OK Bert, well let's pursue this line of thinking about frothy foam and a
"sea of virtual particles" a little further.
It's a foam of *what*, and particles of *what*? Again,
we come back to that analogy of the bubbles in the champagne and the
foam on your Bud Lite. The bubbles and the foam are properties of the
_underlying medium_ (the champagne or the Bud). Likewise the 'quantum
foam' or 'sea of particles' (virtual or otherwise) are properties of the
_underlying spatial medium_ , which is obviously of a much finer
'granularity' and higher energy-density than the ephemeral foam and
'particles' it supports.

The collider guys into building accelerators of higher and higher
energies to subdivide the atomic nucleus down into finer and finer
particles. But nobody's devoting any research into the corresponding
finer and finer 'granularity' and higher and higher energy states of the
spatial medium... the medium that _supports_ the quantum foam and the
particles.
I wonder why? Oh yeah.. there is 'no medium'. Heh.
oc

From Aunt Buffy:

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:
1. The jury is still out on the speed of
gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity
and "gravity waves" are the same thing
is mute until point 1 is resolved.

Even under the void-space model, the distinction between gravity and
"gravitational waves" should be perfectly clear (even for Jb).
'Thought experiment'- suppose you have a massive body like a neutron
star sitting alone in space, not accreting anything, just sitting there
quietly. Is it radiating 'gravitational waves'? Obviously not.
Pretty soon another neutron star comes wandering by
and gets captured, and now you have a co-orbiting pair, which *is*
radiating GWs, as appears to be the case in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar,
for instance.
If Jb still thinks gravity and GWs are the same
thing, then he's dumber than a box of rocks. oc

From Aunt Buffy:

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:
1. The jury is still out on the speed of
gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity
and "gravity waves" are the same thing
is mute until point 1 is resolved.

Even under the void-space model, the distinction between gravity and
"gravitational waves" should be perfectly clear (even for Jb).
'Thought experiment'- suppose you have a massive body like a neutron
star sitting alone in space, not accreting anything, just sitting there
quietly. Is it radiating 'gravitational waves'? Obviously not.
Pretty soon another neutron star comes wandering by
and gets captured, and now you have a co-orbiting pair, which *is*
radiating GWs, as appears to be the case in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar,
for instance.
If Jb still thinks gravity and GWs are the same
thing, then he's dumber than a box of rocks. oc

Hi oc I'm laughing because you are asking me for my thoughts instead of
going to Google. I think that is a very smart move on your part.
You now not only want QM foam,but "virtual" foam.(give me a break will
ya) I will work on that however. Lets just stay with your champagne
bubbles,and my beer foam. We are taking the same thing "bubbles" I
remember this guy Glaser(sounds a little like my last name well he
invented the bubble chamber. oc we can't see elementary particles,but
these elementary particles going through liquid hydrogen causes the
hydrogen to boil along their tracts. This leaves a wake of bubbles that
can be observed and measured.. I can't remember if I posted my thoughts
on "sonoluminescence" in this group. In a liquid very tiny bubbles are
not squeezed by the fluid,but collapse like an implosion of a supernova.
This implosion is created by sound waves. Here is the most interesting
part this bubble reaches a temp. of 185,000 F that is hotter than the
sun's surface. That is a lot of compression to get that hot(yes) Now
comes more interesting stuff it now has to expand,and this expansion
could be as fast as "c",but Einstien need not turn over in his jar for a
second would be about a million times to long for this action. These
are some of the dynamic features of foam. Let me add Glaser was
drinking beer and that is how he came up with the bubble chamber. When
I put whipped cream on my Mexican sweet potato pie I'm eating foam I
shaved this morning with foam. The waves washing along the
shoreline turn to foam. Nature uses foam in the sub-micro realm,and man
uses it everyday in his macro world. Bert It was Moby that reminded
me about the waves.