Quasar jet stream data can Black holes create space time?

On Nov 4, 1:08*pm, Double-A wrote:

Space-time flows into black holes ('River Model).


http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/co.../oh/trajr.html

Yeah, This is a brief of the article you posted here about 3 years ago
as you recall-

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0411/0411060v2.pdf

whereupon it was cussed and dis-cussed at great length. The River
model is an updated version of the old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric
from the 1920s, now revisited to include black holes. But the model
has always carried a huge caveat-- it's an allegorical or 'heuristic'
teaching tool; nothing is *really* flowing and accelerating. The
allegorical "River" is in motion relative to the fixed background
space. The model has to conform to the sitting paradigm that there is
"no medium". Whereas when the reality of the spatial medium is
recognized, the "fixed background" itself is literally flowing and
accelerating into the gravitator.

On Nov 5, 7:20*am, jughead wrote:
On Nov 4, 1:08*pm, Double-A wrote:



Space-time flows into black holes ('River Model).

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/co.../oh/trajr.html

Yeah, This is a brief of the article you posted here about 3 years ago
as you recall-

*http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0411/0411060v2.pdf

whereupon it was cussed and dis-cussed at great length. The River
model is an updated version of the old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric
from the 1920s, now revisited to include black holes. But the model
has always carried a huge caveat-- it's an allegorical or 'heuristic'
teaching tool; nothing is *really* flowing and accelerating. The
allegorical "River" is in motion relative to the fixed background
space. The model has to conform to the sitting paradigm that there is
"no medium". Whereas when the reality of the spatial medium is
recognized, the "fixed background" itself is literally flowing and
accelerating into the gravitator.


It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it
being just an "allegory"!

Double-A

On Nov 5, 9:08*am, Double-A wrote:

It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it
being just an "allegory"!

Bingo! Or just the bookeeping. Excerpting from a quote by Michio Kaku,
quoting Einstein (emphasis mine):

"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple
physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he
said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the
theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical
picture; MATH IS NOTHING BUT BOOKEEPING."

oc

On Nov 5, 9:08*am, Double-A wrote:

It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it
being just an "allegory"!

Bingo! Or just the bookeeping. Excerpting from a quote by Michio Kaku,
quoting Einstein (emphasis mine):

"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple
physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he
said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the
theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical
picture; MATH IS NOTHING BUT BOOKEEPING."

oc

On Nov 5, 4:23*pm, Saul Levy wrote:

It's NOT BOOkeeping!

So hoo in the hell aksed you???

On Nov 5, 10:29*pm, Saul Levy wrote:

You LIKE being a RETARD, don't you?

Better'n bein' a petard..