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

!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361  
Old August 2nd 04, 10:33 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message...
. rogers.com...

Painius wrote:

Suit yourself...


State for everyone here without beating around the bush. Does gravity
demonstrate a tidal force or not?


Quid pro quo...

....you answer mine, then i'll answer yours.

you said--

The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity'
is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon
limited understanding of the spaceship universe.


I asked you to expound.

Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo...

If not, then fly away, flit flit flit.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth


  #362  
Old August 2nd 04, 11:05 PM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Painius wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message...
. rogers.com...

Painius wrote:

Suit yourself...


State for everyone here without beating around the bush. Does gravity
demonstrate a tidal force or not?



Quid pro quo...

...you answer mine, then i'll answer yours.

you said--


The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity'
is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon
limited understanding of the spaceship universe.



I asked you to expound.


Our universe meaning our galaxy is just another cog in a very big wheel.
In other words our universe is the bottom of all the universes. We
are on the bottom, so how can we understand the higher dimensions
without seeing them from above? We can't. Thus our math is more of a
retrograde or back-engineering ideology. We blow up particles in order
to understand them for example. Each galaxy is an energy 'molecule'
that has not only temperature constants, but also gravitity and electron
constants. Gravity is a super potentional electromagnetic force and no
physicist will contradict that. But gravity is just another constant
among many. Physicists must begin to use a language of color in order
to comprehend the many electromagnetic spectrums. This just means that
the math needs updating, not discarding. Until this is accomplished, I
guess we will forever have no explanation for why stars appear in only
invisible spectrums. And the data received from our super telescopes
will also remain a mystery.

The Higher Intelligence combine known frequencies of optical and radio
wavelengths to communicate throughout the galaxy. There methods of
interstellar communication are also reciprical in that the interstellar
medium is used for both receiving and sending signals. In fact we have
already seen those frequencies, we just don't understand the science in
order to decode those signals for example. Another example I could
'prove' is how when we look at Sagittarius A* and resolve the black hole
core in the center of the Milky Way, we aren't really seeing the black
hole, but the 'memory' of the black hole, because Sag A* is a mirror
also known as a 'recorder cell' which is also magnetic in nature. I
think from a purely philosophical point of view that gravity is a
'mirror' and anti-gravitational forces must employ a sets of pulsed
frequencies as a 'mirror' in order overcome gravity. Kind of like using
radiations of color and sound to overcome the direction of wavelengths
and even to overcome magnetic resistance spanning electromagnetic sinks
or points of gravitational collapse. Our science currently tackles
those forces head on when we see for example the Space Shuttle leaving
orbit and reentering the earth's gravity pull. The surface heats up and
would destroy the vehicle in an instant without the protective heat
shielding. This 'attitude' (no pun intended) is no different than
smashing atoms in order to see what the constituent nature is.

I never once in my entire life said the math used is complete crap, just
unique forms of crap. Thus I see no problem with gravity waves also
being connected with a tidal force. In other words gravity waves must
have a center, because they move in chiral fashion - that is left handed
and right handed motions. This could account for the process of low and
high tides. Gravity is what causes the human form to have two eyes, two
ears, a left and right hemisphere to the brain for example, and gravity
in fact explains why DNA is a double helix. So even though the universe
may have begun as a singularity, it ultimately 'spiraled' through the
forces of chiral gravity. Take a look at all the galaxies resolved
through our telescopes, and for the most part they all demonstrate
'twin' sides, much in resemblance to the out-stretched arms of an eagle.
It is the forces of electromagnetic waves (the light cone) which gives
the illusion of three (3) dimensionality.

This shows us the direction our science must take in order to make a
great leap forward in to a whole new 'space' age.



Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo...

If not, then fly away, flit flit flit.


Truly horrendous character to quote from.



happy days and...
starry starry nights!


  #363  
Old August 4th 04, 06:19 AM
Odysseus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Painius wrote:

[snip]

At first, this seems like good reason to believe that gravity
is still only a pull force, and that there is no flowing-space
field to be distorted by radiation and particle pressures
from our Sun.

To explain why this is not so, we must remember that these
flowing-space fields are postulated to be sub-Planck in
lambda/wavelength. Therefore their particle-natures would
be far more prominent than their wave-natures. So these
specialized tiny bundles of energy, which i believe to be the
elusive gravitons, are energetic enough *not* to be affected
by the lower-energy radiation photons and particles of the
Solar wind.

Odysseus, i would be more than honored by your thoughts
on this as well as those you may have regarding astronomical
aberration effects on gravitons.

I have no particular insights on this question; I don't understand
the "Standard Model" well enough as it is, let alone being able to
extend it into the 'sub-Planck realm'. As for gravitons, I find the
warped-spacetime image of gravity easier to visualize (in a reduced
number of dimensions) than that involving exchanges of messenger
particles, so I won't be of much help there either.

My main question about the flowing-space ideas under discussion takes
a somewhat different tack: if "space" is flowing, what is it flowing
in or through?

--
Odysseus
  #364  
Old August 4th 04, 01:23 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you, Mad, for expounding...

"Mad Scientist" wrote...

The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity'
is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon
limited understanding of the spaceship universe.


Our universe meaning our galaxy is just another cog in a very big wheel.
In other words our universe is the bottom of all the universes. We
are on the bottom, so how can we understand the higher dimensions
without seeing them from above? We can't. Thus our math is more of a
retrograde or back-engineering ideology. We blow up particles in order
to understand them for example. Each galaxy is an energy 'molecule'
that has not only temperature constants, but also gravitity and electron
constants. Gravity is a super potentional electromagnetic force


I agree with this. If you have been following the articles about
flowing space models, then you know that i consider the graviton
to be a specialized photon, very tiny yet chock full of energy. It
is the flow of gravitons which makes up space itself.

and no physicist will contradict that. But gravity is just another

constant
among many. Physicists must begin to use a language of color in order
to comprehend the many electromagnetic spectrums. This just means that
the math needs updating, not discarding. Until this is accomplished, I
guess we will forever have no explanation for why stars appear in only
invisible spectrums.


This i do not understand. Why do you say "only invisible" when
most of the stars we see with our eyes, our visible sensors?

And the data received from our super telescopes
will also remain a mystery.

The Higher Intelligence combine known frequencies of optical and radio
wavelengths to communicate throughout the galaxy. There methods of
interstellar communication are also reciprical in that the interstellar
medium is used for both receiving and sending signals. In fact we have
already seen those frequencies, we just don't understand the science in
order to decode those signals for example.


I've often wondered about that.

Another example I could
'prove' is how when we look at Sagittarius A* and resolve the black hole
core in the center of the Milky Way, we aren't really seeing the black
hole, but the 'memory' of the black hole, because Sag A* is a mirror
also known as a 'recorder cell' which is also magnetic in nature.


How could you 'prove' this?

I think from a purely philosophical point of view that gravity is a
'mirror' and anti-gravitational forces must employ a sets of pulsed
frequencies as a 'mirror' in order overcome gravity. Kind of like using
radiations of color and sound to overcome the direction of wavelengths
and even to overcome magnetic resistance spanning electromagnetic sinks
or points of gravitational collapse. Our science currently tackles
those forces head on when we see for example the Space Shuttle leaving
orbit and reentering the earth's gravity pull. The surface heats up and
would destroy the vehicle in an instant without the protective heat
shielding. This 'attitude' (no pun intended) is no different than
smashing atoms in order to see what the constituent nature is.

I never once in my entire life said the math used is complete crap, just
unique forms of crap. Thus I see no problem with gravity waves also
being connected with a tidal force. In other words gravity waves must
have a center, because they move in chiral fashion - that is left handed
and right handed motions. This could account for the process of low and
high tides. Gravity is what causes the human form to have two eyes, two
ears, a left and right hemisphere to the brain for example, and gravity
in fact explains why DNA is a double helix. So even though the universe
may have begun as a singularity, it ultimately 'spiraled' through the
forces of chiral gravity. Take a look at all the galaxies resolved
through our telescopes, and for the most part they all demonstrate
'twin' sides, much in resemblance to the out-stretched arms of an eagle.
It is the forces of electromagnetic waves (the light cone) which gives
the illusion of three (3) dimensionality.

This shows us the direction our science must take in order to make a
great leap forward in to a whole new 'space' age.


Science could certainly *use* a great leap or two!

Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo...

If not, then fly away, flit flit flit.


Truly horrendous character to quote from.


Clarice? Is that you?
You've got mail... goody goody.
Byezie byezie... see you around.

(Anthony Hopkins "in character" on AOL)

--
happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Paine


  #365  
Old August 4th 04, 09:50 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

I have no particular insights on this question; I don't understand
the "Standard Model" well enough as it is, let alone being able to
extend it into the 'sub-Planck realm'. As for gravitons, I find the
warped-spacetime image of gravity easier to visualize (in a reduced
number of dimensions) than that involving exchanges of messenger
particles, so I won't be of much help there either.


Odysseus, thank you for this. I've been reading your articles
here for a long time and have spent long hours thinking about
and trying to understand many of the things you write about.
Perhaps, as in the past, you and i can grab some insights as a
result of discussion.

My main question about the flowing-space ideas under discussion takes
a somewhat different tack: if "space" is flowing, what is it flowing
in or through?

--
Odysseus


At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space
is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space
itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then
almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts...

1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the
Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing
into and through,

2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is
unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver.
We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as
millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from
their source to their ultimate destination.

We can see what the water flows into and through, however i
am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your
question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance
that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is,
we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our
Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist
for a long time by our standards.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth


  #366  
Old August 5th 04, 05:24 AM
Odysseus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Painius wrote:

At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space
is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space
itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then
almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts...

1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the
Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing
into and through,

Not necessarily, I don't think. I can just as easily picture our
spacetime as self-contained; whatever (if anything) the surrounding
'hypospace' may consist of could just as well be excluded from the
universe as pervade it. I should think that anything outside the
universe is unknowable, pretty much by definition, so the only
possible answers to the question of what surrounds it would be better
classified as metaphysical speculation than as science. Therefore it
might be more productive to focus on questions that are decidable, at
least in principle.

2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is
unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver.
We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as
millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from
their source to their ultimate destination.

We can see what the water flows into and through, however i
am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your
question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance
that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is,
we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our
Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist
for a long time by our standards.


I do think that much of the problem has to do with the inadequacy of
our senses for dealing with the aspects of the world whose scale is
much greater or smaller than ours. Marvellous though they may be, our
faculties evolved in an environment wherein cosmological and quantum
considerations are irrelevant, and it's only in the most recent 0.01%
of our existence as a species that we -- actually a pretty small
fraction of the population -- have developed a material and
intellectual culture sufficient to begin exploring these realms. Our
intuition balks at absorbing the implications of what abstract models
and indirect observations tell us, whether the seeming unreality
concerns wave-particle duality on the smallest scales, or a finite
but boundless, multidimensional manifold on the largest. It's all too
easy to seize on analogies from direct experience without recognizing
that they're only suggestive 'props' to understanding, and that they
can't be stretched very far without leading to false inferences.

Although this may all sound rather pessimistic, I treasure the sense
of awe that contemplating these questions can evoke, and the strange
beauty of the mathematical language that has been so successful at
describing them (if not at satisfactorily 'bringing them home'). I
like to think that with such inspiration it's possible for anyone to
gain some insight into what really goes on, glimpsed "through a glass
darkly" though it may be. And I believe that exchanges of ideas with
others -- at whatever level -- can help any of us develop a better
understanding, as long as we recognize that those who have struggled
with the issues will have found different routes through them; as in
the story of the blind men and the elephant, each of us can benefit
from trying to take in others' perspectives.

--
Odysseus
  #367  
Old August 7th 04, 03:02 AM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space
is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space
itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then
almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts...

1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the
Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing
into and through,


Not necessarily, I don't think. I can just as easily picture our
spacetime as self-contained; whatever (if anything) the surrounding
'hypospace' may consist of could just as well be excluded from the
universe as pervade it. I should think that anything outside the
universe is unknowable, pretty much by definition, so the only
possible answers to the question of what surrounds it would be better
classified as metaphysical speculation than as science. Therefore it
might be more productive to focus on questions that are decidable, at
least in principle.


Yes, my wording was too... arrogant?... "It is what space *might*
be flowing into and/or through." And perhaps the road to the large
answers is paved with questions that are decidable.

Do you think that the questions of gravity and the understanding
of it using both relativity *and* quantum physics are decidable?

2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is
unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver.
We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as
millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from
their source to their ultimate destination.

We can see what the water flows into and through, however i
am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your
question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance
that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is,
we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our
Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist
for a long time by our standards.


I do think that much of the problem has to do with the inadequacy of
our senses for dealing with the aspects of the world whose scale is
much greater or smaller than ours. Marvellous though they may be, our
faculties evolved in an environment wherein cosmological and quantum
considerations are irrelevant, and it's only in the most recent 0.01%
of our existence as a species that we -- actually a pretty small
fraction of the population -- have developed a material and
intellectual culture sufficient to begin exploring these realms. Our
intuition balks at absorbing the implications of what abstract models
and indirect observations tell us, whether the seeming unreality
concerns wave-particle duality on the smallest scales, or a finite
but boundless, multidimensional manifold on the largest. It's all too
easy to seize on analogies from direct experience without recognizing
that they're only suggestive 'props' to understanding, and that they
can't be stretched very far without leading to false inferences.


And yet it is never easy to step out from our direct experiences
and to use our imaginations. All too often, whether something is
true or not, if it be the result of our imaginings then it is sluffed off
as metaphysical speculation. Intuition, a "nose for news," our
feelings and our speculations are trustworthy only to the extent
that they have been successful in the past.

Although this may all sound rather pessimistic, I treasure the sense
of awe that contemplating these questions can evoke, and the strange
beauty of the mathematical language that has been so successful at
describing them (if not at satisfactorily 'bringing them home'). I
like to think that with such inspiration it's possible for anyone to
gain some insight into what really goes on, glimpsed "through a glass
darkly" though it may be. And I believe that exchanges of ideas with
others -- at whatever level -- can help any of us develop a better
understanding, as long as we recognize that those who have struggled
with the issues will have found different routes through them; as in
the story of the blind men and the elephant, each of us can benefit
from trying to take in others' perspectives.

--
Odysseus


I share your sense of awe, and i did not take anything you said
as pessimistic, but realistic. I sometimes like to see a mind soar,
but sooner or later comes the time for landing and for facing
reality. That which we bring back with us from our soarings and
which stands the tests of reality, serves to raise our levels of
consciousness. It seems truly... magical!

Paine


 




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
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole flamestar Science 2 December 13th 03 12:12 AM
information can leave a black hole James Briggs Science 0 December 6th 03 02:15 AM
Chandra 'Hears' A Black Hole Ron Baalke Misc 30 October 4th 03 06:22 PM
Black hole mass-sigma correlation Hans Aberg Research 44 October 1st 03 11:39 PM
Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion? Klaatu Amateur Astronomy 12 September 21st 03 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 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.