Gravity

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Dulk & double-A I'm laughing when you tell me a graviton can't get
out of a BH ,and your science is good if the graviton's speed is like
the photon,and it obeys SR,but that is very hypothetical thinking,and
that is something I will not allow when I argue from the other side of
the issue(oh ra) It would not be a BH if it was not the strongest
gravity force of any object in the universe. It would not be a BH if it
did not have the highest mass density of any object in the universe. It
would not be a BH if not for natures second greatest implosions. Once
the critical mass density was reached(at the core of the supernova) the
BH only contact to the space it was immersed in was its great force of
gravity(attraction) A black hole like the proton are two of natures
longest lasting objects. Hawking is wrong they never decay away.
Reality is M87 with its 2.6 billion solar mass BH will be just an
average BH Best to keep in mind it takes 3 trillion solar masses(or
more) for a black hole to reach its critical mass. Bert


John Wheeler supposedly coined the term "Black Hole" in 1968. But I
can remember reading about what were called "Holes in Space" back in
the mid 60's. Also people talked about "Frozen Stars". Holes in Space
were depicted with the same funnel-like warping of the fabric of space
as Black Holes are now. But one concept was mentioned that you don't
much hear anymore, the possibility that the massive Hole in Space could
become detached from the universe, the fabric of space completely
closing around it and separating from our space-time. This might
correspond with the idea of a point beyond which gravitons themselves
could not escape. At that point the Black Hole would simply disappear.
But not without consequence, I think. When you stretch a point on
that old rubber mat to the breaking point, and it snaps back, it's
going to create powerful waves the mat! That should be the source of
the most powerful gravity waves, if it happens.

Double-A

Hi Double-a The laws of the macro universe are not the laws nature has
for inside a black hole. That is why its not part of the universe we are
immersed in. GR predicted black holes and The Hubble with its powerful
eye shows what effects they can create with their great force of
gravity,but the structure of the interior of a black hole is a greater
mystery than the fabric of space. A black hole's surface can't reflect
any EM radiation. Looking under the crust of a black hole will always be
a crust to heavy to cut and lift and peek inside. We can find this to be
relative to matter and anti-matter being the ultimate energy and
possibly all other energies came out of it,and black hole are the
ultimate force which is gravity,and all the other forces came out of it.
In my mind it fits. That begs the question. Am I making it fit? I would
like to add Since we can make solid stable hydrogen in a lab. I think
this structure might give a small clue(very small) to the interior of a
black hole. Well a "what if" just came to mind. What if a
singularity only contained the forces,and nature uses these forces like
our body cells use DNA. Could I go with this Forces+ space
energy = Universe

Myself I would not be in a rush
to do away with a gravity particle(graviton).
That tiny realm needs quantum gravity.

Yes in Quantum mechanics it is needed. But in cosmology, study of the large
you would use curved space/time to explain gravity. But on the other hand,
if you replace the sun a bit we would notice that after 7,5 minutes and
therefor gravitons would be a good explanation to me.

And indeed what you tell about magnets that is not created by the force of
gravity. So maybe gravitons ans curved/space time have differnt functions.
or they are related to each other but do not fully mean the same. So quantum
mechanics was incomplete without the graviton and cosmology without quantum
mechanics. But turn them both together gives us paradoxical statements like
for example no one could tell me if it is the graviton or the curved/space
time. and that gravitons could not escape a blackhole or blackholes do not
exist at all or gravitons do not exist. I would think that someone who
brought up this idea to combine would at least have thought about this
paradox. A theory that contradicts is worth nothing.

The problem is that both field do work fine. Quantum mechanics has proofed
it field but so does General Relativity. But put them together gives a lot
of problems, like I stated earlier. Maybe there is more architecture in
nature. I might be wrong but to me it looks like current physics has one
layer. everyone want to unify the nature. But why not have a more layered
archtecture. Computers and the internet tcp/ip stack has a pretty nice
layered architecture. every layer passes its data to the next layer. Maybe
god is like a computer scientist.
We want to explain gravity for example with just one simple idea, or general
relativity or gravitons or whatever.

Piet den Dulk,
Netherlands



"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Piet den Dulk (of the Netherlands.) Myself I would not be in a rush
to do away with a gravity particle(graviton).The reason is on NOVA Brian
Greene used virtual photons to show how magnetisim attracts. Would you
use curved space to bring two magnets together? I think not. The micro
QM realm makes great use of attraction. Dulk GR does not fit in the
micro realm That tiny realm needs quantum gravity. Einstien could see
that. Double-A has found something for us to argue about. He thinks
like nightbat that black holes don't exist,and I go with the picture of
Cygnus X-1,and the core of the giant elliptical galaxy M87 Seeing is
believing especially if its done with the eye of the Hubble. Bert

Maybe not curved space to to bring two magnets together, but it did
occur to me after that program that if gravity is not a force, no
graviton needed, then what if, all forces are an illusion and like
gravity could be explained by another way without the need of messenger
particles. Just a what if Bert ;-)

Yes maybe a graviton isn't a fundamental force. But I don't think you could
deny the other three forces. Quantum Mechanics has proofed practical
applications. And it gives a nice explanation how light would work for
example. I'm just very bothered with the the contradiction about gravitons
and curved space/time. And I don't know if both represent the same or
interact with each other. Or both are just different theories. yes but the
graviton was introduced just for the fact to combine the two. Even if I
study newtonian and General Relativity I would not get my answer with the
study of both as the fact that my question has to to with the combination.

Piet den Dulk,
Netherlands






"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:28:55 -0400
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Hi Piet den Dulk (of the Netherlands.) Myself I would not be in a rush
to do away with a gravity particle(graviton).The reason is on NOVA
Brian Greene used virtual photons to show how magnetisim attracts.
Would you use curved space to bring two magnets together? I think not.
The micro QM realm makes great use of attraction. Dulk GR does not fit
in the micro realm That tiny realm needs quantum gravity. Einstien
could see that. Double-A has found something for us to argue about.
He thinks like nightbat that black holes don't exist,and I go with the
picture of Cygnus X-1,and the core of the giant elliptical galaxy M87
Seeing is believing especially if its done with the eye of the Hubble.
Bert

Maybe not curved space to to bring two magnets together, but it did
occur to me after that program that if gravity is not a force, no
graviton needed, then what if, all forces are an illusion and like
gravity could be explained by another way without the need of messenger
particles. Just a what if Bert ;-)

Is there a possibility that gravitons would travel faster then light? and
what would make such assumption? And if so do they travel in the complex
plane (imaginary time)?


Hawking is wrong they never decay away.

Yes but didn't Hawkin initially thought that blackholes would last forever.
He dit a bet with another scientist, but later he disproofed his own idea
and said he was wrong and told that it a blackhole slowly decades with his
introduction of hawking radiation.

but what is Critical Mass?

Piet


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Dulk & double-A I'm laughing when you tell me a graviton can't get
out of a BH ,and your science is good if the graviton's speed is like
the photon,and it obeys SR,but that is very hypothetical thinking,and
that is something I will not allow when I argue from the other side of
the issue(oh ra) It would not be a BH if it was not the strongest
gravity force of any object in the universe. It would not be a BH if it
did not have the highest mass density of any object in the universe. It
would not be a BH if not for natures second greatest implosions. Once
the critical mass density was reached(at the core of the supernova) the
BH only contact to the space it was immersed in was its great force of
gravity(attraction) A black hole like the proton are two of natures
longest lasting objects. Hawking is wrong they never decay away.
Reality is M87 with its 2.6 billion solar mass BH will be just an
average BH Best to keep in mind it takes 3 trillion solar masses(or
more) for a black hole to reach its critical mass. Bert

hmm don't now how to call the law in english. I mean the law of conserving
engery. That energy cannot get lost from the universe.

But one concept was mentioned that you don't
much hear anymore, the possibility that the massive Hole in Space could
become detached from the universe, the fabric of space completely
closing around it and separating from our space-time.

According to that law I mentioned that seperation from the universe doesn't
make any sense. Since stated that energy thus also matter cannot simple
dissapear. And according to that law ther is a fixed ammount of total matter
and energy in the universe.

Piet den Dulk,
Netherlands

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...


G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Dulk & double-A I'm laughing when you tell me a graviton can't get
out of a BH ,and your science is good if the graviton's speed is like
the photon,and it obeys SR,but that is very hypothetical thinking,and
that is something I will not allow when I argue from the other side of
the issue(oh ra) It would not be a BH if it was not the strongest
gravity force of any object in the universe. It would not be a BH if it
did not have the highest mass density of any object in the universe. It
would not be a BH if not for natures second greatest implosions. Once
the critical mass density was reached(at the core of the supernova) the
BH only contact to the space it was immersed in was its great force of
gravity(attraction) A black hole like the proton are two of natures
longest lasting objects. Hawking is wrong they never decay away.
Reality is M87 with its 2.6 billion solar mass BH will be just an
average BH Best to keep in mind it takes 3 trillion solar masses(or
more) for a black hole to reach its critical mass. Bert


John Wheeler supposedly coined the term "Black Hole" in 1968. But I
can remember reading about what were called "Holes in Space" back in
the mid 60's. Also people talked about "Frozen Stars". Holes in Space
were depicted with the same funnel-like warping of the fabric of space
as Black Holes are now. But one concept was mentioned that you don't
much hear anymore, the possibility that the massive Hole in Space could
become detached from the universe, the fabric of space completely
closing around it and separating from our space-time. This might
correspond with the idea of a point beyond which gravitons themselves
could not escape. At that point the Black Hole would simply disappear.
But not without consequence, I think. When you stretch a point on
that old rubber mat to the breaking point, and it snaps back, it's
going to create powerful waves the mat! That should be the source of
the most powerful gravity waves, if it happens.

Double-A

Piet den Dulk wrote:
Maybe not curved space to to bring two magnets together, but it did
occur to me after that program that if gravity is not a force, no
graviton needed, then what if, all forces are an illusion and like
gravity could be explained by another way without the need of messenger
particles. Just a what if Bert ;-)

Yes maybe a graviton isn't a fundamental force. But I don't think you could
deny the other three forces. Quantum Mechanics has proofed practical
applications. And it gives a nice explanation how light would work for
example. I'm just very bothered with the the contradiction about gravitons
and curved space/time. And I don't know if both represent the same or
interact with each other. Or both are just different theories. yes but the
graviton was introduced just for the fact to combine the two. Even if I
study newtonian and General Relativity I would not get my answer with the
study of both as the fact that my question has to to with the combination.

Piet den Dulk,
Netherlands


But isn't it wonderful that everything hasn't been soloved? Isn't it
great that there are still great acconplishments waiting to be made as
to what theory is correct, by new people such as you entering the
field? Back around 1900, top scientists were talking as though all of
the universe's mysteries had already been solved. How boring! Then
Einstein came along and stirred things up a bit. And it's been
exciting eversince.

Don't look for any pat answers. No one yet knows for sure which
theories are correct. That leaves a lot of room for discussion. Isn't
that great?

Double-A

Piet den Dulk wrote:
Is there a possibility that gravitons would travel faster then light? and
what would make such assumption? And if so do they travel in the complex
plane (imaginary time)?
[snip]


One plausible solution is that the gravitons that cause the force of
gravity are virtual particles, just as the photons that cause the force
of electrical attraction are virtual pariticles. As virtual particles
the gravitons would not be subject to their own force.

Double-A

Piet den Dulk wrote:
hmm don't now how to call the law in english. I mean the law of conserving
engery. That energy cannot get lost from the universe.

But one concept was mentioned that you don't
much hear anymore, the possibility that the massive Hole in Space could
become detached from the universe, the fabric of space completely
closing around it and separating from our space-time.

According to that law I mentioned that seperation from the universe doesn't
make any sense. Since stated that energy thus also matter cannot simple
dissapear. And according to that law ther is a fixed ammount of total matter
and energy in the universe.

Piet den Dulk,
Netherlands


These so called laws of science can break down under extreme
conditions. The law of conservation of matter broke down when atomic
energy was discovered. If black holes exist, they are the most extreme
of conditions. Even the law of the conservation of energy could
conceivably break down in that case.

Double-A

Hi ray That is the best part of what if. Its not a case of right or
wrong or not being in Google it can just be a thought that might lead to
other thoughts that might be over looked. Ray reality is if you just
lean against a wall you are creating a force. Bert