|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
S.S,Shasty When an event horizon has formed a singularity is formed
at the blackhole's core. As the mass density of the blackhole increases over billions and billions of years,and the blackhole spin also increases proportionally to its mass,and visa versa. Then comes a spacetime where the blackhole's interior can't hold back its event horizon and it collapses into the exact center of its core. This causes a devastating space rupture,as the singularity is exposed to spacetime. This event I call a mini-bang and created all there is including us. The original colossal big bang was created almost(not quite) the same way it took place trillions of LY ago. Bert PS Much of this comes out of my "Spin is in theory" Einstien could live with these thoughts |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
From OG:
You are failing to give a convincing reason for adopting their (Lindner, Warren et als') model...... I wonder why IF you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't at all interested in providing testable proof. Testable proof ??!! The mechanism is self-evident and self-explanatory. By its behavior and bountiful effects, the mechanism *appears* to be an accelerating, pressure driven flow toward a center of mass, in an omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' pattern. Unless you are utterly inculcated with the 'no medium' premise, what's more pragmatic than simply accepting the mechanism for what it appears to be and behaves as? It frees you from the need for abstractions like 'curvature of space' which carries its own conundrum of "if there is no medium, how can it curve?". Then there's the 'roach motel' objection of "where does the 'stuff' go once ingested?" Well, where did the BB 'come from'? You readily accept the imponderability of the pre-BB state, do you not? oc |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: You are failing to give a convincing reason for adopting their (Lindner, Warren et als') model...... I wonder why IF you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't at all interested in providing testable proof. Testable proof ??!! The mechanism is self-evident and self-explanatory. By its behavior and bountiful effects, the mechanism *appears* to be an accelerating, pressure driven flow toward a center of mass, in an omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' pattern. Unless you are utterly inculcated with the 'no medium' premise, what's more pragmatic than simply accepting the mechanism for what it appears to be and behaves as? It frees you from the need for abstractions like 'curvature of space' which carries its own conundrum of "if there is no medium, how can it curve?". Then there's the 'roach motel' objection of "where does the 'stuff' go once ingested?" Well, where did the BB 'come from'? You readily accept the imponderability of the pre-BB state, do you not? oc So you reject the scientific model. Fine, your choice. Go back to your radios. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... OG, i've no doubt your Dad's a fine chap, but did he ever tell you your preoccupation with minutiae, details and particulars is preventing you from simply kicking back and seeing the overview, the big picture? Sorta like focusing in on the just the rivets and girders of the Eiffel Tower without ever backing off and seeing the Tower. Tried the same analogy with Zinni and the Statue of Liberty, with null result.g oc Science _is_ rigourous - your delusions simply don't stand up to inspection. Goodnight. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
To OG:
G'night 'ol chap. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... From Painius: The nuclear "strong force" is believed to exist solely to bond together all those positively charged protons, thereby overcoming the effects of the electrical repulsion of these charges. Moreover, scientists at present believe that the strong force has absolutely no influence out beyond the confines of the atomic nucleus. The key term is "_believed_ not to exist outside the nucleus". Yet what is magnetism if not the spatial inflow into the _poles_ of the proton.. into the seat of the strong nuclear force within? Seems sorta like a no brainer. Magnetism's 'sign', i.e., its 'N' and 'S' polarity, is determined by spin direction of the inflow. I agree wholeheartedly with this. My disagreement lies with gravity *also* being associated with the strong force. Neither you nor Wolter seem to go along with the quantum need for the Weak Nuclear Force. It is needed for several reasons, and because of this, scientists are convinced that there indeed *is* a weak nuclear force. And for me the no-brainer has always been that electromagnetic force is associated with the strong nuclear force and that gravity is connected with the weak nuclear force. Since science does not consider the strong nuclear force as being an inverse square force, science of course does not accept these associations. . . . And it would seem to be a simple matter to show this connection using mathematics. And what if we were operating under the Roman numeral system? Would we be forever barred and banned from understanding unification? Seems more like the 'primacy of math' fixation is barring understanding. And yet, we are *not* operating under the Roman numeral system. You are not operating under *any* system of mathematics, and that's the rub. To make sure we understand each other, i want you to know that after many months of studying Wolter's ideas, i happen to see a lot of good in them. I am *not* talking about using math to understand your ideas. Yes, there have been times when math was the path to understanding. We all seem to remember a time when, under Newton, there were two separate laws of conservation for mass and for energy. Then along came the old man and, using math, was able to show the equivalency of mass and energy. So this is a classic case where math was instrumental in understanding a new idea. Many other times in the history of science, the understanding of an idea came *before* the math, such as in your case. Ptolemy, for example was certain that everything in the sky revolved around the Earth. He *understood* this "fact" first, and then used math to "confirm" the idea. And Ptolemy's math stood up to scientific scrutiny for a long, long time. All too often this has been the case. We understand something, and then use math to prove that what we understand is true. And all too often, as in the case of Ptolemy, later students use math to refute the earlier understanding and to bring the world to a better understanding of how the universe works. So hopefully you can see why others may be turned off by the idea of understanding something without the aid of the scientifically universal usage of math to confirm or refute the understanding. I forget whether it was John or OG who implied it, but your dedication to undermining the need for math smacks of your fear that Wolter's ideas would be refuted if math were applied to them. Though i believe that many of Wolter's ideas would be confirmed if math were to be applied to them. You may call it the "primacy of math" and shun it if you wish, but math, primal or not, is the Universal Scientific Language or tool used *not* just to understand an idea, but also to confirm or deny it. Without math, you and Wolter's ideas will never go any farther than this. The only other possibility would be that someone else will apply the math and take credit for Wolter's confirmed ideas. This seems to be what you want to happen. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Everytime you listen to a song, When you hear a voice who likes to sing How your lovin' eyes are everything, Think of me just singin' right along. Close your eyes and listen carefully, Hear me sing my love forever true, Every word of my love meant for you, Every song a sing-a-long from me. Paine Ellsworth |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
'Lo Paine
Appreciate the feedback. As was emphasized to you previously on the 'primacy of math fixation', the argument is not with the application of math, but with the application of math _to a flawed premise_. The flawed premise in this case is the void-space paradigm(VSP), the axiom that space is functionally void-- which automatically precludes the existance of a medium amenable to expansion, compression, and flow. OG stipulates that science be "rigourous". Well Uncle Albert rigourously applied math for his last 30 years to the unification of gravity. And he came up zip. Why? Because his math, perfect as it was, was predicated on the VSP, which prohibits a dynamic flowing medium. As far as Wolter's connecting gravity and the strong force, exactly the same thing was echoed years later by Lindner and Warren, with Lindner calling it the 'hadronic flow' at the level where the flow enters the nucleus. Wolter saw electroweak as operating entirely within the nucleus, and not participating _directly_ in spatial flows 'out here' in the spacetime domain. Thus EW was not included in his Unified Field of Spatial Flows. EW is certainly real as you point out, and we have clear evidence of it in radioactive decay ejecta from 'down in the hole' (sorta like fulmanating Drano ejectag). Since science does not consider the strong nuclear force as being an inverse square force, science of course does not accept these associations. Science does not accept the existance of a flowing spatial medoum. That's the rub. ...i believe that many of Wolter's ideas would be confirmed if math were to be applied to them. Wolter stated that the math is already in place in the equations of SR and GR and that no further math is needed. Once the reality of the expansible/ compressible/ flowing medium is recognized, the math will extrapolate directly to it. And G.U. will follow as the unsolicited, fortuitous spinoff. The only other possibility would be that someone else will apply the math and take credit for Wolter's confirmed ideas. This seems to be what you want to happen. 'Twon't never happen under the VSP. As exemplified by OG, Zinni, Scott and crew, the 'no medium' doctrine is here to stay for the forseeable future. And that's fine. That is their truth, their reality. As Wolter would say, it's their referance frame which is to be respected as long as they are happy with it. oc |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Painius Thinking about the strong nuclear force that holds protons
together even though they would like to push apart by their like charges,this strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling harder as particles move further away from each other. It seems to fit with my convex,concave theory that Einstien thinking would go with Bert |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Hi Painius Thinking about the strong nuclear force that holds protons together even though they would like to push apart by their like charges,this strong force could obey the inverse square law,by pulling harder as particles move further away from each other. It seems to fit with my convex,concave theory that Einstien thinking would go with Bert Bert, do you have any clue why it's called an 'inverse square' law? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OG Yes I do know how the inverse square law works. Have a post right
here in our news group. Sorry if you don't know how it works so read,ask David or go to Google. You would never believe me(YES) Bert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 01:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |