!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

Getting the actual theory being referred
to wrong is more than a typo.

You're right, John. It was a really stupid screwup from not proofreading
the damn thing. Thanks.

Hey, want to call a truce?

oc

A blackhole has to be a vortex in the fabric of space. It is impossible
for me to visualize it any other way. It would create to many problems
seeing it with the features of a neutron star. Gravity has squeezed a
blackhole out of the macro universe. It has no volume,and that has to
tell you something. A singularity and a blackhole are given two
different names,but in reality one name is all that is needed,and that
would be "singularity" Bert

A blackhole has to be a vortex in the fabric of space. It is impossible
for me to visualize it any other way. It would create to many problems
seeing it with the features of a neutron star. Gravity has squeezed a
blackhole out of the macro universe. It has no volume,and that has to
tell you something. A singularity and a blackhole are given two
different names,but in reality one name is all that is needed,and that
would be "singularity" Bert

From OG:

I don't know why you've mentioned
Einstein here. I thought you rejected the
idea of curving space. Are you saying he
is right after all? Also note that Einstein
is talking about the velocity of light, not
it's speed. Yeah, the velocity changes,
but that's inevitable if the direction
changes.

You are right. It was a very, VERY stupid screwup and inexcusable. It
stemmed from failure to note the difference between 'speed' and
'velocity', and usage of 'SR" when GR was intended. Utterly, utterly
stupid and sloppy, and a valuable lesson to PROOFREAD before hitting
'Send'. And thank you, Zinni.

Re. the cosmological density gradient, you wrote,

I can see why the light would lose speed, but I can't see why this
would cause a
loss of amplitude, rather than
wavelength.

I know you don't like analogies, but think about a comparison with air.
Pressure/density at sea level is higher than at say, 40,000 feet. Sound
originating in a region of high density/pressure is naturally going to
lose speed and amplitude as it propagates into a region of lower
density/pressure. Note that the frequency remains unchanged.
Light from the most distant 1a SN remains unchanged in
redshift, but 'dimmer than it should be'. This of course has been
interpreted as further evidence of ever-accelerating expansion of the
universe, since it makes no allowance for a cosmological density
gradient.

You equate the pressure and the density
- are these in a linear relationship?

Yes. In the context under discussion, the term should actually be
'pressure/density' or 'density/pressure'.

I thought concentrated mass caused the
pressure/density to reduce - you know
like it does near the Sun and the Earth.
Please explain the difference.

I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.
Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow. Inflow into gravitating masses is the reverse of outflow from
the BB event. H.C.Warren says the same thing in his thesis, where he
writes, "If gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang
processes, then in combination nature reveals a dipole character."

Tell you what, OG. I have tried to indulge your many points of query,
while you have repeatedly avoided addressing those four 'Mainline
Issues' i keep asking you to address.
As stated before, all this 'details' stuff amounts to
nothing unless and until those 4 issues are addressed. Again, they a

1. Why is the speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation a fixed value?
If there is no medium, why is c not widely variant or even infinite?
"Permittivity of space" does not answer anything. What is "space"?

2. Why is c as high as it is? A propagation speed this high demands a
carrier medium of **enormously high** density/pressure. If there is no
medium, why is c as high as it is? "Permittivity/permeability of space"
does not answer anything. What is "space"?

3. Again, and this is the *pivotal* point, there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION (or GW radiation supposedly).
This demands a carrier medium of even greater energy-density (sub Planck
'granularity'). If there is no medium, how is this accomplished?

4. By all appearance of its behaviour, gravity is a pressure-driven,
accelerating flow into mass. It has the ability to crush massive stars
down to singularities. This indicates a medium of incomprehensibly high
density/hydrostatic pressure. If there is no medium, how is gravitation,
and gravitation of this magnitude, accomplished? One thing's for sure-
it isn't accomplished by "metrics", geodesics, and equations which are
_descriptions_ of the process. What is that process?

Put the whole thing in this context, OG. You are the learned one, the
credentialed, tenured professor. And i am the stoont, er, student come
to you for knowledge and enlightenment about your worldview. In my
naivete i have presented these 4 issues and need clarification on how
they are explained under your worldview, which is rooted in the
no-medium premise.

If you would like, you could do it in a new thread as this one is
getting quite lengthly.
Your humble understudy,

oc

From OG:

I don't know why you've mentioned
Einstein here. I thought you rejected the
idea of curving space. Are you saying he
is right after all? Also note that Einstein
is talking about the velocity of light, not
it's speed. Yeah, the velocity changes,
but that's inevitable if the direction
changes.

You are right. It was a very, VERY stupid screwup and inexcusable. It
stemmed from failure to note the difference between 'speed' and
'velocity', and usage of 'SR" when GR was intended. Utterly, utterly
stupid and sloppy, and a valuable lesson to PROOFREAD before hitting
'Send'. And thank you, Zinni.

Re. the cosmological density gradient, you wrote,

I can see why the light would lose speed, but I can't see why this
would cause a
loss of amplitude, rather than
wavelength.

I know you don't like analogies, but think about a comparison with air.
Pressure/density at sea level is higher than at say, 40,000 feet. Sound
originating in a region of high density/pressure is naturally going to
lose speed and amplitude as it propagates into a region of lower
density/pressure. Note that the frequency remains unchanged.
Light from the most distant 1a SN remains unchanged in
redshift, but 'dimmer than it should be'. This of course has been
interpreted as further evidence of ever-accelerating expansion of the
universe, since it makes no allowance for a cosmological density
gradient.

You equate the pressure and the density
- are these in a linear relationship?

Yes. In the context under discussion, the term should actually be
'pressure/density' or 'density/pressure'.

I thought concentrated mass caused the
pressure/density to reduce - you know
like it does near the Sun and the Earth.
Please explain the difference.

I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.
Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow. Inflow into gravitating masses is the reverse of outflow from
the BB event. H.C.Warren says the same thing in his thesis, where he
writes, "If gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang
processes, then in combination nature reveals a dipole character."

Tell you what, OG. I have tried to indulge your many points of query,
while you have repeatedly avoided addressing those four 'Mainline
Issues' i keep asking you to address.
As stated before, all this 'details' stuff amounts to
nothing unless and until those 4 issues are addressed. Again, they a

1. Why is the speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation a fixed value?
If there is no medium, why is c not widely variant or even infinite?
"Permittivity of space" does not answer anything. What is "space"?

2. Why is c as high as it is? A propagation speed this high demands a
carrier medium of **enormously high** density/pressure. If there is no
medium, why is c as high as it is? "Permittivity/permeability of space"
does not answer anything. What is "space"?

3. Again, and this is the *pivotal* point, there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION (or GW radiation supposedly).
This demands a carrier medium of even greater energy-density (sub Planck
'granularity'). If there is no medium, how is this accomplished?

4. By all appearance of its behaviour, gravity is a pressure-driven,
accelerating flow into mass. It has the ability to crush massive stars
down to singularities. This indicates a medium of incomprehensibly high
density/hydrostatic pressure. If there is no medium, how is gravitation,
and gravitation of this magnitude, accomplished? One thing's for sure-
it isn't accomplished by "metrics", geodesics, and equations which are
_descriptions_ of the process. What is that process?

Put the whole thing in this context, OG. You are the learned one, the
credentialed, tenured professor. And i am the stoont, er, student come
to you for knowledge and enlightenment about your worldview. In my
naivete i have presented these 4 issues and need clarification on how
they are explained under your worldview, which is rooted in the
no-medium premise.

If you would like, you could do it in a new thread as this one is
getting quite lengthly.
Your humble understudy,

oc

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
A blackhole has to be a vortex in the fabric of space. It is impossible
for me to visualize it any other way.

Oh well if you can't visualize it, it must not be true. LOL.

BV.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
A blackhole has to be a vortex in the fabric of space. It is impossible
for me to visualize it any other way.

Oh well if you can't visualize it, it must not be true. LOL.

BV.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:
I can see why the light would lose speed, but I can't see why this
would cause a
loss of amplitude, rather than
wavelength.

I know you don't like analogies, but think about a comparison with air.
Pressure/density at sea level is higher than at say, 40,000 feet. Sound
originating in a region of high density/pressure is naturally going to
lose speed and amplitude as it propagates into a region of lower
density/pressure.

In fact, the speed of sound is more or less given by
v_Sound = K * SQRT( Pressure/Density) , so assuming that pressure and
density are proportional (as you said below), then the speed of sound is
independent of pressure. However, to preserve energy the 'amplitude' of the
pressure wave increases as the sound moves into lower density air.
Just as well this is only an analogy !

Note that the frequency remains unchanged.
Light from the most distant 1a SN remains unchanged in
redshift, but 'dimmer than it should be'. This of course has been
interpreted as further evidence of ever-accelerating expansion of the
universe, since it makes no allowance for a cosmological density
gradient.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:
I can see why the light would lose speed, but I can't see why this
would cause a
loss of amplitude, rather than
wavelength.

I know you don't like analogies, but think about a comparison with air.
Pressure/density at sea level is higher than at say, 40,000 feet. Sound
originating in a region of high density/pressure is naturally going to
lose speed and amplitude as it propagates into a region of lower
density/pressure.

In fact, the speed of sound is more or less given by
v_Sound = K * SQRT( Pressure/Density) , so assuming that pressure and
density are proportional (as you said below), then the speed of sound is
independent of pressure. However, to preserve energy the 'amplitude' of the
pressure wave increases as the sound moves into lower density air.
Just as well this is only an analogy !

Note that the frequency remains unchanged.
Light from the most distant 1a SN remains unchanged in
redshift, but 'dimmer than it should be'. This of course has been
interpreted as further evidence of ever-accelerating expansion of the
universe, since it makes no allowance for a cosmological density
gradient.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

I thought concentrated mass caused the
pressure/density to reduce - you know
like it does near the Sun and the Earth.
Please explain the difference.

I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.

No I think you have written what you think happens, but not explained WHY it
works this way.

Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow. Inflow into gravitating masses is the reverse of outflow from
the BB event. H.C.Warren says the same thing in his thesis, where he
writes, "If gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang
processes, then in combination nature reveals a dipole character."

I love this - in semantic terms this says
If assertion THEN converse

Brilliant - can I do my own?
If this theory is right then the rightness of this theory is self
evident

Ah, it's not as good as Warren's. ;-(