Prev: Eric Gisse's BSc Metric.
Next: Galilean transformation equations
From: Mathal on 15 Jun 2010 00:50
On Jun 14, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:03 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear BURT:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 10:00 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 12, 9:15 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This is from wikipedia
>
> > > > > > In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise,
> > > > > > Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise.
> > > > > > Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of
> > > > > > 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer
> > > > > > starts running at some constant speed (one
> > > > > > very fast and one very slow), then after some
> > > > > > finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres,
> > > > > > bringing him to the tortoise's starting point.
>
> > > > > No, the tortoise's starting point was next to
> > > > > Achilles.  You mean "where the tortoise was when
> > > > > Achilles started".
>
> > > > > > During this time, the tortoise has run a much
> > > > > > shorter distance, say, 10 metres.
>
> > > > > More likely 1 meter.
>
> > > > > > It will then take Achilles some further time
> > > > > > to run that distance, by which time the tortoise
> > > > > > will have advanced farther; and then more time
> > > > > > still to reach this third point, while the
> > > > > > tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles
> > > > > > reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still
> > > > > > has farther to go. Therefore, because there are
> > > > > > an infinite number of points Achilles must reach
> > > > > > where the tortoise has already been, he can never
> > > > > > overtake the tortoise.
>
> > > > > Incorrect.  Achilles passes the tortoise in finite
> > > > > time.  What is more Achilles went through an
> > > > > infinity of infinities in getting through the
> > > > > first 100 meters.  Zero's paradox was a joke, and
> > > > > you didn't get the punchline.
>
> > > > > > Now, with the beginning of a black hole a very
> > > > > > similar paradox arises.  The very conditions
> > > > > > that result in a black hole coming into being
> > > > > > cause time in this region of space-time to slow
> > > > > > down.
>
> > > > > No.  Infallers don't experience that.
>
> > > > > > The closer to the moment that this region of
> > > > > > space-time is to the 'black hole start'
> > > > > > moment the slower time progresses.
>
> > > > > For static stuff, sure.
>
> > > > > > The infinite progression of zeno's paradox is
> > > > > > the black hole- You can't get there from here.
>
> > > > > Can and do.  But thanks for playing.
>
> > > <snip broken link>
>
> > > > > You know we are surrounded by them, so you can
> > > > > play these games, or you can try and understand
> > > > > how they form.
>
> > > > Light has no escape speed like matter.
>
> > > Light has one speed in a vacuum.
>
> > > > Matter looses speed but light does not.
>
> > > Matter loses momentum to the gestalt of "gravity well plus matter",
> > > when moving outwards.
>
> > Light has no mass, the term matter does not apply, deal with his
> > point. This is a straw dog.
>
> >  >When light loses all momentum, is it  detectable?  
>
> > Light loses momentum by losing frequency. Frequency can't go past
> > zero- The photon vanishes. This breaks Quantum Mechanical laws. Get
> > with the program.
>
> > >If the momentum goes negative, what is its direction of  motion?
>
> > How does momentum get past zero?
>
> > > > How is outward going light going do be
> > > > dragged backward by gravity?
> > > > Where would its constant speed go?
>
> > > There are no straight lines from inside the event horizon, outwards.
> > > Simiarly, there is no light that moves from "now" to "the past".
>
> > What?
>
> > > David A. Smith
>
> > Or rather, whatever.
> >    Mathal- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Black holes violate laws of energy and motion.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

I agree. There are massive objects at the center of most if not all
galaxies but it is a misnomer to refer to them as black holes. The end
result is about the same, so little information-light gets out at any
point in our time frame that they appear to be black or thereabouts-
since from here we cannot distinguish between the black hole red-
shifted light and background light bent into our time-space frame.
Mathal
From: Mathal on 15 Jun 2010 00:54
On Jun 14, 9:50 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:03 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear BURT:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 10:00 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:15 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is from wikipedia
>
> > > > > > > In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise,
> > > > > > > Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise.
> > > > > > > Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of
> > > > > > > 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer
> > > > > > > starts running at some constant speed (one
> > > > > > > very fast and one very slow), then after some
> > > > > > > finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres,
> > > > > > > bringing him to the tortoise's starting point.
>
> > > > > > No, the tortoise's starting point was next to
> > > > > > Achilles.  You mean "where the tortoise was when
> > > > > > Achilles started".
>
> > > > > > > During this time, the tortoise has run a much
> > > > > > > shorter distance, say, 10 metres.
>
> > > > > > More likely 1 meter.
>
> > > > > > > It will then take Achilles some further time
> > > > > > > to run that distance, by which time the tortoise
> > > > > > > will have advanced farther; and then more time
> > > > > > > still to reach this third point, while the
> > > > > > > tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles
> > > > > > > reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still
> > > > > > > has farther to go. Therefore, because there are
> > > > > > > an infinite number of points Achilles must reach
> > > > > > > where the tortoise has already been, he can never
> > > > > > > overtake the tortoise.
>
> > > > > > Incorrect.  Achilles passes the tortoise in finite
> > > > > > time.  What is more Achilles went through an
> > > > > > infinity of infinities in getting through the
> > > > > > first 100 meters.  Zero's paradox was a joke, and
> > > > > > you didn't get the punchline.
>
> > > > > > > Now, with the beginning of a black hole a very
> > > > > > > similar paradox arises.  The very conditions
> > > > > > > that result in a black hole coming into being
> > > > > > > cause time in this region of space-time to slow
> > > > > > > down.
>
> > > > > > No.  Infallers don't experience that.
>
> > > > > > > The closer to the moment that this region of
> > > > > > > space-time is to the 'black hole start'
> > > > > > > moment the slower time progresses.
>
> > > > > > For static stuff, sure.
>
> > > > > > > The infinite progression of zeno's paradox is
> > > > > > > the black hole- You can't get there from here.
>
> > > > > > Can and do.  But thanks for playing.
>
> > > > <snip broken link>
>
> > > > > > You know we are surrounded by them, so you can
> > > > > > play these games, or you can try and understand
> > > > > > how they form.
>
> > > > > Light has no escape speed like matter.
>
> > > > Light has one speed in a vacuum.
>
> > > > > Matter looses speed but light does not.
>
> > > > Matter loses momentum to the gestalt of "gravity well plus matter",
> > > > when moving outwards.
>
> > > Light has no mass, the term matter does not apply, deal with his
> > > point. This is a straw dog.
>
> > >  >When light loses all momentum, is it  detectable?  
>
> > > Light loses momentum by losing frequency. Frequency can't go past
> > > zero- The photon vanishes. This breaks Quantum Mechanical laws. Get
> > > with the program.
>
> > > >If the momentum goes negative, what is its direction of  motion?
>
> > > How does momentum get past zero?
>
> > > > > How is outward going light going do be
> > > > > dragged backward by gravity?
> > > > > Where would its constant speed go?
>
> > > > There are no straight lines from inside the event horizon, outwards..
> > > > Simiarly, there is no light that moves from "now" to "the past".
>
> > > What?
>
> > > > David A. Smith
>
> > > Or rather, whatever.
> > >    Mathal- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Black holes violate laws of energy and motion.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> I agree. There are massive objects at the center of most if not all
> galaxies but it is a misnomer to refer to them as black holes. The end
> result is about the same, so little information-light gets out at any
> point in our time frame that they appear to be black or thereabouts-
> since from here we cannot distinguish between the black hole red-
> shifted light and background light bent into our time-space frame.
>     Mathal

Sorry, I should have said 'object's' red shifted light not black hole
red shifted light, as everyone 'knows' black holes emit no light.
Mathal

From: dlzc on 15 Jun 2010 16:24
Dear Mathal:

On Jun 14, 9:54 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
....
> Sorry, I should have said 'object's' red
> shifted light not black hole red shifted
> light, as everyone 'knows' black holes
> emit no light.

Hawking does not 'know' that. And if there is a accretion disk (like
what we can see in some cases around visible stars), it usually more
than makes up for what the black hole does not emit.

David A. Smith
From: BURT on 15 Jun 2010 16:54
On Jun 14, 9:50 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:03 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:28 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear BURT:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 10:00 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:15 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is from wikipedia
>
> > > > > > > In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise,
> > > > > > > Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise.
> > > > > > > Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of
> > > > > > > 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer
> > > > > > > starts running at some constant speed (one
> > > > > > > very fast and one very slow), then after some
> > > > > > > finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres,
> > > > > > > bringing him to the tortoise's starting point.
>
> > > > > > No, the tortoise's starting point was next to
> > > > > > Achilles.  You mean "where the tortoise was when
> > > > > > Achilles started".
>
> > > > > > > During this time, the tortoise has run a much
> > > > > > > shorter distance, say, 10 metres.
>
> > > > > > More likely 1 meter.
>
> > > > > > > It will then take Achilles some further time
> > > > > > > to run that distance, by which time the tortoise
> > > > > > > will have advanced farther; and then more time
> > > > > > > still to reach this third point, while the
> > > > > > > tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles
> > > > > > > reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still
> > > > > > > has farther to go. Therefore, because there are
> > > > > > > an infinite number of points Achilles must reach
> > > > > > > where the tortoise has already been, he can never
> > > > > > > overtake the tortoise.
>
> > > > > > Incorrect.  Achilles passes the tortoise in finite
> > > > > > time.  What is more Achilles went through an
> > > > > > infinity of infinities in getting through the
> > > > > > first 100 meters.  Zero's paradox was a joke, and
> > > > > > you didn't get the punchline.
>
> > > > > > > Now, with the beginning of a black hole a very
> > > > > > > similar paradox arises.  The very conditions
> > > > > > > that result in a black hole coming into being
> > > > > > > cause time in this region of space-time to slow
> > > > > > > down.
>
> > > > > > No.  Infallers don't experience that.
>
> > > > > > > The closer to the moment that this region of
> > > > > > > space-time is to the 'black hole start'
> > > > > > > moment the slower time progresses.
>
> > > > > > For static stuff, sure.
>
> > > > > > > The infinite progression of zeno's paradox is
> > > > > > > the black hole- You can't get there from here.
>
> > > > > > Can and do.  But thanks for playing.
>
> > > > <snip broken link>
>
> > > > > > You know we are surrounded by them, so you can
> > > > > > play these games, or you can try and understand
> > > > > > how they form.
>
> > > > > Light has no escape speed like matter.
>
> > > > Light has one speed in a vacuum.
>
> > > > > Matter looses speed but light does not.
>
> > > > Matter loses momentum to the gestalt of "gravity well plus matter",
> > > > when moving outwards.
>
> > > Light has no mass, the term matter does not apply, deal with his
> > > point. This is a straw dog.
>
> > >  >When light loses all momentum, is it  detectable?  
>
> > > Light loses momentum by losing frequency. Frequency can't go past
> > > zero- The photon vanishes. This breaks Quantum Mechanical laws. Get
> > > with the program.
>
> > > >If the momentum goes negative, what is its direction of  motion?
>
> > > How does momentum get past zero?
>
> > > > > How is outward going light going do be
> > > > > dragged backward by gravity?
> > > > > Where would its constant speed go?
>
> > > > There are no straight lines from inside the event horizon, outwards..
> > > > Simiarly, there is no light that moves from "now" to "the past".
>
> > > What?
>
> > > > David A. Smith
>
> > > Or rather, whatever.
> > >    Mathal- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Black holes violate laws of energy and motion.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> I agree. There are massive objects at the center of most if not all
> galaxies but it is a misnomer to refer to them as black holes. The end
> result is about the same, so little information-light gets out at any
> point in our time frame that they appear to be black or thereabouts-
> since from here we cannot distinguish between the black hole red-
> shifted light and background light bent into our time-space frame.
>     Mathal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know I always like to note that Einstein rejected such a thing and
worked with the physics to prevent the complete collapse of a star.
What he didn't know is that when his theory is corrected it becomes a
limited strength theory of limited gravity acceleration. Acceleration
below light change.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Mathal on 17 Jun 2010 01:36
On Jun 15, 1:24 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Mathal:
>
> On Jun 14, 9:54 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Sorry, I should have said 'object's' red
> > shifted light not black hole red shifted
> > light, as everyone 'knows' black holes
> > emit no light.
>
> Hawking does not 'know' that.  And if there is a accretion disk (like
> what we can see in some cases around visible stars), it usually more
> than makes up for what the black hole does not emit.
>
> David A. Smith

Accretion disks are another straw dog. Nothing to do with material
particles 'outside' the 'black hole' has anything to do with
information/photons inside the black hole. Specifically to this post
information is analogous to photons as 'no one' would suggest material
particles could escape the 'black hole'. You seem to be 'trying' to
defend the 'black hole'.Try harder.
As to Hawking, his argument was that information would escape the
black hole- the mechanism was never clearly defined- and on July
21,2004 he conceded even that wasn't true. Information would be so
garbled that nothing coherent could be elucidated from it. His
original postulate was derived from the Quantum caveat that all
objects- even black holes( Hawking's personal extension of quantum
mechanics) emit thermal radiation with a black body spectrum.
Yes, as of July,1996 he still thought black holes existed and
furthermore emit radiation. Black holes are a postulate of GR, his
arguments against GR are derived from QM. He never provided any
speculations for the mechanism for light to pass through the black
hole barrier- and god knows what lies behind the 'black hole barrier'.
Internet nameless 'others' have suggested quantum tunnelling through
the barrier, virtual photon/anti-photons at the event horizon- the
anti photon always passing through the horizon because the black hole
sets up a polarity causing the photon/anti-photon to point the anti-
photon towards the blackhole.....and on and on and on.
Mathal
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Eric Gisse's BSc Metric.
Next: Galilean transformation equations