zeno's paradox and the black hole
in [Relativity]
|
From: Mathal on 17 Jun 2010 01:59 On Jun 15, 1:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 When Einstein rejected Schwarzschild's hypothesis of black holes and (somebody will tell me if I'm wrong, I'm sure) singularities, no one knew all major galaxies have a super-massive object at their center. Einstein was'nt psychic. The Schwarzschild radius and singularities are mathematically consistent ideas that, if they existed would for a time exist, but as I first stated you can't get there from here. Gravity has final say over the rate of time in each region of space. As with SR which limits velocity of material objects to under the speed of light, gravity limits the rate of time to greater than zero. Time cannot stop any more that material objects can travel faster that light. Mathal
From: dlzc on 17 Jun 2010 10:18 Dear Mathal: On Jun 16, 10:36 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 1:24 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. > > Accretion disks are another straw dog. Accretion disks are observable. You admit that whatever a "black hole candidate" is, it is massive. So it can support an accretion disk. > Nothing to do with material particles > 'outside' the 'black hole' has anything to do > with information/photons inside the black hole. We were discussing "jets". It is suspected that the jets derive from accretion disks. > Specifically to this post information is > analogous to photons as 'no one' would > suggest material particles could escape > the 'black hole'. Material particles escape all the analogs to black holes we can form: - Bose-Eisntein condensates - high energy particle collisions - quantum tunnelling in general. > You seem to be 'trying' to defend the > 'black hole'. Try harder. You are unimportant. Posterity needs to know how full of sh*t you are. > As to Hawking, ... Your opinion is on record. Over and out. David A. Smith
From: Mathal on 17 Jun 2010 12:30 On Jun 17, 7:18 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Mathal: > > On Jun 16, 10:36 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 1:24 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Accretion disks are another straw dog. > > Accretion disks are observable. You admit that whatever a "black hole > candidate" is, it is massive. So it can support an accretion disk. So what? Yes, if black holes actually exist they can have accretion disks. Any object of sufficient mass can have an accretion disk. Saturn has accretion disks. Is Saturn a black hole. No, we can see it. > > > Nothing to do with material particles > > 'outside' the 'black hole' has anything to do > > with information/photons inside the black hole. > > We were discussing "jets". It is suspected that the jets derive from > accretion disks. An accretion disk is comprised of matter that exists outside the massive object. The accretion disk loses momentum, conveying this energy in the jets. The end result is that the accretion disk ultimately winds up joining the massive object, whatever it is. > > Specifically to this post information is > > analogous to photons as 'no one' would > > suggest material particles could escape > > the 'black hole'. > > Material particles escape all the analogs to black holes we can form: > - Bose-Eisntein condensate > - high energy particle collisions > - quantum tunnelling in general. As the little old lady said 'where's the beef'. No black hole-no problem. > > > You seem to be 'trying' to defend the > > 'black hole'. Try harder. > > You are unimportant. Posterity needs to know how full of sh*t you > are. Yes, I am unimportant. ^^^^^Contradiction.^^^^^^^^ > > > As to Hawking, ... > > Your opinion is on record. Over and out. > > David A. Smith Whatever. Mathal
From: BURT on 17 Jun 2010 14:38
On Jun 17, 9:30 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 7:18 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Mathal: > > > On Jun 16, 10:36 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 15, 1:24 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Accretion disks are another straw dog. > > > Accretion disks are observable. You admit that whatever a "black hole > > candidate" is, it is massive. So it can support an accretion disk. > > So what? Yes, if black holes actually exist they can have accretion > disks. Any object of sufficient mass can have an accretion disk. > Saturn has accretion disks. Is Saturn a black hole. No, we can see > it. > > > > Nothing to do with material particles > > > 'outside' the 'black hole' has anything to do > > > with information/photons inside the black hole. > > > We were discussing "jets". It is suspected that the jets derive from > > accretion disks. > > An accretion disk is comprised of matter that exists outside the > massive object. The accretion disk loses momentum, conveying this > energy in the jets. The end result is that the accretion disk > ultimately winds up joining the massive object, whatever it is. > > > > Specifically to this post information is > > > analogous to photons as 'no one' would > > > suggest material particles could escape > > > the 'black hole'. > > > Material particles escape all the analogs to black holes we can form: > > - Bose-Eisntein condensate > > > - high energy particle collisions > > > - quantum tunnelling in general. > > As the little old lady said 'where's the beef'. No black hole-no > problem. > > > > > > You seem to be 'trying' to defend the > > > 'black hole'. Try harder. > > > You are unimportant. Posterity needs to know how full of sh*t you > > are. > > Yes, I am unimportant. ^^^^^Contradiction.^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > As to Hawking, ... > > > Your opinion is on record. Over and out. > > > David A. Smith > > Whatever. > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If exiting light is at C how can it get dragged backwards into the hole? I don't think this happens. I don't think black holes are correct because of this. Mitch Raemsch |