|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Size of the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, Crankdriver, you are not helping me to overcome my ignorance. You are not enlightening me. Do you want to say that the only requirements for a black hole is to be a light trapping region surrounded by an event horizon and that in your version of what the entity should be it may not have a singularity at its center? No infinities, no zero anything, everything is countable beyond the horizon is what you are saying?
Also the event horizon is a contradictory concept. The traffic is supposed to be one way only and that requirement is satisfied for light and whatever the hole is gobbling up, yet as you must know gravity is a relation of at least two bodies. Inverse square law is talking about mutual relation between two masses as a function of distance between them. Now a black hole in this scenario is one mass and the galaxy going around is another. The event horizon lies between them. Gravity seems to be crossing the horizon in either direction. How do you explain that? If light is trapped on itself inside the hole why the gravity is not? When they define event horizon, they talk also about information going in one direction only. Does your theory hold that gravity of a black hole does not represent any information passed to the galaxy spinning around it? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
So, Crankdriver, you say that gravity is a reaction of metric to itself and to stress-energy tensor. Metric is a map, the tensor is the vectors or markers on that map. Are you telling the cat that gravity is map playing with itself with no territory needed to be present in the relation?
Could you pass the cat some of what you are smoking there? The moggy would love a hit of that. You say Newt is too primitive for your gravitational tastes and that you derive such notions from Einstein's GR. Are you aware that Einstein himself held black holes to be a bunch of superstitious nonsense? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, you are boring as usual. Keep your advice and insinuations to yourself and keep your nose down to the grindstone. That is, the subject.
Defend the concept of black holes if you can, or if you cannot do that just keep quiet. Understood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Otherwise if you have any doubts as to what Einstein's attitude on the issue was, consult his 1939 paper on the subject where he analysed Schwarzschild's suggestions and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What are those mistakes in Einstein's paper that you allege here, Panda? I don't find any. He may have made some mistakes but that paper was not one of them to be sure.
The gist of the paper is that division by zero is a grave error, infinities are but potentialities and not anything to do with anything physical and concrete and therefore singularities should be considered to be just a fancy mathematical construct. No mistake at all but only an outright rejection of all the bigbangist nonsense that the big bangers have the gall to attribute to the fellow innocent of that type of idiocy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
The record concerning Einstein has to be put straight, that's all. Now both parties -bigbangists and anti-bigbangers - are guilty of mixing Einstein with all the nonsense other people patched upon the relativity theory. There is this chap, Stephen Crothers, who is one the best black hole and big bunk debunkers. Now from his, otherwise excellent papers, it could be mistakenly concluded that Einstein himself had a hand in concocting the concepts of light trapped by gravity and that of the big bunk singularity. I personally have sent him the 1939 paper in order to disabuse him of such an erroneous view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That was exactly what Stephen Crothers quoted in conversation with me accusing Einstein of being as much a creationist as the Belgian chap. I had to explain to Stephen that even if Einstein had been impressed by the enthusiasm the Belgian was presenting his baby with may not mean that Albert himself would subscribe to the creationist primeval egg idea. No need to mix science and poetry. Einstein liked Edgar Poe poem in prose on the same subject too. That does not mean he ascribed to the poem any validity as a basis for a physics hypothesis or that he rushed to rewrite his own cosmology upon reading it.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, Panda, what was correct in 1939 is still correct. The only progress made since then has been that of piling up erroneous concepts higher and higher still. Einstein knew and had shown in the paper that gravity and radiation are two sides of the same coin. What does not radiate may not possibly gravitate either was his conclusion and it still stands. It takes two to tango. Two objects at least interacting. Concept of mass may not gravitate by itself. Concepts, infinities and singularities may not be capable of doing anything other than on a theoretical paper. Nothing to do with my or any one else's beliefs. That's just iron physical necessity, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, on the contrary your underhand tactics show indeed that your black bunk concept is in dire need of a lawyer. Your message insinuates that no sane person could doubt the black holes and big bunk. The cat is not impressed. He is from Russia so knows well that such tactics is a sign of desperation and lack of rational argument. All failing ideologies resort to such methods. Whether he is mad or not is irrelevant, Inadequate. In either case you'd still need to explain to yourself how it is possible to pack inside something much smaller than a pea all the matter in motion that is currently present in the Universe. And what contoured that dense object allegedly ready to expand. Questions like that, Inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No nukes, I would not know who Einstein would rather agree with. Of course, it's correct that he re-ified space but I am never taking that literally. I am taking the warping space and so on as just a metaphor for the trajectories of objects in motion. Not very good as explanations go, but still better than the alternative of aether he needed to discard.
I don't find that his theories imply that space alone without objects present can be full of fields and gravitate. Not literally. Metric, fields, energy, tensors and so on is something existing to mediate the interaction of objects and is not conceivable without those objects is my understanding of what Einstein was driving at. One never knows though, I might be wrong and he might have really believed like Crankdriver does that metric can gravitate alone just through interaction with tensors and without any objects present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, nobody gives a damn what you and I think and whether we are both mad or one of us is only kidding. I repeat: that, my or your vanity, my industriousness, our finances, the state of anyone's education - it's all something completely irrelevant to the issue at hand which is the validity of the cosmological hypothesis you and others here defend against me and my cat. The things listed are all red herrings you use to muddy the water and to elude the questions you need to answer to yourself.
Who are you fooling, Inadequate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I don't see why all the technological progress should not be the same or even greater in total absence of all the untestable in principle concepts like singularities, black holes, big bunks, crunches and rips. Anything dark could be safely dropped without hurting a single gadget in existence. All of the technology could thrive just fine without all the dark matters, energies and butters. They all are safe from any possibility of verification and beyond the event horizons making them irrelevant to the applied science.
In what way the physically impossible idea that the Universe is a finite, relative object that is accelerating its expansion, whatever that may possibly mean, can possibly influence the expansion of technology? No way anybody can point to. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024