lakmilis

AmeliaC, at your level , and you are fond of Geometry; perhaps you could look into Plato's perfect solids etc, read a bit about Archimedes and Euclid and you might find an interesting idea in mathematics which typically crosses into philosophy (typical trait of geomtry due to it's intuitively axiomatix proofs)

hmm, had a weird dream today and for the love of God, I didn't memorise it when I woke up... and lol it was Pauli's exclusion principle similar in degenerate matter superimposed upon a macroscopic grid of space... (I remember in the dream or think I do), that a naked ring singularity would be stable if it was surrounded by equidistant entities. Well actually they were not equidistant, it was one black hole, one something else and another thing keeping 2 ring singularities (I 'think') within the same space. One had to move and when it did (as there was allowance for it on this 'grid'), then the other one remained stable interlocked between these entities. Lol, anyway I will never be able to recap what that dream told me, but still struck me, if twin or even triplet black holes...had exact same gravitational pull , then if you approached at a certain axis w.r.t to this system, you could find a centre point where all pulls cancelled each other out. For arguments sake , say a multiple system or mini cluster of black holes were distributed around an axis in such a way that you didnt accelerate too fast , avoiding the spaghettification and the like until reaching a centre point, between at least 2 holes, where these were held extremely close to each other but cancelled each others pull out due to surrounding cluster holes, then yes, I guess one could indeed come very close to an event horizon feeling a theoretically low pull. How about that, does that sound interesting to initial poster to bring the topic back a bit to your question? Hmmm, I do think though that regardless of the ergosphere/photonsphere, that the even horizon as well must have a ring of circuling photons; in that exact moment you will have a bunch of interesting energy hypothesis due to if one could indeed put that lovely leg through it, or even ones head, then one could indeed interact with the photons as such. Beyond the horizon or even trying to withdraw from it is just plain speculation before we know more if QM or GR or whatever else should be the one corrected behind the EH. (see Hawkings and'Preskill's bet for example).

Strange, I was sure when I read this thread as it was starting I saw someone mentioning c was changing..maybe I took it from another related article or even from a different thread. I'm sorry. So I am juvenile at times. On the final issue however, we go into that which is so debatable on a semantic level. I should of not used the word aether to begin with I admit, and just stuck with vacuum energy density. What I am referring to, is this difference of space-time 'vacuum' and that which is 'beyond' (as in conceptual questions inherent to the way our minds work, regardless of if the universe is open or closed..that which space-time expands into so to speak). Frame-dragging and change in c would indeed indicate that space-time / 'vacuum' must have since information on it is predictive, have physical properties where vacuum should have some energy density. Like I said, I apologize for using the word aether as it was logical that people would have different associations to its [historical] definition. Like you say aether -- a permanent substance which permeated the universe. Whilst what I meant was more like aether -- a permanent substance which is the universe. Non-sequitor...hmm, well you say if space is expanding, then the expansion affects the photon path... So if it affects the path, the expansion also can affect the 'static' velocity of light in this vacuum. What do you think? But while I'm at it, does anyone know if the gravity probe B has had its results released?

insane aliens answer is one answer. Additionally, I said photons may travel through without hitting molecules etc... In the box you mention (if it was of paper, photons would get through , you would see the box illuminated with some inner source right ) but lets say it was wooden....then obviously due to the thickness from experience light wouldn't be seen, so it manages to absorb the photons.

And ok, now that I got pissed out of me mind last night, I wake up with less overall total memory, but I do realize you were kind of right, thanks for reminding me. Yes, I do remember now that back in the days I did indeed query and suggest Schwarzchild (non-rotating) black holes do not exist (a suggestion, not a hard claim ) Kerr holes though yaps, more elegant, more thought through and also logically more consistent with this phenomena

don't mix pair production from photon annihilation up with 'everything is in essence light'. Everything is indeed energy, but light and mass both appear on the other side of the equation right electron and positron come from an annihilation ok, can you get 'everything',i.e. all other particles from there? x

Nope, it could appear so to observers though

Hi Geoguy, thanks for a nice reply, very nice to read...haha, how can we be discussing physics on a forum if we did not enjoy the odd food fight but joking aside, I had a lot to write earlier today but just got home and am tired. A thing which struck me is when you say you don't think philosophy working with truth is relevant with science (as you say it is opposite more or less). Remember, by saying we continously redefine theories through *facts*, you imply as we all do, a fact is part of that which is true. I think maybe you mean that the set of knowledge (recognising facts) is indeed truth, but is this set finite or infinite. If infinite, then we can never create absolute theories of truth ya? then again, as you see, this is why as scientists, it is important to understand which paradigmes we must yearn for...aka philosophy about the mathematics, yes immensely lovely topic; I am simply too tired now to write on it, but these are the areas where the symbiosis of science and philosophy is so bounded in love (speaking non-formally if I may ) anyway, I like your posts lak

ok and finally, trying to still answer what I think might happen *with* all other effects, entering a BH? No I just do not think a ship , bar or camera as we know it can do it, we will become that intensely stretched, and so interchanged matter to plasma going towards light.......... entering the EH at such a massssiiiiivvvve speed that minute a part of the plasma soup hits the EH, it ziiipppsss straight into the singularity in a quantum leap hehe, and like pulling water apart, that which is still immediately outside the EH is just disconnected. To imagine mass in ground state (lol forgot what its called, non plasma, non gaseous, non liquid ) is just defying the whole understanding of a black hole. Supermassive black holes with sufficiently low gravitational gradient for us to keep our shape just outside its EH...no way... if that can be shown through any link to data, please url me But for the record, by actually saying that 2m n 0 radii can get enough apart that the gradient is lowered, means something very interesting as we can't forget that the distance between 0 and 2m radii is per definition *not* part of space, so we can't plot our entity within with the minkowski coordinates!!

Oh, and about the elevator and escape velocity....hmm, I didn't think you could just walk little by little...no matter how much you try you wouldn't be able to overcome the potential energy required to escape if you would be walking slowly, surely.... thats the whole point of escape velocity... A derivative of this is Tsialkowsky? equations on why a rocket can not leave earth's gravitional field with only one rocket, due to mass relations and obtainable velocity lak

First of all, nice and interesting reply, saw it in the morning but didn't have time to reply before a bunch of posts would come since I was preparing some work. ok, replies in reverse order. No, GR does predict its own demise behind the 2m radius (well , with the Schwarzc. metric). Yes, I do believe that GR does *not* work or work as any predictive meausere beyond the event horizon. If this is wrong, I am happy to hear from someone argue for the opposite. What is 'between' the singularity and the EH, yup is absolutely educated guesses. The 0 and 2m answers from the scharschild metric took time to interpret by some of the very people you mention. Yes, it follows that the interpretations of what goes on beyond the eH are indeed educated guesses. However, Penrose and the others will obviously be having some very good ones, don't you agree? I believe that it was precisely Penrose who stated the 'cosmic censorship' principle, that no singularity can be únshielded' in nature. Aka , this is results of their interpretations of the 'problem of the 2 answers'. (Won't go into more right now, probably with a little luck other views on this will be given ). No no, I did not imply that, where? No , I am part of the mainstream community which today are quite happy with the current indicative data that black holes exist. And no, what I said was exactly the opposite, from GR and the logic behind the event horizon, all these fancy ideas of taking away realistic problems (like tidal ways, escape velocity, etc etc) to see if we could escape is for me silly. Since GR *does* work from the very limit of the EH and onwards and escape energies and mass (since even light) just won't be able to escape. thats why i mentioned black holes I believe will always be black holes of destruction, not some magic portal we are trying to imagine wihtout gravitational effects from GR.... but I am making an educated guess , just like others. I do believe however in alternate ways of lets say tachyon transfer. (tachyons here not meaning particles but a field). Artificial curvature of vacuum is something else though in my opinion. There the gravitational pull would not necessarily exist if it was not density of mass which created it, but nevermind, this is again speculation. However more befitting to ponder about with regards to your initial question A last thing on that part, Hawking radiation if that is why you think about it, is a different ball game altogether as well. This is hypothetical models put forward by Hawkings on virtual particles. The logic behind them is not a derivative of GR, but rather QM in its broad sense, thermodynamics, etc. Again, let me just remind you that this has also no indicative proof yet as such, it is a proposal which is conistent with other effects seen in experimental physics and it is perfectly eligible to discussion. It is not fact, it is proposed to be perhaps be so. Yes sure, but like I said, I never indicated black holes don't exist. I was talking rather about the dynamics behind their creation. You see, I just mentioned that I believe extreme angular momentum must be also involved... And I put more trust in the Kerr metric.. (simply because if one plays around with SR [in est, special relativity], it will indicate that from a non-rotating black hole, the EH should be half of what the 2m answer from Schwarz is). The problem is that the Kerr holes are non-rotatory I believe, so I am stuck in between the Kerr metric but swearing to rotation. However like I said, a good set of data for gravitational collapse being sufficient as the only force needed for sub-S.R. (in est, Schwarzchild Radius) collapse, then I will be happy with Kerr's non-rotatory metric. lakmilis OMG, sorry I worked on this years ago, Kerr holes DO rotate... sorry I rememebr though I had a problem with kerr holes as well. Give me a little recap on manifolds and I will maybe say something less silly...I will leave the post unedited, both the syntactical *and* the semantic scientific errors...but add the apology of stating the Kerr holes don't rotate. In any case, I find the Kerr metric more logically consistent than the Schw. metric lak

LOL, interesting....under scrutiny these things *always* seem to have some hanky panky hokus pokus stuff to them though. Before attempting to light the paper, why so determined to keep crumpling that paper together. I am sure if it is 'chi' he is transferring, he wouldn't care how crumpled the paper is. Apparently he had studied chi for 18 years...hmm a magician practising for 18 years has amazing slight of hand However, if its all real I'm sure we will know him as the 2nd Messias soon enough

Interesting. But to understand your thinking here; is indeed the continuum just that, continuous, and boundary conditions are more hmm mathematical or even precision based (planck lengths etc) or do the boundary values actually mirror the actual hmm structure of space at this sub-level? I guess I can also ask, does it really matter? In computer programming, when working with integers, the real line does not exist, only quantas of whole numbers. Yet it's there. Will we later on realise that even between the quantum levels you mention, there is a positive vacuum energy densitym lets say?. Pardon me Severian I guess I am asking more rhetorically ..you made me ponder...I long ago realised that continuous things are impossible for us to imagine.. in fact, now when I think about it, it is this v being a non-integer which was part of what I said I played around with long ago, with seeing if setting infinity as D4 (dimension 4) would take me down a road of any interest. sigh, it seems to me that sometimes where reality is easily conceived, maths may be hard where maths is easy, conceiving is hard :/ it is easier to conceive the need for quantisation than conceiving continuity right, this was probably an off topic reply,just sometimes one gets frustrated but science requires patience. PS. I am really looking forward to the LHC coming around, really hope the Higgs lad gets caught... would really help

Well, I guess the standard today is to refer to particles as elementary particles...such as you say quarks. Although yes, often in such topics one sometimes talks about particles at a certain level, even if they are made of sub particles...generally however, this is not the case, so particles would not be made up of atoms but like you say , atoms of particles, namley quarks. light can travel through objects yes. by shining on a paper in dark, you can see it illuminate the other side somewhat damped....photons have either passed through or been absorbed and reemitted right? and not being sure how you are visualising objects...but if a medium is an object, light travels through water lets say, right? it can do so because photons are so minute they evade structure of a higher magnitude than the molecules lets say. But if you define an object as (these elementary)particles , then no photon can pass through them. No photon can pass through a neutrino, although hehe might bulldoze it over

Hehe, I completely agree (I mean with your noted observations). If one works in science , one never really can explain as such...merely describe. Or rather one can answer a bunch of sub-sets of whys which translate I guess to the whats as you say. The only thing I disagree somewhat with though, is that, science is still a subset of philosophy, not the other way round? what do you think?

well, we used to think that an atom was an particle yes, but now we would say an atom is made up of particles. a photon however we still say is an elementary particle. I think photons are meant to have a rest mass *if* they were stopped , however this is a boundary it is believed which can not be achieved. (might be wrong on the assumptions of the rest mass) . And yes, everything we know is made of pure energy as such. Mass is another form of it (E= mc^2) why light has its speed is hardcoded into our reality, this universe. I don't think it is correct to say it is because they are massless that they are so fast...I mean sure, but by that inference one would equally wonder why is the speed not infinite rather than a finite value.

could recoding dna make cells able to regenerate and grow in such a fashion that sex changes could occur in mammals

lol, well you still have a way to go with the English, so I think you should draw some eyes and a smile, perhaps some ears on a balloon after having blown it up, then ask someone to rub their feet on a fur

hmm ajb, it does not state that exhaustively though does it. Can i not find two different sets of values of (x,y,z,t) which yield the same result (for s) and would merely imply different velocities (as you are stating w.r.t. to a given frame) yielding a different time value, for the given displacement in space? say (x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0) and (1,1,1,root(3)) ?

foodchain, that is what Newton AND Einstein relate

hehe Fredrik good stuff....By the way I ferment beer at home too, am a beer lover :X Yes, you are mentioning neural networks...did computer science and one of my majors was neural networks... But i gave up on the whole comp sci.. and you sound to look for relations in somewhat a similar fashion like me (or I used to). I can also see the information networks interest from the previous posts. I also use to work a bit on how this abstractation layer of information is encoded so to speak (ha, that didn't make sense). I mean in terms of encoded information and how this can be exchanged in everything (so ye like the GUT, metaphysically speaking) is present in our universe, that which you say is a daily experimentation of observation. The direction I was heading into, I finally termed epistemological physics hehe...but I stopped philosophical work 3 years ago now. I wanted to combine through a metric , GR topology and substances of which the mind and emotions were made of. (Yes, this is not physics, but metaphysics, yes I assume mind and emotion to be nD objects greater than 3..yes all objects I assumed were of some dimensional magnitude (5)). Infinity and Eternity (the conceptual ideas) were actually set as dimensions, rather than time as 4th. But anyway, I didn't have the mathematical ability to try and do this in terms of tensors. After a while I had to give up simply due to time issues. MIght get back on it when I one day retire Disclaimer: I simply am mentioning some models and hypothesis I set up...it was far from any state of being any theory... the term epistemological physics was purely for myself and not any implication it deserved any such formal naming sorry about off topic rambling, just can see a bit where you are coming from oh , and in english : 'now' refers to the present in time, 'know' is to have knowledge of something hej Sverige ^^

Well, because when you state these inertial frames, one can start messing around with the emerging relative things like was pointed out. Time dilation happens to he who observes, not he who is hmmm, undergoing it. The most common example of time dilation is the bloke in a spaceship with a flashlight. He sits in this flying box which is transparent and sends a beam of light from the flashlight between his legs up to the ceiling of the box with a mirror. distance is D, so in some time t, the light will travel 2D. for him no matter how much faster this box flies along, t remains 2D/c. Now, we all are sitting on a nice field watching the flying transparent box which we imagine flies like a mofo along the sky. As the bloke in the box sends a beam of light upwards, it also for us, has a horizontal displacement. So by the time the light has reached the mirror in the top, for us the light has travelled diagonally with respect to a starting point outside the ship. if the box moves a distance 2L along our lovely sky then time would be [MATH] 2*sqrt(D^2 + L^2)/c > 2D/c [/MATH] Thus, less time passes by for the guy in the box with respect to our frame!!! for him time is still invariantly passing by at his 'local rate'. Like you know, the twin flying very fast to alpha centauri n back will locally be less aged with respect to us on earth. If you already know such examples and is not what you are asking about, I am sorry, it might be useful for others perhaps which look for an easy example of the dilation principle..

Yet you have a lab photo in your posts guess it aint yours then X Can physics form thought alone? I guess you mean can our discovered knowledge (in only physics? or all knowledge) form or capture the mind fabric? no not yet... when we do , we will be flying *quickly* to the stars ;p

Oh and to answer that then with my ways of thinking.... well, should one disregard one reality to then speculate about what happens? taking away the gravitational pull would imply lets say some fancy hanky panky devices which made ya immaterial to the pull ye? would this not then affect you as you then try to finally find out what happens when you pull your swimming trunks up and dip your leg into the horizon?? First figure how to get to the hole realistically, if you can do that, then you probably can come up with a good guess what indeed happens at the horizon :x and no, I dont think black holes EVER will be the answer to 'space travel' and yes I do think we one day will... I believe though it will be perhaps more of the form of QM matter encoding and decoding. Making links where we're zapped , dissolved into superpositioned photon? pairs , where another end perhaps has a way of decoding the information sent (look up the aspect experiment, think thats the name?) into matter identical in its grid, n with a bit of luck, our minds are still connected to the brain and lalila (well it would be better to say with a bit of luck our bodies would reconnect with the mind )

Well Spyman, those questions no one has the answers too, we all interpret and make educated guesses but the fact is , GR does break down, Schwarzchild radius or event horizon is not even necessarily valid....SR converges on half the value of the Schwarz. radius (event horizon)... SR predicts somewhat that holes would have to be rotatory...(yes yes I know, this is the area of GR and not SR, but just pointing out that in SR , the radius would be 1m). schw. metric gives ya 0 and 2m as solutions for the singularity radius and the horizon radius, which again defines 'quantum levels' between the singularity radius and the event horizon... What really would happen as we got close or put a leg through or a camera??? Your guess is as good as anyone elses, as long as it correlates with that which can be. Well, I still am wondering are black holes really dense matter'( dunno, a quark soup maybe?? tough one) or actual holes( if so, it really really proves we have a loooong way to go to understand the 'fabric' of space itself)... we don't even know that... The idea of wormholes thanks to science fiction as well makes us easily believe holes have this property... but this is far from sure. I mean, how does a hole rotate??? if I claimed to you that a hole in the ground was rotating, would you accept it? I doubt it, but if you saw the edges of the hole seem to move then something else would be moving....either the air in the hole was rotating so you could see dirt fall off, or else it must be the edges itself rotating...well in space I assume we agree that space edges around a hole are not rotating... so you see the conundrum? Looking at the dynamics of 'how' black holes are created is still a more important aspect of black hole studies which first must be better understood. I till this day do not know if I can accept that 'any' celestial object can exert enough gravitational force on itself to implode to such an entity as a black hole.. for me this would seem to be the same as saying one needs to accelerate to the speed of light..it would take infinite energy...the idea of gravitational collapse only just doesnt seem viable to me. Extreme rotational energy must surely also be present... However, neutron stars seem to be rotating far slower than I expected so I am still at a loss how such things can be created. ( I was hehe , pretty purely intuitively guessing neutron stars would be up at 0.6c in rotational velocities but they are nowhere near that).