Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377358

Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to merge,
>>> Black holes do not “try to” merge; either they merge or they do not.
>>> They do not have will, but just have to follow laws of nature.  Saying
>>> that black holes try to merge is as nonsensical as saying that a ball
>>> dropped tries to fall down.
>> 
>> Well if it didn't try, it couldn't have fallen.
> 
> Incorrect.

Which is utter bullocks as so is this synthesis:

> It falls according to Newton’s laws of motion and of universal gravitation
> because the force of gravity caused by its mass and the mass of the body
> it is falling towards pulls on it (and the body it is falling towards;
> which equally falls towards the ball, but we can approximate and neglect
> that if its mass is much greater than that of the ball).
> 
> It falls according to general relativity because one of the geodesics of
> the spacetime that is curved by the energy–momentum of both it and of the
> body it is falling towards (again, actually they fall towards each other)
> then ends in or near the center of mass of that body, and there is *no*
> force that *prevents* the ball from having a spacetime trajectory that
> follows that geodesic.
> 
> So nothing is tried there at all by anything.  The laws of nature, as we
> discern them, just are.  Ascribing a will of trying to an inanimate object
> like a black hole or a ball, that way lies madness.
>  
>> Ergo your shiiite logic is full of black holes.
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.  (You should also be more careful.  “Shiiite” can be
> easily misread and misunderstood to refer to religion.)
> 
>>>> the net gravity in the middle between the two black holes fall off
>>>> to zero […]
>>> 
>>> How did you get that idea?
>> 
>> You know I did some thought experiments with a planets
>> and figured the centre of a planet has zero gravity.
> 
> Imprecise at best. 

False. 100% accurate.

> There is no *net* force on a test mass in the center
> *of mass* of a planet because the gravitational forces pulling from all
> sides
> *cancel each other out*.  However, as I just stated, there is still
> gravity there, and in GR terms the spacetime curvature reaches a local
> maximum there.

Which is precisely wrong because it contradicts your 
first assertion about test mass.

As much as I would like to believe you,
I draw the line somewhere and choose to believe
the physics of what is happening at the centre belongs precisely to
the story of what is happening to the test mass.

Alternative interpretations have no power of persuasion if they
have no power of prediction unless you care to make
one that could be tested now or in the future.


>> That was on top of being taught this in physics classes
>> deriving formula for the relation which is a linear decay function.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
>> Ergo black hole gravity collapses in the same way when
>> black holes are trying to merge.
> 
> Black holes are based on general relativity, not Newtonian gravity, so
> saying that “black holes gravity collapses” is *at least* referring to an
> ill-defined concept.
> 
> What actually happens is that the curvature of spacetime increases towards
> the singularity of the black hole where it approaches positive infinity.
> That means that as black holes merge, the spacetime curvatures of the
> black
> holes *add up*.  Given that the curvature is positive in and around both
> black holes, how could it become zero between them as they get closer
> together and finally merge?

Which is why I told you to make a precise
prediction with your interpretation of the science.

You could predict for example Lagrange points are figments
of the imagination.

I choose to believe in what happens to a test mass.
The g forces sum to zero and any test mass is free to escape,
and so is any light such as gamma rays.



>> So says elementary physics.
> 
> No, it does not.  Elementary mathematics, on the other hand, says that you
> are wrong because 1 + 1 > 0.
> 
> Black holes are a topic of general relativity: F'up2
> sci.physics.relativity.
> 
> 
> PointedEars

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 17:58 +0000
  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 22:57 +0100

csiph-web