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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429443 > unrolled thread

The Other Side of a Black Hole

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 10:55 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-19 20:23 +0200
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 11:50 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-20 13:16 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 09:08 -0700
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 13:05 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-19 14:25 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-19 20:19 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 21:46 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 20:54 -0700
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 22:31 -0700
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-19 22:09 -0500
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-20 12:00 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 17:32 -0500
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 12:53 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:30 -0500
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 10:55 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:32 -0700
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-22 00:17 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-22 20:33 -0700
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 09:21 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2017-08-20 09:20 -0400
      Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:34 -0700
        Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-22 19:40 +0200
          Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 10:56 -0700
            Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-23 19:29 +0200
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 12:57 -0500
                Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-24 08:01 +0200
              Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 12:15 -0700
                Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-24 08:05 +0200
                  Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:41 -0700
    Re: The Other Side of a Black Hole Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-24 16:16 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#429838

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/19/17 8/19/17   1:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > > > The 'other side of a black hole' is  -of course- a 'big bang'.
> > > >
> > > > No. Not even close. The FLRW manifolds define what "big bang" means, and they
> > > > are not at all like any black hole manifold.
> > > >
> > > > But some types of black holes have "another side", and some do not.
> > > >
> > > > The black hole formed by a collapsing star has no "other side".
> > > >
> > > > The Schwarzschild manifold does have "another side", but it is not possible for
> > > > a timelike or null object to cross from one to the other.
> > > >
> > > > The Kerr manifold has an infinite number of "other sides", and with care a
> > > > timelike or null object can transition in one direction from one to the other.
> > > > But there is no going back.
> > > >
> > > > There are other types of black hole, but this should give the idea....
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > >
> > > "another side"??? Is that different from...."other side"????
> > >
> > > Or, do you mean "other side", or "no other side"
> > >
> > > i'm a little confused about...what side you're on.
> > >
> > > But when I say "The Other Side of a Black Hole", it is based on my ...observations, not ...speculations.
> > >
> > > Here is a transparent picture of what it looks like on  The Other Side of a Black Hole..
> > >
> > > It is a transparent picture of the big bang before and after the big bang. A window of and into the big bang if you will..
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > In the center is The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> > > You will notice that red stars are shooting from the center outwards towards the new universe in the making..The After.
> > > You can also see green stars which lie Before the big bang waiting to be sent to The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> > > I can go on and on, but a picture paints a thousands words, so I'll leave it as that.
> > >
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > The Green stars are the stable stars...they look stable.
> >
> > Now, the Red stars are shooting outwards from the other side of the Black Hole, ...forming a new universe. They are Red because they were
> > formed from inside the black hole beyond the horizon.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > I could go on and on, but what for...you're already here.
> >
> > Now, you see Red, Green....but where is the Blue? I'm still working at the Blue part, ...
> >
> > The Blue is a Zone that I'm still working on, I believe it is the foundation of the Green, but I don't know it's function yet.
> >
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > You can call it The Starmaker Manifold.
> 
> I bet the greatest scientific minds in the world are looking and disecting this picture and saying "WHAT THE FUCK IT THAT????"
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


It's a photo. 

It's a natural photo as Nature intended it to be.

I'm a starmaker. I see stars. Looks to me like the big bang, before and after with the black hole in the middle.

I see Green stars, they must be stable stars...they look stable...

I see Red stars moving/shifting stars shooting outwards into a new space, they look like they just come from a big bang...

and in the middle...it's where the Hole is the center of it all.

It appears to me to be simply a transparent picture of The Big Bang before and after while it happen.

And Nature took a picture of it and send it to...


The Starmaker



What else could it possibly be????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429512

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Other Side of a Black Hole
>
>
> it appears that yous people
> have no idea what lies, or
> what it looks like at
> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
>
>
> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...






Trick question.
As there is no "other side"
It's just a non-dimensional singularity in your 3D universe , PERIOD. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429631

Bast wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >
> >
> > it appears that yous people
> > have no idea what lies, or
> > what it looks like at
> > The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >
> >
> > Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> 
> Trick question.
> As there is no "other side"
> It's just a non-dimensional singularity in your 3D universe , PERIOD.


isn't there two sides to every coin?...you Bast..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429726

Am 21.08.2017 um 20:34 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Bast wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
>>>
>>>
>>> it appears that yous people
>>> have no idea what lies, or
>>> what it looks like at
>>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
>>
>> Trick question.
>> As there is no "other side"
>> It's just a non-dimensional singularity in your 3D universe , PERIOD.
>
>
> isn't there two sides to every coin?...you Bast..
>

What we see in the night sky is only a subset of a more complicated 
universe.

So: disappearing from our view/universe does not say, that something 
does not exist at all. It is just invisible (for us).

E.g. assume to be near the center of our home galaxy. There is actually 
a black hole (from our perspective here on Earth).

But if you observe the Earth from there, it is the Earth that vanishes 
in a black hole. And there (near this supposed singularity) you find 
nothing unusual - only Earth is apparently swallowed by a cosmic monster.

If so, there exist kind of 'horizon' to a certain piece of the universe 
(e.g. our home solar system) and going somewhere else allows to enter a 
zone, where this horizon has an angle towards ours.

If this angle is greater than 45°, the area (and its content) gets 
invisible. The stuff there seems to disappear and time runs in odd 
directions.

But if you fly to such a place, there is nothing unusual, while the 
strange things happen at the place you have started from.

Now we take this 'horizon' as representative of a sheet, where the axis 
of time of the black hole points to, than on the other side time would 
run backwards and what formerly fell into the black hole would pop out 
of a white hole.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429728

W dniu wtorek, 22 sierpnia 2017 19:40:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 21.08.2017 um 20:34 schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Bast wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> The Other Side of a Black Hole
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> it appears that yous people
> >>> have no idea what lies, or
> >>> what it looks like at
> >>> The Other Side of a Black Hole.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe yous are not allowed to think that far yet...
> >>
> >> Trick question.
> >> As there is no "other side"
> >> It's just a non-dimensional singularity in your 3D universe , PERIOD.
> >
> >
> > isn't there two sides to every coin?...you Bast..
> >
> 
> What we see in the night sky is only a subset of a more complicated 
> universe.
> 
> So: disappearing from our view/universe does not say, that something 
> does not exist at all. It is just invisible (for us).
> 
> E.g. assume to be near the center of our home galaxy. There is actually 
> a black hole (from our perspective here on Earth).
> 
> But if you observe the Earth from there, it is the Earth that vanishes 
> in a black hole. And there (near this supposed singularity) you find 
> nothing unusual - only Earth is apparently swallowed by a cosmic monster.
> 
> If so, there exist kind of 'horizon' to a certain piece of the universe 
> (e.g. our home solar system) and going somewhere else allows to enter a 
> zone, where this horizon has an angle towards ours.
> 
> If this angle is greater than 45°, the area (and its content) gets 
> invisible. The stuff there seems to disappear and time runs in odd 
> directions.
> 
> But if you fly to such a place, there is nothing unusual, while the 
> strange things happen at the place you have started from.
> 
> Now we take this 'horizon' as representative of a sheet, where the axis 
> of time of the black hole points to, than on the other side time would 
> run backwards and what formerly fell into the black hole would pop out 
> of a white hole.

You do realize, poor idiot, that your guru has "discovered"
there is no difference between acceleration and gravitation.
Do you?
So, if I accelerate, it creates a horizon somewhere far,
far away. Between 2 aliens, maybe. It vanishes whan I stop
to accelerate. Am I correct, poor idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429840

Am 22.08.2017 um 19:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
...


> You do realize, poor idiot, that your guru has "discovered"
> there is no difference between acceleration and gravitation.
> Do you?
> So, if I accelerate, it creates a horizon somewhere far,
> far away. Between 2 aliens, maybe. It vanishes whan I stop
> to accelerate. Am I correct, poor idiot?
>

No need to get rude..

Acceleration is - in relativistic lingo - 'curvature of worldlines'.

So: unaccelerated motion is movement along a straight worldline.

Now I use the relativistic principle, that all inertial observers are of 
equal rights and declare, that the inertial observer in question is at rest.

This defines the zero point of this particular universe a comoving to 
that specific observer.

c is (like all velocities) defined as angle between the axis of time of 
that particular observer and something remote moving with significant 
velocity.

c equals 45° in this picture. Things beyond the 45° cone (the observers 
past light cone) are invisible, thou there and real. The observer just 
can't see them.

Everything he can actually see are placed within a certain set of 
possibly visible locations, the observer calls in sum 'universe'.

This 'universe' is not universal, of course. But our personal 
(Earthling's) 'universe' is defined just that way.

So, beyond our limits of observations is another world, that is real, 
but which we cannot see.

This other world is equipped with its own axis of time, which is towards 
ours in an angle. So there are days, which appear more like years to us.

If we would fly there with a spaceship everything would be perfectly 
normal, only the Earth would behave strange (seen from there).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429845

On 8/23/17 12:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Acceleration is - in relativistic lingo - 'curvature of worldlines'.
> 
> So: unaccelerated motion is movement along a straight worldline.

I think this is backwards.
The "straightness" of a worldline is defined by whether an object moving 
inertial follows it.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429880

Am 23.08.2017 um 19:57 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/23/17 12:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Acceleration is - in relativistic lingo - 'curvature of worldlines'.
>>
>> So: unaccelerated motion is movement along a straight worldline.
>
> I think this is backwards.
> The "straightness" of a worldline is defined by whether an object moving
> inertial follows it.
>

well, that is more or less the same. So 'a straight worldline' is the 
same as 'unaccelerated movement'.

I would regard it as philosophical question, what is defined from what.


Now I use a simple trick:

Since all inertial observers shall be of equal rights, the inertial 
observer can rightfully declare himself to be at rest.

This is because of the following reasons:

there might be an absolute zero point in the universe. This zero point 
should be at least in respect to itself at rest, hence is inertial be 
definition.

Since the inertial observer is of equal right, he can declare himself to 
be the center of the universe.

Usually we actually do so, thou unconsciously, and declare ourselves to 
be the most important spot in the world.

As we do this, we grant all the others the same right and to be the 
center of the universe, too, even if that universe is different from ours.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429852

W dniu środa, 23 sierpnia 2017 19:29:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 22.08.2017 um 19:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> ...
> 
> 
> > You do realize, poor idiot, that your guru has "discovered"
> > there is no difference between acceleration and gravitation.
> > Do you?
> > So, if I accelerate, it creates a horizon somewhere far,
> > far away. Between 2 aliens, maybe. It vanishes whan I stop
> > to accelerate. Am I correct, poor idiot?
> >
> 
> No need to get rude..
> 
> Acceleration is - in relativistic lingo - 'curvature of worldlines'.
> 
> So: unaccelerated motion is movement along a straight worldline.
> 
> Now I use the relativistic principle, that all inertial observers are of 
> equal rights and declare, that the inertial observer in question is at rest.


I'm sorry, but there is no inertial observer in my question:(

 
> This defines the zero point of this particular universe a comoving to 
> that specific observer.
> 
> c is (like all velocities) defined as angle between the axis of time of 
> that particular observer and something remote moving with significant 
> velocity.
> 
> c equals 45° in this picture. Things beyond the 45° cone (the observers 
> past light cone) are invisible, thou there and real. The observer just 
> can't see them.
> 
> Everything he can actually see are placed within a certain set of 
> possibly visible locations, the observer calls in sum 'universe'.
> 
> This 'universe' is not universal, of course. But our personal 
> (Earthling's) 'universe' is defined just that way.
> 
> So, beyond our limits of observations is another world, that is real, 
> but which we cannot see.
> 
> This other world is equipped with its own axis of time, which is towards 
> ours in an angle. So there are days, which appear more like years to us.
> 
> If we would fly there with a spaceship everything would be perfectly 
> normal, only the Earth would behave strange (seen from there).
> 

A nice poetry, but the event horizon - does it appear when I'm
accelerating or not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429881

Am 23.08.2017 um 21:15 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
...
>>
>> Everything he can actually see are placed within a certain set of
>> possibly visible locations, the observer calls in sum 'universe'.
>>
>> This 'universe' is not universal, of course. But our personal
>> (Earthling's) 'universe' is defined just that way.
>>
>> So, beyond our limits of observations is another world, that is real,
>> but which we cannot see.
>>
>> This other world is equipped with its own axis of time, which is towards
>> ours in an angle. So there are days, which appear more like years to us.
>>
>> If we would fly there with a spaceship everything would be perfectly
>> normal, only the Earth would behave strange (seen from there).
>>
>
> A nice poetry, but the event horizon - does it appear when I'm
> accelerating or not?
>

Most likely there is no event-horizon, when you try to go there. This is 
similar to the horizon on the oceans: once you go there, the horizon is 
somewhere else.

But once you accelerate very fast, you will certainly see strange things 
(if accelerated fast enough).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429886

W dniu czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2017 08:05:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 23.08.2017 um 21:15 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> ...
> >>
> >> Everything he can actually see are placed within a certain set of
> >> possibly visible locations, the observer calls in sum 'universe'.
> >>
> >> This 'universe' is not universal, of course. But our personal
> >> (Earthling's) 'universe' is defined just that way.
> >>
> >> So, beyond our limits of observations is another world, that is real,
> >> but which we cannot see.
> >>
> >> This other world is equipped with its own axis of time, which is towards
> >> ours in an angle. So there are days, which appear more like years to us.
> >>
> >> If we would fly there with a spaceship everything would be perfectly
> >> normal, only the Earth would behave strange (seen from there).
> >>
> >
> > A nice poetry, but the event horizon - does it appear when I'm
> > accelerating or not?
> >
> 
> Most likely there is no event-horizon, when you try to go there. This is 
> similar to the horizon on the oceans: once you go there, the horizon is 
> somewhere else.

But, of course, light will be unable to cross this horizon
bidirectionally?
The aliens won't see each other until I stop accelerating?


> 
> But once you accelerate very fast, you will certainly see strange things 
> (if accelerated fast enough).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#429943

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:59987B7D.5CAE@ix.netcom.com... 

The Other Side of a Black Hole

it appears that yous people
have no idea what lies, or
what it looks like at
The Other Side of a Black Hole.


*** on the other side of every Black Hole there is a
"noTroll", or, in technical terms, an "Asshole".

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web