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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470498 > unrolled thread

Black holes don't exist in reality

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

Contents

  Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 17:37 -0700
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-05 05:14 +0200
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 10:38 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 00:52 +0200
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 20:39 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 07:46 +0200
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 12:33 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 22:49 +0200
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-06 14:18 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 15:02 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-06 15:37 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 04:37 +0200
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-07 13:07 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 14:56 -0700
                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 12:05 +0200
                            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-08 04:12 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 10:21 +0200
                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 15:19 +0200
                            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-08 13:34 -0700
                              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 00:11 +0200
                                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-09 22:55 -0700
                                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 00:54 +0200
                                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-12 16:20 -0700
                                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 17:17 -0700
                                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 02:40 +0200
                                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-14 20:07 -0700
                                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-15 09:30 +0200
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-10 19:56 +0200
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 11:09 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-30 05:50 +0200
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-29 21:09 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-29 21:12 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-11 02:33 +0200
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 18:00 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-11 15:21 +0200
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:03 +0000
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-11 21:34 +0200
                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 12:57 -0700
                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 20:50 +0000
                            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 14:00 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-11 23:27 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-06 19:39 +0200
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 20:08 +0200
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-06 13:21 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-06 20:24 +0000
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-06 14:19 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 04:30 +0200
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-09-08 09:55 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 19:56 +0200
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 12:10 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 21:29 +0200
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 12:50 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 12:56 +0200
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-09 14:05 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-11 02:28 +0200
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-08 13:40 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 00:14 +0200
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-09 13:15 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-09 23:29 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 07:40 -0700
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 09:50 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:09 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 12:19 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 18:52 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 09:04 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 16:26 +0000
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:45 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-13 17:07 +0000
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-12 22:58 +0200
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 21:18 +0000
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 17:16 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:56 -0700
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:54 -0700
                        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-14 05:13 +0200
                          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 06:34 -0700
                            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-14 19:05 +0200
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-08 13:37 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-08 14:59 -0500
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 15:54 +0200
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-15 09:28 +0200
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-16 09:11 -0500
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-16 18:21 +0200
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 17:58 +0000
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 12:50 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 21:35 +0000
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 14:54 -0700
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 16:35 +0000
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 11:13 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 12:58 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-12 13:27 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 23:15 -0700
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 18:02 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 18:44 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 04:39 +0200
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 19:48 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 20:10 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 10:14 +0200
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 15:42 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 16:57 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-13 17:06 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 20:21 -0700
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-13 20:58 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 21:20 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-13 21:20 -0700
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 14:20 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-19 23:54 +0200
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 15:20 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-21 23:50 +0200
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 16:10 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 15:34 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-19 17:37 -0700
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 19:36 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 15:25 +0000
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:57 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 00:24 +0200
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-21 22:42 +0000
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-21 23:08 +0000
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 16:15 -0700
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-20 15:02 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 15:11 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-20 15:16 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 16:08 -0700
    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 16:18 -0700
      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 20:40 -0700
        Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 20:46 -0700
          Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 23:36 -0700
            Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 15:42 -0700
              Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-23 15:50 -0700
                Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-25 17:06 -0700
                  Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 18:43 -0700
                    Re: Black holes don't exist in reality "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-25 18:53 -0700
                      Re: Black holes don't exist in reality mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 19:09 -0700

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#471226

On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/8/2018 6:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Because, like with other massive objects, whenever something with a
>>>> comparably small mass approaches a black hole, there are three possibilities:
>>>>
>>>>     A) It is accelerated and thrown away (cf. “gravity assist”);
>>>
>>> By “thrown away” I do not mean “put away as garbage”, but “ejected out of
>>> orbit to a place where the "gravity" of the body that accelerated it is no
>>> longer dominant”.
>>
>> Can the jets interact with another galaxy, or cluster of mass many, many
>> light years away? The influence cast out by a jet just might be able to
>> sort of whip things up, in a sense?
> 
> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a GRB
> can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that supports evolution.
> 

I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I 
wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a 
spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A 
"helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away 
"neighbors". Humm...

Btw, thank you for interacting with me on this. Just try to have a 
little patience. ;^)

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

#471588

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
>> 
>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example, 
>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
>> supports evolution.
> 
> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I 
> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a 
> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A 
> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away 
> "neighbors". Humm...

Relevance?

> Btw, thank you for interacting with me on this. Just try to have a little
> patience. ;^)

My patience is wearing thin.  Posting stray thoughts and letting others
guess what they mean is not a basis for a discussion.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471590

On 9/12/2018 3:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
>>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
>>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
>>>
>>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
>>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
>>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
>>> supports evolution.
>>
>> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I
>> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a
>> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A
>> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away
>> "neighbors". Humm...
> 
> Relevance?

Can a jet from a quasar be beneficial to other dense stellar collections 
many, many light years away?


> 
>> Btw, thank you for interacting with me on this. Just try to have a little
>> patience. ;^)
> 
> My patience is wearing thin.  Posting stray thoughts and letting others
> guess what they mean is not a basis for a discussion.
> 

Yeah. I see what you mean. You are not my tutor. If you were, well, 
where is your damn paycheck! Ouch.

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

#471597

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 4:20:13 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 3:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
> >>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
> >>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
> >>>
> >>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
> >>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
> >>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
> >>> supports evolution.
> >>
> >> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I
> >> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a
> >> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A
> >> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away
> >> "neighbors". Humm...
> > 
> > Relevance?
> 
> Can a jet from a quasar be beneficial to other dense stellar collections 
> many, many light years away?

Quasar black hole matter jets show that even matter can get
out and light bubbles don't slow down or curve back.

Mitchell Raemsch


> 
> 
> > 
> >> Btw, thank you for interacting with me on this. Just try to have a little
> >> patience. ;^)
> > 
> > My patience is wearing thin.  Posting stray thoughts and letting others
> > guess what they mean is not a basis for a discussion.
> > 
> 
> Yeah. I see what you mean. You are not my tutor. If you were, well, 
> where is your damn paycheck! Ouch.

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

#471598

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 3:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
>>>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
>>>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
>>>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
>>>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
>>>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
>>>> supports evolution.
>>>
>>> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I
>>> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a
>>> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A
>>> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away
>>> "neighbors". Humm...
>>
>> Relevance?
> 
> Can a jet from a quasar be beneficial to other dense stellar collections 
> many, many light years away?

I still do not understand your question.  In what way “beneficial”?
And what do you think density has to do with it?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471885

On 9/12/2018 5:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/12/2018 3:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
>>>>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
>>>>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
>>>>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
>>>>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
>>>>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
>>>>> supports evolution.
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I
>>>> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a
>>>> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A
>>>> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away
>>>> "neighbors". Humm...
>>>
>>> Relevance?
>>
>> Can a jet from a quasar be beneficial to other dense stellar collections
>> many, many light years away?
> 
> I still do not understand your question.  In what way “beneficial”?

Think of a galaxy that existed for quite a while, however was lacking in 
stellar nurseries. However, a beam of influence that was cast out form a 
source many light years away finally "hit" it... After this event 
occurred, the number of very viable stellar nurseries increased!

> And what do you think density has to do with it?

In deep space, imvvvho, a galaxy is denser than the nothing, so to speak?

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

#471889

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 5:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 9/12/2018 3:54 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 9/8/2018 3:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> Can the [relativistic jets] interact with another galaxy, or cluster
>>>>>>> of mass many, many light years away? The influence cast out by a jet
>>>>>>> just might be able to sort of whip things up, in a sense?
>>>>>> Certainly; both the jets and the light that they emit.  For example,
>>>>>> gamma-ray bursts (GRB) could also be caused by relativistic jets, and a
>>>>>> GRB can wipe out all life on a planet – or cause a mutation that
>>>>>> supports evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in any mutations, especially the "beneficial" ones. I
>>>>> wonder how many galaxies got "whipped up" in the "right way" to form a
>>>>> spiral than can give give rise to a galaxy like the Milky Way. A
>>>>> "helpful" influence caused by the jets cast out from very far away
>>>>> "neighbors". Humm...
>>> […]
>>> Can a jet from a quasar be beneficial to other dense stellar collections
>>> many, many light years away?
>> […]  In what way “beneficial”?
> 
> Think of a galaxy that existed for quite a while, however was lacking in 
> stellar nurseries. However, a beam of influence that was cast out form a 
> source many light years away finally "hit" it... After this event 
> occurred, the number of very viable stellar nurseries increased!

I do not see a mechanism for this to be happening.  I was referring to the
fact that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) *might* be caused by relativistic jets,
too, and that a stray GRB may have influenced the life on a *nearby*
*planet*, instead.

Keep in mind that intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance from the source.

>> And what do you think density has to do with it?
> 
> In deep space, imvvvho, a galaxy is denser than the nothing, so to speak?

Certainly.

.
.
.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471304

Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
  ..
>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
> 
> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
> hole.
> 

Since when is no information lost in the universe?

As far as I know, information is lost all the time.

E.g. tomorrow is another anniversary of 9/11, where all the information 
about the 'ENRON' scandal was lost in WTC 7.

(btw: the informations about a small amount of money missing in the DoD 
budged was lost in the Pentagon on the same day)


TH

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

#471305

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:56:38 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>   ..
> >> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
> > 
> > Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
> > is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
> > information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
> > hole.
> > 
> 
> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
> 
> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
> 
> E.g. tomorrow is another anniversary of 9/11, where all the information 
> about the 'ENRON' scandal was lost in WTC 7.
> 
> (btw: the informations about a small amount of money missing in the DoD 
> budged was lost in the Pentagon on the same day)
> 
> 
> TH

Black hole problems can't be overlooked.
They don't exist and we know what we are
really seeing.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#473518

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Black hole problems can't be overlooked.

Correct.  There *are* gaps in our understanding about them.

There is a well-founded scientific explanation now that avoids the black
hole information paradox, the holographic principle (see the video on
YouTube of Susskind’s talk that I referred to in the other subthread):

The information of whatever three-dimensional thing fell into the black hole
is still visible from the outside, like a hologram, on the two-dimensional
event horizon; but, like a hologram, the information is scrambled beyond
recognition.  (This leads to the conclusion that our universe may be,
in that sense, a hologram, too: information about us may be preserved
scrambled on the boundary of our universe (keep in mind that the surface of
a sphere, too, is infinite in extent [e.g. from the perspective of someone
moving on it], but it is still bounded).

But there is no complete description of the spacetime near and at what we
now (from GR) understand to be a spacetime singularity (which might be
wrong) yet; the well-founded hope is that a theory of quantum gravity will
solve that problem.

> They don't exist and we know what we are
> really seeing.

What we are *really*, *literally* seeing is that they do exist:

<https://www.nasa.gov/black-holes>

That *you* are *ignorant* of the observations or *lie* about them
does not change reality at all.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#473520

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:50:43 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Black hole problems can't be overlooked.
> 
> Correct.  There *are* gaps in our understanding about them.
> 
> There is a well-founded scientific explanation now that avoids the black
> hole information paradox, the holographic principle (see the video on
> YouTube of Susskind’s talk that I referred to in the other subthread):
> 
> The information of whatever three-dimensional thing fell into the black hole
> is still visible from the outside, like a hologram, on the two-dimensional
> event horizon; but, like a hologram, the information is scrambled beyond
> recognition.  (This leads to the conclusion that our universe may be,
> in that sense, a hologram, too: information about us may be preserved
> scrambled on the boundary of our universe (keep in mind that the surface of
> a sphere, too, is infinite in extent [e.g. from the perspective of someone
> moving on it], but it is still bounded).
> 
> But there is no complete description of the spacetime near and at what we
> now (from GR) understand to be a spacetime singularity (which might be
> wrong) yet; the well-founded hope is that a theory of quantum gravity will
> solve that problem.
> 
> > They don't exist and we know what we are
> > really seeing.
> 
> What we are *really*, *literally* seeing is that they do exist:

They do not exit at all for many reasons.
We are seeing look a likes Tommy boy...

Mitchell Raesch

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

#473521

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:50:43 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Black hole problems can't be overlooked.
> > 
> > Correct.  There *are* gaps in our understanding about them.
> > 
> > There is a well-founded scientific explanation now that avoids the black
> > hole information paradox, the holographic principle (see the video on
> > YouTube of Susskind’s talk that I referred to in the other subthread):
> > 
> > The information of whatever three-dimensional thing fell into the black hole
> > is still visible from the outside, like a hologram, on the two-dimensional
> > event horizon; but, like a hologram, the information is scrambled beyond
> > recognition.  (This leads to the conclusion that our universe may be,
> > in that sense, a hologram, too: information about us may be preserved
> > scrambled on the boundary of our universe (keep in mind that the surface of
> > a sphere, too, is infinite in extent [e.g. from the perspective of someone
> > moving on it], but it is still bounded).
> > 
> > But there is no complete description of the spacetime near and at what we
> > now (from GR) understand to be a spacetime singularity (which might be
> > wrong) yet; the well-founded hope is that a theory of quantum gravity will
> > solve that problem.
> > 
> > > They don't exist and we know what we are
> > > really seeing.
> > 
> > What we are *really*, *literally* seeing is that they do exist:
> 
> They do not exit at all for many reasons.
> We are seeing look a likes Tommy boy...
> 
> Mitchell Raesch

They don't exist at all for many reasons Tommy...

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

#471353

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
>> hole.
> 
> Since when is no information lost in the universe?

Time immemorial.

> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.

You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471355

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:33:53 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
> >> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
> >> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
> >> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
> >> hole.
> > 
> > Since when is no information lost in the universe?
> 
> Time immemorial.

That ends... and a new time begins

> 
> > As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
> 
> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.

> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471386

Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
>>> hole.
>>
>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
> 
> Time immemorial.
> 
>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
> 
> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
> 


You deny everything. So what..

And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.

But why do you think so??

E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard 
drive.

But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what 
makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times 
immemorial?

TH

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

#471390

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
>>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
>>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
>>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
>>>> hole.
>>> 
>>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
>> 
>> Time immemorial.
>> 
>>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
>> 
>> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
>> 
> 
> 
> You deny everything. So what..
> 
> And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.
> 
> But why do you think so??
> 
> E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard 
> drive.
> 
> But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what 
> makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times 
> immemorial?
> 
> TH
> 

Google “conservation of information”

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

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

#471432

Am 11.09.2018 um 16:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
>>>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
>>>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
>>>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
>>>>> hole.
>>>>
>>>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
>>>
>>> Time immemorial.
>>>
>>>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
>>>
>>> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You deny everything. So what..
>>
>> And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.
>>
>> But why do you think so??
>>
>> E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard
>> drive.
>>
>> But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what
>> makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times
>> immemorial?
>>
>> TH
>>
> 
> Google “conservation of information”
> 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

quote:

"There are two main principles in play:

Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future 
changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.

Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an 
inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.

The combination of the two means that information must always be 
preserved. "


There is yet another possibility: one of the principles is wrong.


I personally think, the explanation for the phenomenon 'black hole' 
itself is wrong.

In my view a 'black hole' is an effect related to the axis of time.

A black hole is actually 'the axis of time seen from behind'.

Time has usually an effect like 'pulling things with it'. IOW: we are 
(usually) drawn into the future.

If we can see a region, where the axis of time (of that region) is 
pointing away from us, all things look like being pulled into a black hole.

This would be a mutual relation and seen from a black hole the Earth 
would be (seemingly) vanish in a black hole, while nothing interesting 
is happening there.

The future also takes information in reach with it. That is into a 
realm, were the information is lost for us, but not entirely gone.

TH

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

#471437

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:34:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.09.2018 um 16:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >> Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >>>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
> >>>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
> >>>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
> >>>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
> >>>>> hole.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
> >>>
> >>> Time immemorial.
> >>>
> >>>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
> >>>
> >>> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You deny everything. So what..
> >>
> >> And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.
> >>
> >> But why do you think so??
> >>
> >> E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard
> >> drive.
> >>
> >> But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what
> >> makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times
> >> immemorial?
> >>
> >> TH
> >>
> > 
> > Google “conservation of information”
> > 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> 
> quote:
> 
> "There are two main principles in play:
> 
> Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future 
> changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.
> 
> Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an 
> inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.
> 
> The combination of the two means that information must always be 
> preserved. "
> 
> 
> There is yet another possibility: one of the principles is wrong.
> 
> 
> I personally think, the explanation for the phenomenon 'black hole' 
> itself is wrong.
> 
> In my view a 'black hole' is an effect related to the axis of time.
> 
> A black hole is actually 'the axis of time seen from behind'.
> 
> Time has usually an effect like 'pulling things with it'. IOW: we are 
> (usually) drawn into the future.
> 
> If we can see a region, where the axis of time (of that region) is 
> pointing away from us, all things look like being pulled into a black hole.
> 
> This would be a mutual relation and seen from a black hole the Earth 
> would be (seemingly) vanish in a black hole, while nothing interesting 
> is happening there.
> 
> The future also takes information in reach with it. That is into a 
> realm, were the information is lost for us, but not entirely gone.
> 
> TH

There is no probability order. There is a quantum vibration wave
for particles and the mono atomic.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#471448

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 11.09.2018 um 16:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
>>>>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
>>>>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
>>>>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
>>>>>> hole.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
>>>> 
>>>> Time immemorial.
>>>> 
>>>>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
>>>> 
>>>> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You deny everything. So what..
>>> 
>>> And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.
>>> 
>>> But why do you think so??
>>> 
>>> E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard
>>> drive.
>>> 
>>> But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what
>>> makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times
>>> immemorial?
>>> 
>>> TH
>>> 
>> 
>> Google “conservation of information”
>> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> 
> quote:
> 
> "There are two main principles in play:
> 
> Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future 
> changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.
> 
> Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an 
> inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.
> 
> The combination of the two means that information must always be 
> preserved. "
> 
> 
> There is yet another possibility: one of the principles is wrong.
> 
> 
> I personally think, the explanation for the phenomenon 'black hole' 
> itself is wrong.

Note that the two principles above pertain to quantum mechanics as a whole,
not to black holes in particular. 

> 
> In my view a 'black hole' is an effect related to the axis of time.
> 
> A black hole is actually 'the axis of time seen from behind'.
> 
> Time has usually an effect like 'pulling things with it'. IOW: we are 
> (usually) drawn into the future.
> 
> If we can see a region, where the axis of time (of that region) is 
> pointing away from us, all things look like being pulled into a black hole.
> 
> This would be a mutual relation and seen from a black hole the Earth 
> would be (seemingly) vanish in a black hole, while nothing interesting 
> is happening there.
> 
> The future also takes information in reach with it. That is into a 
> realm, were the information is lost for us, but not entirely gone.
> 
> TH
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#471454

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:50:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> > Am 11.09.2018 um 16:03 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 11.09.2018 um 02:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>>> Am 06.09.2018 um 22:49 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >>>>>>> Why did Hawking say event horizons were a problem?
> >>>>>> Because of the black hole information paradox: the assumption of all physics
> >>>>>> is that no information is lost.  But this would be the case as the
> >>>>>> information about objects beyond the event horizon cannot get out of a black
> >>>>>> hole.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Since when is no information lost in the universe?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Time immemorial.
> >>>> 
> >>>>> As far as I know, information is lost all the time.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You "know" a lot of nonsense, this one included.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> You deny everything. So what..
> >>> 
> >>> And now you claim, that no information is lost in the universe.
> >>> 
> >>> But why do you think so??
> >>> 
> >>> E.g. I have lost a lot of information, caused by a malfunctioning hard
> >>> drive.
> >>> 
> >>> But I could burn a few papers and information is also lost. So: what
> >>> makes you think, that information does not get lost at all since times
> >>> immemorial?
> >>> 
> >>> TH
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Google “conservation of information”
> >> 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> > 
> > quote:
> > 
> > "There are two main principles in play:
> > 
> > Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future 
> > changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator.
> > 
> > Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an 
> > inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique.
> > 
> > The combination of the two means that information must always be 
> > preserved. "
> > 
> > 
> > There is yet another possibility: one of the principles is wrong.
> > 
> > 
> > I personally think, the explanation for the phenomenon 'black hole' 
> > itself is wrong.
> 
> Note that the two principles above pertain to quantum mechanics as a whole,
> not to black holes in particular. 
> 
> > 
> > In my view a 'black hole' is an effect related to the axis of time.
> > 
> > A black hole is actually 'the axis of time seen from behind'.
> > 
> > Time has usually an effect like 'pulling things with it'. IOW: we are 
> > (usually) drawn into the future.
> > 
> > If we can see a region, where the axis of time (of that region) is 
> > pointing away from us, all things look like being pulled into a black hole.
> > 
> > This would be a mutual relation and seen from a black hole the Earth 
> > would be (seemingly) vanish in a black hole, while nothing interesting 
> > is happening there.
> > 
> > The future also takes information in reach with it. That is into a 
> > realm, were the information is lost for us, but not entirely gone.
> > 
> > TH
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Black holes are out. Space time doesn't end.
Einstein and Hawking rejected singularities.
But Hawking could have stayed with the truth.
But he needed his black hole evaporation fame.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web