Re: forgot this strong point

Posted by Pasti on Mar 24, 2002 at 15:45
(64.10.124.91)

Re: forgot this strong point (Paul)

Paul, you have no clue what you are talking about.Absolutely none.

"gravity does not generate matter in any sence
it is impossible."
Read the rest of the phrase too. I made it quite clear that I am not talking about matter "creation".You would have understood this if you read more carefully.

"there cannot be a zero volume."

Oh boy.Nothing is easy with you.Consider a spere of radius R.Its volume is V=(4pi/#)R^3.Now take the limit R goes to zero. In this case, V goes to zero.Here is your zero volume.
Read this carefully, and don't pretend later that you were talking about the quantum structure of spacetime.I made it very clear, again,that I am talking from the GR viewpoint, and that I am talking about a singularity,and from this viewpoint there is no restriction for the quantity called volume to become vanishing.

"neither, the direct cause is gravity."

If you read more carefully,you might have noticed that the questions were rethorical!I gave you the answers.With at least a hint of an elementary argument.

"your argument in previous replies considered the effects of gravity on photons did it not?
this effect was due to gravitational forces that bend light...."

And your point is?Even in Newtonian gravitation a mass M produces bending of light (even if the deflection is negligible).You can understand this without any GR.It is called scattering by a central potential.

"...so I suppose that now you would have me to believe that mass or density was the direct or immediate cause of the bending."

Paul, get your act straight.You were the one saying that it is density that is important for a black hole,not me.Re-read your posts.I told you(after I advised you to think hard!) in the previous post that it is the structure/geometry of the spacetime determined by the mass M, that produces the bending, or the event hoizon.

"furthermore I am not a believer in spacetime as some push this to limits of being able to travel forwards and backwards in time.
time is only a word."

Paul, get back to the topic we were discussing.You are going astray.What has time travel to do with black holes?And BTW, as we speak,wea are all traveling forward in time.

"it refers to the spherical perimeter that its gravity traps light."

Well, at least you seem to have got the correct ideea on this point.

"no Im not fighting anything. Im voiceing my opinion."

Read "Don Quijote", by Cervantes.And read more before claiming that you have such definite oppinions.Might help.

"just like you. and einstein."

I'll take this as a compliment.But I am not so sure Einstein would...:)

"you have never been to a black hole nor einstein or I , we can only express our ideas as to what we think things are like.
nothing more or less."

I hope you do realize how childish is to use this type of argument.You and Einstein (and of course, I together with Einstein >:))have very different oppinions about what means expressing an ideea.To you, it means just voicing something,based on very little if any information, even elementary,without any arguments or even attempts toward any consistency whatsoever.And if you are happy with that, be my guest.But if I were you, I would try harder to understand more before even assuming that I have an oppinion.This is ,in general,how it is done in science.

"the model you speak of might work in a near perfect universe where there are minimal changes but in a chaotic universe such as ours where there are constant changes there can not be a near perfect model that would last more than a split second."

This tells me that you have absolutely no clue what model I am talking about,why I am talking about that particular model, and what the conclusions of the model are.And yet,you make statements of general nature about its validity!
This argument of yours might eventually work with a 6 year old,but not with me.
I think I told you in one of the previous posts that if you find any description of how something works under the influence of everthing else, to let me know.You might have not understood the sarcasm, so I will try to explain it to you.
There is no such model,and it is doubtful if there can ever be any,even in principle.But this does not imply that simplified models have automatically no value, as you would like to imply.You are using a circular argument of the type "if it does not describe everything,it cannot describe anything because it cannot describe everything".Which is not true.
The model I am talking about is the Schwarzschield model of a black-hole, and I have chosen this model because it is the simplest.When you will convince me that you understand at least the elementary concepts of this model,we can talk about more complicated ones,like the Kerr black-hole (but something tells me this won't happen very soon).
And even if this model is the simplest,and it does not give you the "whole picture" as you would like (but again, there isn't an "exact model" for the transistor either, and somehow you have no "philosophical" problem with that when you use your computer),it gives you a very elementary insight(and very general for that matter) about the phenomenology.And exactly because it is so simple,its conclusions have a very general nature,which won't be qualitatively changed by any refinement of this model.

So before "expressing your oppinion", better "take the fifth" until you get more info, and understand more about the topic that is discussed.And despite the sarcasm,this is a friendly advice(if I am not wrong, I've given this advice to you before, and several times for that matter)that might help you in the future, if you somehow decide to take it.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]