Elemental Puzzle - Page 15

retina · 2009-09-02, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

To the latter: I think a star going nova near a black hole would be a
significant event. Not merely a few extra photons, but a major spark to
the tinderbox of neutrino dust (others call degenerate matter) that results
in a major explosion, which may be a star-generating cyclic initialization.

Question: Have you calculated the maximal rate of photon capture that the black hole can withstand before "ignition" is initiated?

davar55 · 2009-09-02, 19:23

Page five continued:

Is dark matter real?

Yes.

Much of the mass of the universe is uncharged, as in neutrons, different
sized neutrinos (including tiny ones I call neutrinoinos) and neutrino dust.
This mass is called dark matter. The total mass-energy of the Universe
holds the universe together by gravitational attraction.

Are gravitons real?

No.

Gravity is not mediated by particles or waves but by spatial curvature.
There is no time delay in the gravititational force formula.

Is there intelligent life anywhere in the universe?

One might debate the existence of intelligent life on earth.
Some people (maybe even me) make you wonder.

However the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe
is an absolute certainty. The Universe is so large, and in many
ways uniform, i.e. similar in regions to our local community of
galaxies and stars, that the conditions that arose on Earth which
led to life, evolution, and intelligence, MUST have occurred and
must be occurring else in he Universe.

The only reason we haven't met our alien relatives is that they live
far from home and we don't know their addresses.

End of page five.

davar55 · 2009-09-02, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

Question: Have you calculated the maximal rate of photon capture that the black hole can withstand before "ignition" is initiated?

I wish I could answer questions like that.
The best I can say is that based on a Nova program (yes, Nova)
out own galaxy's black hole is probably far more benign than others
so that if one of the stars near our galactic center were to (for some
reason) go nova, our galaxy and thus our solar system would probably
survive.

But to seriously address your question: how do we even measure
the mass content of distant black holes yet to determine just how
susceptible to this kind of "ignition" they would be? I've been assuming
(always a question mark) that it would take a nearby exploding star
to "upset" a black hole. But I couldn't quantify these yet.

davar55 · 2009-09-02, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So, there's no singularity in a black hole -- then what is in it where the gravity is stronger than any force that could oppose it? Does your theory somehow prevent that from happening?

(But no need to answer now -- I'm prepared to wait for an answer to be revealed on a future page.)

I said no spatial singularities, but a black hole is "like" a gravitational
singularity, although I regard it as more an inverted star.

retina · 2009-09-02, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

There is no time delay in the gravititational force formula.

This is testable apparently.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Both of these above disagree with your statement, they say it is c

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp

This one claims it is 2x10^10 c, still not infinite.

davar55 · 2009-09-03, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

This is testable apparently.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Both of these above disagree with your statement, they say it is c

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp

This one claims it is 2x10^10 c, still not infinite.

I'm trying to assimilate these references, but I don't say
gravity propagates instantaneously or at infinite speed,
but that IT DOESN'T PROPAGATE, it just IS. An object with mass
bends space (as per Einstein) and so does each other object.
If they're massive, like galxies, stars, planets, comets, etc.
then Newton's law describes their relative motions.
If they're small, like protons and neutrons, they bend less space less,
but their effect on nearby small particles will be similar.

Still, I have to reread your references to see whether I have
a legitimate objection.

davar55 · 2009-09-03, 14:39

This is page six. It's mostly epistermological.

Is infinity real?

Yes and no.

One MIGHT say there is an infinite number of nothings everywhere,
because one has an idea of something that does exist, but which
does not exist within a space or one's purview. For example, there
are no oranges or bananas in my front yard, so the list of infinite
nothings exists within the space or area of my yard.

This premise is simply wrong.

It reduces to an old question:

Is zero a number, or does zero/nothing have existence?

The answer to this question is not simple.

Zero is a number, but not a counting number. It refers to a lack of
quantity. When you say you have zero pears, you are not saying
that pears have no existence, but rather that the number of pears
you currently have is zero, i.e. you have no pears. If you have any
pears, you have at least one. Counting begins with one.

The same is true with any other nothing. It is not a positive
existential idea but rather a reference to a lack of existence of
something. You can not have an infinite amount of nothings because
nothing is not an amount.

Nothing is not a QUANTITY. By definition, quantity requires substance.
If you have no substance, you have no quantity, you have no
existence of the thing in question.

Nothing and zero are NOT the same.
Zero IS a number, just not a "natural" number (as usually defined).
An infinity of zeros is still zero.
There is no actual infinity, except in mathematics.

The start of infinity is zero with endless potential.
The letters one can type on a keyboard lead to a potentially
infinite number of possibilities!

End of page six.

cheesehead · 2009-09-03, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

There is no time delay in the gravititational force formula.

This is equivalent to saying that the speed of gravitational propagation is infinite -- that the gravitational influence of one body instantaneously affects another body (as in Newtonian mechanics).

Your claim that gravitational propagation doesn't exist seems to me to imply that you think propagation requires the passage of some material thing, or some wave of force, from the first body to the second. It doesn't. Propagation can mean just the influence of one body on another regardless of means of transmission.

Example:

A planet and an asteroid are orbiting the Sun, all gravitationally influencing the motions of each other. We then attach a rocket to the asteroid and start it, changing the motion of asteroid.

Question: how long does it take for the change in asteroid's motion to be reflected in a change in the planet's motion, considering that the only connection between the asteroid and planet is gravity?

Answer, according to Newton and you: zero time -- the planet changes motion instantaneously as soon as the asteroid changes motion. This is the same as saying that the speed of gravitational propagation is infinite, regardless of how you think the "mechanism" of gravity works.

Answer, according to mainstream physics relativity IIRC: distance between asteroid and planet, divided by speed of gravity propagation (which is speed of light). (Then there's the frames-of-reference hassle ...)

cheesehead · 2009-09-03, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Are gravitons real?

No.

Gravity is not mediated by particles or waves but by spatial curvature.

Then how does your theory explain the factual observation that when slow neutrons are falling in vacuo under the influence of gravity, they fall at only certain discrete rates -- that is, that gravitational force has been physically demonstrated to occur only in discrete quanta, not continuously as Newtonian mechanics has it?

(Yes, this was the outcome of an actual experiment in 2001.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3525

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/610487/posts)

10metreh · 2009-09-03, 19:50

Looking at the original puzzle, I think this is one hell of a

, although the discussion is still about elements. But this discussion is not related to the puzzle, so I think this discussion (but not the whole thread) should be moved to Science and Technology (or possibly the Soap Box).

Uncwilly · 2009-09-03, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

but I don't say gravity propagates instantaneously or at infinite speed, but that IT DOESN'T PROPAGATE, it just IS. An object with mass bends space (as per Einstein) and so does each other object.

What about the effects of energy's gravity? Does that outstrip the travel of the energy itself?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Some puzzle	Harrywill	Puzzles	4	2017-05-03 05:10
Elemental Puzzle #4	davar55	Puzzles	11	2016-01-10 12:53
An Elemental Puzzle	davar55	Puzzles	3	2007-03-07 01:59
Elemental Puzzle #2	davar55	Puzzles	10	2006-05-26 01:17
now HERE'S a puzzle.	Orgasmic Troll	Puzzles	6	2005-12-08 07:19

2009-09-02, 19:23	#156
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5×7×11² Posts	Page five continued: Is dark matter real? Yes. Much of the mass of the universe is uncharged, as in neutrons, different sized neutrinos (including tiny ones I call neutrinoinos) and neutrino dust. This mass is called dark matter. The total mass-energy of the Universe holds the universe together by gravitational attraction. Are gravitons real? No. Gravity is not mediated by particles or waves but by spatial curvature. There is no time delay in the gravititational force formula. Is there intelligent life anywhere in the universe? One might debate the existence of intelligent life on earth. Some people (maybe even me) make you wonder. However the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe is an absolute certainty. The Universe is so large, and in many ways uniform, i.e. similar in regions to our local community of galaxies and stars, that the conditions that arose on Earth which led to life, evolution, and intelligence, MUST have occurred and must be occurring else in he Universe. The only reason we haven't met our alien relatives is that they live far from home and we don't know their addresses. End of page five.

2009-09-03, 14:39	#161
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5×7×11² Posts	This is page six. It's mostly epistermological. Is infinity real? Yes and no. One MIGHT say there is an infinite number of nothings everywhere, because one has an idea of something that does exist, but which does not exist within a space or one's purview. For example, there are no oranges or bananas in my front yard, so the list of infinite nothings exists within the space or area of my yard. This premise is simply wrong. It reduces to an old question: Is zero a number, or does zero/nothing have existence? The answer to this question is not simple. Zero is a number, but not a counting number. It refers to a lack of quantity. When you say you have zero pears, you are not saying that pears have no existence, but rather that the number of pears you currently have is zero, i.e. you have no pears. If you have any pears, you have at least one. Counting begins with one. The same is true with any other nothing. It is not a positive existential idea but rather a reference to a lack of existence of something. You can not have an infinite amount of nothings because nothing is not an amount. Nothing is not a QUANTITY. By definition, quantity requires substance. If you have no substance, you have no quantity, you have no existence of the thing in question. Nothing and zero are NOT the same. Zero IS a number, just not a "natural" number (as usually defined). An infinity of zeros is still zero. There is no actual infinity, except in mathematics. The start of infinity is zero with endless potential. The letters one can type on a keyboard lead to a potentially infinite number of possibilities! End of page six.

2009-09-03, 19:50	#164
10metreh Nov 2008 100100010010₂ Posts	Looking at the original puzzle, I think this is one hell of a , although the discussion is still about elements. But this discussion is not related to the puzzle, so I think this discussion (but not the whole thread) should be moved to Science and Technology (or possibly the Soap Box).