Let there be light....

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Voyager]
We’re close to the sun. We’re affected by the tides among other things.

A photon from a star a few billion light years away might hit us once in a lifetime, if then. Exactly which non-gravitational fields don’t involve photons or bigger particles, like neutrinos, for energy transfer? And then there is matter on the other side of the event horizon that doesn’t affect us at all, even in principle.
[/QUOTE]

Do you think you can explain that bit to me about the event horizon? I kind of get what you’re saying, but I don’t really. :wink:

102

[QUOTE=Voyager]
And then there is matter on the other side of the event horizon that doesn’t affect us at all, even in principle.
[/QUOTE]

it adds to the mass of the black hole, which would increase the event horizon size and increase the gravitation of the BH.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Do you think you can explain that bit to me about the event horizon? I kind of get what you’re saying, but I don’t really.
[/QUOTE]

A event horizon is a term used around a black hole. It’s a spherical area where once matter or light enter it can never escape, it is effectivally removed from the rest of the universe.

103

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

A event horizon is a term used around a black hole. It’s a spherical area where once matter or light enter it can never escape, it is effectivally removed from the rest of the universe.
[/QUOTE]

If light can’t escape it how can we know it’s a sphere?

104

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
it adds to the mass of the black hole, which would increase the event horizon size and increase the gravitation of the BH.

A event horizon is a term used around a black hole. It’s a spherical area where once matter or light enter it can never escape, it is effectivally removed from the rest of the universe.
[/QUOTE]

I was speaking of the limit of observability of the universe. There is certainly stuff more than 14 b ly away from us, but light from it hasn’t had time to reach us - so it is on the other side of a kind of event horizon. Black holes have gravity, and do affect us. And there is the fuzziness, of course.

And you’re right about its spherical nature - you can show that mathematically, I suspect.

105

[QUOTE=mswas]
If light can’t escape it how can we know it’s a sphere?
[/QUOTE]

The laws of gravity define a sphere - it’s not a perfect sphere though just like the earths gravity field is not either (at any given ‘strength’ of gravity). Also we have observed gravitational lensing, where light got very close to the E.H. but never crossed that line, it’s path got bent in a pattern that would suggest a sphere.

That’s the shape for the E.H. on the outsdie of the B.H., but it would be different for inside the B.H. itself, sort of a mini-universe, some theories suggest that our universe is actually inside a super massive B.H..

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I was speaking of the limit of observability of the universe. There is certainly stuff more than 14 b ly away from us, but light from it hasn’t had time to reach us - so it is on the other side of a kind of event horizon.

[/QUOTE]

OK Got you.

106

Going back to the OP w/ the talk about the E.H. as the edge of the observable universe due to distance, or even the expansion of the universe itself, for if there is light so far away that the universe is expanding faster between us and itself that it can never get to us unless the speed of light changes or the universe changes it’s expansion.

God wrote the laws of physics, and it appears that He set the cosmic speed limit at the speed of light (s.o.l.). the sol prevents all light from reaching us instantly and causes the dark sky at night with just a few 1000 points of light. The s.o.l. may not apply in the spiritual world and that could produce the light mentioned in the OP. Not that I see it that way, but it would go more along the lines of the OP then just getting bigger telescopes.

And would make our world much darker then it would be w/o the s.o.l.

107

I think Ricky Gervais has a quite nice explanation of this whole “let there be light” thing.

108

[QUOTE=Hampshire]
Looks like lightwait witnessed and ran. So typical of those type. I guess it holds true what Dave Barry said:
“People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.”
[/QUOTE]

So true. Witnessing like the OP does isn’t something seen in the public domain in the Netherlands. Seriously, if the OP climbed on a soapbox in a public Dutch park and witnessed like that, probably some social worker or police officer would assume he was suffering from delusions or from a mental breakdown and escort him, gently but firmly, to the nearest mental health professional.

And thank heavens for that. Something about witnessing leaves a thoroughly bad taste in my mouth, and a sense of wrongness. I think it´s the I´m looking right through you, you´re not a real personattitude combined with the I´m saved and i´m trying to save youmessage. If I´m not a real person to you, and my opinions are of no interest or importance to you, then why bother saving me?
I´d feel the same way if a shifty eyed guy, alternately eying me hungrily, scared and with contempt, but never seeing me as a person, held a raving sermon about I have recently discovered sex, and man, everybody should have sex, you know ?.

109

[QUOTE=don’t ask]
I think Ricky Gervais has a quite nice explanation of this whole “let there be light” thing.
[/QUOTE]

I hope lightwait will return and explain more of his thoughts, I am not ready yet to write him off as a typical witnesser. He has said a few things not typical of witnessing and I would like to carry the conversation on further.

This is not a typical religious saying. He is absolutely right, of course. No one knows how this universe came into being. No one ever will. Though there are plenty posting here who think they can know the unknowable. No one here experienced the beginning of this universe. It is all theory. That’s why I would like to here more.

As for Ricky Gervais, he is taking advantage of wrongful thinking. Irrational thought that a group of people hold thinking they know exactly how the universe started. It would be interesting if Ricky had a counterpart in the religious group.

So, I hope he will return and further explain the light as he knows/experienced it. To me, at least, it would be interesting.

110

[QUOTE=lekatt]
This is not a typical religious saying. He is absolutely right, of course. No one knows how this universe came into being. No one ever will.
[/QUOTE]

It may not be typical but it is scriptural. We are not going to pry out knowledge that belongs solely to God, and you can read about how the Lord reprimands Job, basically saying you have no idea how the universe works, actually more of a challenge, ‘if you know how it works then tell Me’.

111

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
The laws of gravity define a sphere - it’s not a perfect sphere though just like the earths gravity field is not either (at any given ‘strength’ of gravity). Also we have observed gravitational lensing, where light got very close to the E.H. but never crossed that line, it’s path got bent in a pattern that would suggest a sphere.

That’s the shape for the E.H. on the outsdie of the B.H., but it would be different for inside the B.H. itself, sort of a mini-universe, some theories suggest that our universe is actually inside a super massive B.H..

[/QUOTE]

How does one compare relative sizes of black holes?

112

[QUOTE=Maastricht]
So true. Witnessing like the OP does isn’t something seen in the public domain in the Netherlands. Seriously, if the OP climbed on a soapbox in a public Dutch park and witnessed like that, probably some social worker or police officer would assume he was suffering from delusions or from a mental breakdown and escort him, gently but firmly, to the nearest mental health professional.

And thank heavens for that. Something about witnessing leaves a thoroughly bad taste in my mouth, and a sense of wrongness. I think it´s the I´m looking right through you, you´re not a real personattitude combined with the I´m saved and i´m trying to save youmessage. If I´m not a real person to you, and my opinions are of no interest or importance to you, then why bother saving me?
I´d feel the same way if a shifty eyed guy, alternately eying me hungrily, scared and with contempt, but never seeing me as a person, held a raving sermon about I have recently discovered sex, and man, everybody should have sex, you know ?.
[/QUOTE]

Witnessing is what everyone does every time they tell others about their experiences or their opinions. You are probably talking about religious witnessing. I have never been to the Netherlands, but I have exchanged emails with some that live there, and know there are those who do believe in religion. The Netherlands is nineth on the list of countries that visit my web site. One emailer told me he could not express his belief in spiritual matters openly for fear of losing his job. He had to meet with others of like mind to talk about his beliefs. I am glad that I don’t live in the Netherlands.

There are over 80 countries that regularly visit my site.

113

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Witnessing is what everyone does every time they tell others about their experiences or their opinions. You are probably talking about religious witnessing.
[/QUOTE]
Correct, and in particular the kind of religious witnessing practiced by the OP.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I have exchanged emails with some that live there, and know there are those who do believe in religion. The Netherlands is nineth on the list of countries that visit my web site.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. But in the Netherlands, someones religious feelings are considered something private. You can believe all you want, you can attend any church you want in your spare time, and employers and friends will go to considerable lenghts to be silent before dinner so Christians say grace, filling in for the Muslim coworker when he takes his prayer break. And no one will gripe when a business is closed on someone´s holy day. But yes, the line is drawn at religious witnessing to people who haven´t chosen to be witnessed to.
Even the leader of our Christian Party, currently a big factor in the Dutch Government, rationally discusses the practical and ethical sides of religion in statements and interviews, rather then witnessing in the style of the OP. He would probably lose a LOT of votes if he did. The Dutch feel very strongly about this. Interesting, actually, now that I think about it.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
One emailer told me he could not express his belief in spiritual matters openly for fear of losing his job. He had to meet with others of like mind to talk about his beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
Key here is, of course, how and where he expressed his beliefs. Have you any idea how and what, specifically, he was talking about?
One remark, once you have signed a job contract in the Netherlands, it is VERY hard for your employer to fire you. The situation in the USA, where anyone can be fired at the drop of a hat, is totally different. So my guess is either your emailer has not lost his job, but was asked to cut it out, or he was fired, but then only after ignoring several warnings from management.

Last year, we had the case of a lady politician, Marianne Thieme, charismatic leader of the Animal Rights Party. In an interview she mentioned to be a practicing member of he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. There was quite a lot of public worry and criticism over this. Once Thieme said she didn´t subscribe to that church ´s condemning of homosexuality, and its creationist views, and that her faith was a private source of strenght to her, and would not influence the Party´s viewpoints, there was no longer a problem.

114

[QUOTE=Maastricht]
Correct, and in particular the kind of religious witnessing practiced by the OP.

Indeed. But in the Netherlands, someones religious feelings are considered something private. You can believe all you want, you can attend any church you want in your spare time, and employers and friends will go to considerable lenghts to be silent before dinner so Christians say grace, filling in for the Muslim coworker when he takes his prayer break. And no one will gripe when a business is closed on someone´s holy day. But yes, the line is drawn at religious witnessing to people who haven´t chosen to be witnessed to.
Even the leader of our Christian Party, currently a big factor in the Dutch Government, rationally discusses the practical and ethical sides of religion in statements and interviews, rather then witnessing in the style of the OP. He would probably lose a LOT of votes if he did. The Dutch feel very strongly about this. Interesting, actually, now that I think about it.

Key here is, of course, how and where he expressed his beliefs. Have you any idea how and what, specifically, he was talking about?
One remark, once you have signed a job contract in the Netherlands, it is VERY hard for your employer to fire you. The situation in the USA, where anyone can be fired at the drop of a hat, is totally different. So my guess is either your emailer has not lost his job, but was asked to cut it out, or he was fired, but then only after ignoring several warnings from management.

Last year, we had the case of a lady politician, Marianne Thieme, charismatic leader of the Animal Rights Party. In an interview she mentioned to be a practicing member of he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. There was quite a lot of public worry and criticism over this. Once Thieme said she didn´t subscribe to that church ´s condemning of homosexuality, and its creationist views, and that her faith was a private source of strenght to her, and would not influence the Party´s viewpoints, there was no longer a problem.
[/QUOTE]

My site is about near death experiences, he wrote me because he had a spiritual experience and wanted to discuss it with someone. He said he could not discussed it openly, expecially at work, where he ran the chance of being ostracized or even fired. No he had not been fired at the time. He went on to say he was not going to church, but did meet with a group of people of like mind. Much like we have support groups for NDEers here. I can understand why an employer who not want witnessing to take up work time, but I can’t understand the treatment of religion, and the expression there of, as something apart from normal human activity.

I am wondering how many believed that Marianne Thieme didn’t really subscribe to those elements she claimed. I think in this country not many would have believed her. I see all this as suppressing religion indirectly. I am not offended by someone preaching on the corner or in the park, it is my choice to listen or not. I respect others beliefs and would not suppress them in any way as long as they were not harming others.

Now, having said that, I do confess to debating negative religion in an attempt to stop “hell and damnation” preaching which I do feel is harmful. But positive religion is very helpful and beneficial to cope with the vissitudes of life and give hope for the future.

115

[QUOTE=lekatt]
He said he could not discussed it openly, expecially at work, where he ran the chance of being ostracized or even fired. No he had not been fired at the time.
[/quote]
So, his employer (and his associates) would prefer that he not interrupt the work day with religious proselytizing.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
He went on to say he was not going to church, but did meet with a group of people of like mind. Much like we have support groups for NDEers here. I can understand why an employer who not want witnessing to take up work time, but I can’t understand the treatment of religion, and the expression there of, as something apart from normal human activity.
[/quote]
You seem to be contradicting yourself. The gentleman was able to seek out others with whom he could discuss this, at will, and he was only discouraged from taking up the matter during working hours. So, which is it? Do you think that people should or should not be permitted to proselytize during work? And since the gentleman was able to discuss the matter with other "like mind"ed persons, apparently durning their lifetimes, it does not appear to be a matter of suppression, at all–just workplace courtesy.

116

[QUOTE=mswas]
How does one compare relative sizes of black holes?
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps a astrophysicist can answer this much better (I hope so). From outside the E.H. You could measure it by the gravity field or the size of the E.H. From inside you may be able to measure it by the total perceived mass of the universe as your universe will be only what is inside the BH.

The strange thing, well one of the strange things about BH’s is that the bigger they get the less strong they appear at the event horizon (point of no return). A small BH would literally rip you apart atom by atom as you approach the E.H. due to the increasing gravity. For a supermassive one you might not even know you entered the E.H. as the gravity is so week.

117

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Perhaps a astrophysicist can answer this much better (I hope so). From outside the E.H. You could measure it by the gravity field or the size of the E.H. From inside you may be able to measure it by the total perceived mass of the universe as your universe will be only what is inside the BH.

The strange thing, well one of the strange things about BH’s is that the bigger they get the less strong they appear at the event horizon (point of no return). A small BH would literally rip you apart atom by atom as you approach the E.H. due to the increasing gravity. For a supermassive one you might not even know you entered the E.H. as the gravity is so week.
[/QUOTE]

Well it would seem to me that at that scale of gravity the properties would be a mystery, as it is strong enough to alter perception of light.

As all size etc… is based upon relative measure. This is this many of this other thing’s sizes. Like the Sun is X amount larger than the Earth. That sort of thing. Distance is measured in the same way. What is a light year but the amount of distance that light covers in the time it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun once? So within the black hole what would be the most relevant measure of time and space? How would we define the interaction of such things within it?

I need to bulk up my science education so I can actually study things like this.

118

mswas A BH is really a distortion of spacetime. In a 2d world you can think of a flat mattress. Anything that has mass distorts this a bit, causing the 2d surface to bend in, creating a cone of depression. Anything that is traveling in a straight line, like light will get deflected by this cone as the surface is actually bent.

When a BH forms (this is theory), instead of just a small ‘dent’ in the mattress, the object is so heavy that it actually just keeps going down, causing a cone that has no bottom, or a cone that the bottom just keeps sinking lower all the time. Light or anything else in this cone just funnels down the hole.

But yes what goes on is a mystery as we don’t know of any way to know what goes on in there, except if our own universe is actually inside a BH, but even then we don’t really know much in the grand scheme of things.

You are correct in what is a lightyear.

Some have speculated that time and space sort of exchange positions inside a BH, or time is more of a hard dimension such as space’s X,Y,Z axises. But really all this is speculation about a area of space we don’t even know if we can ever find out what is really there.

There is also the gravastar theory of BH’s which is also a solution to Einstein’s equations that we apply to BH’s. It’s a sort of distorted space where once matter plunges into it, the matter slowly rises back up to the event horizon, but never gets there. Sort of like dropping something into a swimming pool that is heavy but boyant, it goes beneath the surface and then rises up, but unlike the swimming pool it never gets there as it slows down or the space time distortion makes the distance longer or time shorter.

We don’t know.

119

kanicbird it is precisely the asymptotic nature of movement that makes me skeptical of ‘this is what happens after an event horizon’ declarations. When a mattress gets depressed it is also stretched, thus creating a greater distance between two points than there was before. Also, the only reason the depression is down is because we are still measuring it in relation to the Earth’s gravity.

120

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
So, his employer (and his associates) would prefer that he not interrupt the work day with religious proselytizing. You seem to be contradicting yourself. The gentleman was able to seek out others with whom he could discuss this, at will, and he was only discouraged from taking up the matter during working hours. So, which is it? Do you think that people should or should not be permitted to proselytize during work? And since the gentleman was able to discuss the matter with other "like mind"ed persons, apparently durning their lifetimes, it does not appear to be a matter of suppression, at all–just workplace courtesy.
[/QUOTE]

Can’t answer you. You are making assumptions not in evidence. Perhaps a reread sans personal spin would help.