I wish I could code that up, ain’t got no scientific notation.
I’ve always wondered about this, the other forces are much stronger than gravity. There’s still no way to pull something out via unobtanium electromagnet? Or some mythical strongnet or weaknet (okay those have short distances so it’d be harder)? Can these forces have a concentrated emitter that creates a similar event horizon situation? If so what if these two different force “event horizons” intersect and the object in question is in between them Venn Diagram style? Or is that just part of that whole “reconciling general relativity with field theory” thing?
rwjefferson, please read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. With all due respect, you have deluded yourself. According to your postings, you are not familiar enough with the field to give any kind of assessment. You do not seem to understand the most basic principles – force is not equal to inertia; inertia is the inherent tendency of any massive object to resist changes in its movement, force is anything that causes a mass to accelerate. Gravity is a type of force, but again, the two are not equivalent.
‘f=i=g’ isn’t an equation, it’s symbols strung together in a nonsensical fashion; ‘g=sta’ is an acronym at best. Your use of the mass-energy equivalence is also in error, since the full equation ought to be E[sup]2[/sup] = m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup] + p[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]2[/sup] (if m stands for rest mass), and thus, E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is only valid for objects without net momentum p, and thus no force acting on it, since F = dp/dt = 0 = d(mv)/dt = ma. F = (E/c[sup]2[/sup])a thus is nonsensical, because E = mc[sup]2[/sup] assumes F = 0.
If E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is used with m to denote the relativistic mass of a moving object, it remains true for any p, but F = ma is no longer valid, since p has to be taken as the relativistic momentum p = (mv)/sqrt(1 - (v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])), and thus, in F = dp/dt, we get additional terms besides the ma one.
Please ask yourself, what is more likely – that thousands of scientists studying a problem for hundreds of years all got it wrong and you are the only one to ever see it, or that you simply are in error.
This isn’t dogma hiding the truth, this is you hiding from reality.
I’m no physicist, but probably not, as I understand it. Compared to say, electricity, gravity has a single kind of “charge” that attracts everything. So, it doesn’t attract opposite charges and cancel itself out, and collections of the same “charge” don’t repel each other. If you tried to gather enough electrons in one spot to create some sort of electrical black hole, it would be trying to blow itself apart just as strongly as it was pulling positive charges towards it. And, unlike the strong or weak forces it has an unlimited range, so all of the mass is contributing.
What makes gravity different in this case is that weakest of the four fundamental forces or not, it’s the only one that can simply be concentrated to an effectively unlimited degree in one spot, unbalanced by any sort of opposing force and not limited to a tiny range.
AFAIK, there is no such thing as an “event horizon” with other forces (ie electromagnetism, etc).
I suspect that you would continue on your journey to the singularity at the center and would drag your spaceship behind you by its unobtainium teether.
As for your electromagnetic/strong/weak force beams, nothing escapes a black hole. That includes light and other forms of radiation and any information about any object that passes the event horizon. Any object that falls in is for all intents and purposes gone from the universe. You wouldn’t be able connect to your target object to pull it back.
You guys are wasting your time with people like rwjefferson. In grad school, I helped my advisor host an international GR and gravitation conference. The number of submitted abstracts that made no sense, from people like the “Prince of Spacetime Absoluteness” surprised me. (The prince was my favorite, although some guy who “published” his theory in the Physics Today classifieds over many moons was a close second - I don’t recall one sentence that actually made sense.) GR and quantum physics attract an impressive number of crackpots. I only ever met one with whom rational communication was possible.
For the record, I lean towards modifying GR rather than invoke dark this and that. Neither Newton nor Einstein had any real data on large scale structures. However, it is not clear to me that any such modification is really different from, say, dark energy. Currently, dark energy is just a name for our ignorance of a term to toss into the appropriate equations to fit data. Perhaps, all the current reasonable propositions will come out to be mathematically equivalent - just different ways of understanding the same effect.
Past threads on the topic of black holes:
[thread=469304]The Universe, Black Holes and Entropy[/thread]
[thread=430084]Speed of light, mass, time questions[/thread]
[thread=422479]How is the “size” of a black hole defined?[/thread]
[thread=312205]Escaping a black hole[/thread]
Escaping through the inner event horizon black hole isn’t just a matter of exerting just a little more energy, and in fact, the harder you try, the more stuck you get. The event horizon of a black hole is space wrapped upon itself, so instead of flying out, you just fly more inward, kind of like trying to swim out of a flushing toilet.
Well, it is understandable why QM attracts quackoids, since the basic theory is pretty wild to begin with, and the number of flaky interpretations espoused by entirely legitimate physicists can’t be counted up without taking your shoes off. I think the appeal of GR toward flakemeisters, though, is due to all the odd imagery you can do and the nonsense you can spin in English which sounds impressive to the layman even though it makes absolutely no sense at all. And since the math is so complicated, it is really beyond hope that the dilettante will ever have sufficient grasp to discern the absurd from the sublime.
In the case of rwjefferson, though, it is pretty easy to demonstrate that his claims (such as they can be said to exist at all) are complete gibberish. He’s just throwing out some math-looking stuff and stringing together words in a form that is almost, but not like, entirely unlike actual sentences. So, while no one is going to dissuade him without forcibly making him take his meds, he does serve the purpose of demonstrating what a crackpot sounds like.
Stranger
Here! Here! Your last paragraph is a masterpiece of succinctness.
I know you to be a bright guy. Isn’t it amazing that the law that a poster will make a grammatical error when criticizing a grammatical error, also applies to comments on logical structure, even from you?! (wrt to the second sentence in the last paragraph.)
The irony, it burns!
That should read, “…almost, but not quite, entire unlike actual sentences.”
I need an edit feature for my life, and a window of about twenty years.
Stranger
Ooh! I have never seen Gaudere’s Law in actual effect!
If you agree, you say “Hear! Hear!” If you disagree you say “Here! Here!” I believe you were intending to agree.
waiting for Gaudere to slap me in the face
Damn it! It burns both ways!
Suggesting a poster is off his meds, and sounds like a crackpot, is a personal insult. Stick to rebutting rwjefferson’s claims or arguments or whatever you want to call them.
My apologies for violating forum rules. I will withdraw from this thread.
Stranger
Why does rwjefferson speak like Confucius? Seriously. Only, Confucius actually makes sense sometimes. Between dark monkeys, space bananas, and his vague phraseology, I don’t know how he’s gotten the answers he has, already. Of course, he doesn’t seem to be happy with “We don’t know”, then lambastes everyone for preaching “dogma” (I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means). He’s obviously expecting some predetermined answer he thinks is the right one, and no one’s answered it yet.
So, rwjefferson, why don’t you just tell us what answer you’re looking for? Everyone here is having a tremendously difficult time understanding/answering you. Not your ideas, but the language you’re using. Communication is 90% of the battle… try a little harder, if you want a sincere discussion.
There is no spoon.
Oddly, I read it as “…almost, but not quite, entirely unlike actual sentences.” The things the mind fills in.
Also odd that Stranger quoted *The Hunting of the Snark * when the thread had been making me think of Jabberwocky.
trolls:
Still I find your mark attempts not even simple answer by simple question. Again you prove my point.
I know your cloak.
What observation would you predict if ship sailed into opposing current?
a) It will be diverted by current and course.
Yet still it seems you and dogma would Believe equivalent dark monkeys might hold back inertia of ship.
Silly monkeys.
[cryptic]
Force is inertia. Force is gravity.
Force is inertia in verse gravity.
Inertia is mass acceleration.
Gravity is quantum space in verse relative time acceleration.
[/cryptic]
I confess I find levity written in verses of f=i=g Newton (yum) and g=(e/c^2)a Einstein. I understand you do not want even try. I understand also you know not cryptic and this makes no sense to you. I find no need for further brag.
Silly monkeys.
Historically, it is dogma by authority that gets it dead wrong.
I could not have chosen a better example myself. I also find event horizon as wall by vortex. Yet still I wish to assure you and hope someday you might better understand; a flushing toilet is not really a warp of water wrapped round self.
Silly monkeys.
All:
Please forgive and please feel free to at least attempt honest answer before further response.
If quantum space atmosphere were really fluid (not equivalent fabric), what would you predict to observe by lower pressure?
How are your observations same or different than mine?
Peace
rwj
Alright, that’s enough.
rwjefferson, I don’t know if you’re being dense on purpose or if you’re really struggling with the very simple answer to your question, which has been posted many times already. You appear to be calling other posters trolls for their efforts at wading through whatever the hell you’ve been posting, and that’s against the rules. THIS IS A FORMAL WARNING: Don’t do this again.
This thread’s closed.