🚀 go-pugleaf

The poster obviously has no idea what gravity *is*.  Nor does he seem
interested in learning.
				Matt Crawford

Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch
of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics.  And he
hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries.  Astronomers
have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are
black holes.  Sorry to gravitationally pop your balloon.

-- 
--Brett Slocum  "Never bet with a Sicilian where Death is involved."
UUCP: ...uunet!hi-csc!slocum
Arpa: hi-csc!slocum@umn-cs.arpa     
UUCP: ...ihnp4!umn-cs!hi-csc!slocum (descending order of speed, I think)

In article <14170@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Maxwell House Daemon) writes:
> The poster obviously has no idea what gravity *is*.  Nor does he seem
> interested in learning.
> 				Matt Crawford

OK, I'll bite.  What *is* gravity?

-- 
Gordon Fitch					{uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat     {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA  (212) 879-9031          {sun}!hoptoad/

In article <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>, slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes:
> Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch
> of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics.  And he

On the contrary.  I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of
gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place.  My
posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a
put-on, but handwaving it's not.  

> hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries.  Astronomers
> have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are
> black holes. 
 
Astronomers "identified" canals on Mars for many, many years, and even
drew pictures of them. 
-- 
Gordon Fitch					{uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat     {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA  (212) 879-9031          {sun}!hoptoad/

In article <2420@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>On the contrary.  I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of
>gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place.  My
>posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a
>put-on, but handwaving it's not.  

	Excuse me, but you seem to have founded your 'proof' upon a mistaken
assumption:  That no information can cross an event horizon.  Remember: gravity
is not a particle, though there has been occaisional speculation about
'gravitrons'.  Now, an event horizon may well prevent particles, even massless
ones such as photons, from escaping, but that doesn't have to mean that
gravity cannot have an affect across one.  The warping of space/time seems
to be an intrinsic property of certain particles (or quarks, whatever).

>Gordon Fitch					{uunet}!mstan\
>The Big Electric Cat     {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
>New York City, NY, USA  (212) 879-9031          {sun}!hoptoad/

	On to a more intersting topic:  if gravity is unaffected by space/time
warpage, what implications does this have?  I assume from things I've read that
gravity is believed to propogate at lightspeed (or rather, it's affect).  Is
there any experimental proof of this?

     //	Randell Jesup			Lunge Software Development
    //	Dedicated Amiga Programmer	13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180
 \\//	lunge!jesup@beowulf.UUCP	(518) 272-2942
  \/    (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup)

There are two possible responses to Mr. Fitch's postings.
One is to politely point out that his argument is *not*
based on General Relativity, our current best theory of gravity.
It is not necessary to wade through a mass of equations to
see the problem.  It is very simply that he regards the space-time
background of the black hole as a passive conductor of force from
the center of the black hole to nearby objects.  In GR space-time
is a dynamical participant.  In particular, a "black hol"
is a distortion of space-time whose nature in no way depends on
the matter that formed it.  Nor does anything happening in the
center of black hole contribute in any way to the exterior gravitatioana
field.

Mr. Fitch's argument's are phrased in such a way that I suspect he
doesn't know, or want to know, anything about current physics.  This
suggests a second remedy.  He should simply edit his header so that
this discussion is confined to talk.rligion.newage.  Then it will
appear profound and correct to his audience.

-- 
 I'm not afraid of dying     Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 I just don't want to be     {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
 there when it happens.      (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    - Woody Allen            (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

All right, it looks like my turn to object. What does all this physics
controversy have to do with talk.religion.newage?
-- 
Will Linden                          {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Compuserve  72737,2150                 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden
MCI Mail   WLINDEN         {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/

In article <2420@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>, slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes:
>> Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch
>> of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics.  And he
>
>On the contrary.  I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of
>gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place.  My
>posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a
>put-on, but handwaving it's not.  

     Last I recall, General Relativity was couched in the language of Tensor
Calculus (or Spinor Algebra, or Differential Forms as you now have your choice
today) If you're going to become another Goedel, common sense says you'd have
to come up with a more rigorous proof of inconsistency.  As it is you derived
a lot of contradictions by assuming a lot of things that contradict the model
of a black hole given by General Relativity (and you couldn't even do that
right).
     Have you ever considered that time is frozen on the event horizon?  How
are those things you speak of ever to happen if a black hole (also called
"frozen star") never collapses beyond the event horizon (from the perspective
of one on the outside)?  You also assumed that there would be such a thing as
an "inside" to the black hole.  There's nothing that says there even exists an
inside.  One variant model treats the black hole as a "worm-hole".  In that 
case "outside" would be more appropriate.  The event horizon may have two 
outsides and no inside.

>
>> hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries.  Astronomers
>> have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are
>> black holes. 
> 
>Astronomers "identified" canals on Mars for many, many years, and even
>drew pictures of them. 

... and found them.  There are huge canyons on Mars that were spotted by 
orbiting spacecraft. There are also the ancient remains of rivers.

>-- 
>Gordon Fitch					{uunet}!mstan\
>The Big Electric Cat     {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
>New York City, NY, USA  (212) 879-9031          {sun}!hoptoad/

In article <2429@dasys1.UUCP> wlinden@dasys1.UUCP (William Linden) writes:
>
>All right, it looks like my turn to object. What does all this physics
>controversy have to do with talk.religion.newage?
>-- 
>Will Linden                          {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
>Compuserve  72737,2150                 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden
>MCI Mail   WLINDEN         {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/

Possibly it has something to do with the Tao of Physics.