New laws of motion!

Yes, I agree. It is a shame that some great responses and questions to the inane like cesspool material of this thread in general, must end up with the trash.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you, Tashja, for your encouraging words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U, I got you another reply if you are still interested:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks tashja for forwarding that response.

From what I understand, the first paragraph basically confirms my initial probative question.

Paragraph 2: I do have an additional question re the term "free falling".
question: does "free falling" mean the absence of gravitational spacetime distortion? Can such a condition exist?

Paragraph 3: This is really difficult for me to understand.
question: as a vortex has curved boundaries (similar to spacetime curvature), how can an observer conclude that these boundaries are flat and thus conclude that the force he is experiencing is NOT gravitation, keeping in mind that acceleration also produces a false gravitational effect? I believe this was one of Einstein's thought experiments of "the man in an upward accelerating box in a vacuum".

Paragraph 4: Perhaps I stated my original question (using "vortex") poorly. The term vortex came to mind, because even in a stationary BH, all things seem to be falling into the BH in an accelerating circular (orbital) trajectory, creating a centrifugal force on the falling object, similar to a "whirlpool" in water.

Perhaps things which approach the epicenter at an exact 90 degree angle would maintain a straight trajectory toward the BH singularity, but then, instead of partly negating the effect of gravity by any centrifugal force, the object would exhibit a much greater acceleration toward the BH singularity than an object in orbit inside the BH.

p.s. with the analogy of the "total mass of the surrounding space" I should have stated it as a question.
question: if spacetime warps along the edges of a BH, does that mean that the "empty center of a BH" does not contain space and is in effect a vacuum condition? Or is this a false assumption stemming from incorrectly using the term "empty vortex", based on the apparent replacement of water with air as seen in a whirlpool in water?

 

i suppose newton's laws of motion are wrong
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/01/isaac-newton-calculus-thief-capt-ajit.html

 

I forgot about this thread, the chucking of Newton talk, in the bin. An object in motion can not change it's state of motion , unless acted upon by an external force, leaves room for improvement.
There is no known place in the Visual Universe, has far as I am aware, that there is no external or any forces not doing work.

 

hm. i did not understand. pls could you write in layman language

 

Please stop linking to that guy's blog.
He's a liar and he's a hypocritical nutcase.

 

i did not say he is right.
to know completely about something we should known both the side of coin.

 

There's no need whatsoever to know the views of a lying crank.

 

Another note to the mods, you can see clearly who is the troll, with all the insults disrupting science. These are trolls of a professional nature who have bi-passed into the collective un-noticed.

They have complete delusions of grandeur, and from what they have learnt over long periods of time on forums, they now think they are really scientists.

Sorry Dy, you have problems mate, you have attitude and hate, you really need to seek medical help.

Sorry mods, this opp will not let topics run their course, all he comments is insults.

 

More delusional (and incorrect) nonsense from theorist.

 

It is not me with the health worries, we can clearly see that you have problems, jumping from post to post scanning through to comment in a none science way ,just to agree with a collective group to be liked.
I am trying to log out , but your notifications keep popping up, try facebook, I am sure someone will friend you on there. You can add me if you like, I am about has sad and pathetic has you are, hoping that we would be recognised for a talent.

 

Ah and now he ventures into pop-psychology, managing to get that as wrong as everything else he touches.
I am neither sad nor pathetic, and were I actually in need of, or short of, friends, YOU would be picked sometime AFTER the fat kid that can't kick a football.