Black Hole.... Not so Black

How old are you Q boy?? I mean your posts certainly reflect aspects of childishness like banta.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More childish agenda driven, bullying attempts.
I have a much repeated phrase I use with trolls and alternative nuts....As much as forums such as this are open to all and sundry for discussions and knowledge, [ and are useful in that regard] that same "all and sundry" also encompasses any Tom, Dick, and Harry, or in recent cases Q-reeus, Farsight and theorist-constant. It is and should be noted that these same ego-inflated, delusional minds, have only one outlet for their crap...and that is forums such as this. These are the only means they are able to boost these inflated egos by spreading their nonsensical crap.
That crap then is generally "topped up"with the conspiracy like claims that mainstream science are displaying beligerence and ganging up on them and their alternative ideas.
Such is life for these poor delusional troubled individuals!

Thanks for the reaffirmative post from Carlo Rovelli tashja.......
much appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The relevant parts of q-reeus's posts that tashja quoted in full obviously were....
"Pertinent fact? According to most holy GR? In your head it may be - paddoboy."
and.....
"It's true in this case that authorities differ on whether 'gravity gravitates' i.e is partly it's own source. But those truly in the know, know that according to the EFE's, gravity does not gravitate. Mere non-linearity is not indicitive of 'gravity gravitating' "

I see those two extracts from the total of Q-reeus's childish outburst as stating his position quite clearly. He did not agree that gravity is non-linear and that gravity makes gravity.
Carlo's short blunt reply, probably reflects not only the mainstream position in agreeing with me, but his disgust at the childish, uncalled for outburst from an obviously over inflated ego-driven, maniacal poster, who obviously has problems.
No one forced him [Q-boy] to post such diatribe and personal attack on me...That was his choice. And it was Carlo's choice to treat his reply with the contempt it deserved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prof. Rovelli obviously has a good sense of humor. He probably followed the link to the thread and decided to cut through the noise by stating his professional opinion in a couple of sentences. I lol'd myself when I read it. Can you blame him for not taking us serious when we've got so much mutual disparagement going on in this thread? I'm surprised he even replied.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It was me, but I now realize that I was incorrect and I retract the post that made that claim.

 

Oh my mistake, you are right, it was the ass clown!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

night, night.

 

Naturally I agree mostly with your above, OnlyMe, but not with my critical remarks in #32 being taken as simply personal attacks. They were biting yes but nonetheless imo factually true. Compare with paddoboy's characteristic behavour; launching ab initio into very often tirades of factually unjustified personal ridicule - e.g. #41, #43 right here. Check anywhere else we have had exchanges and just note who invariably initiated verbal attack without justification. And various others harangued by paddoboy can tell a similar story. Even in those cases the recipient has justly earned some rebuke, his trademark style of vitriol virtually always goes way beyond what is civilly called for.

 

No, I am not Reiku. See how easy that is?

So now it is your turn. Have you posted under the name of Reiku?

 

Hypocrite.

You characterize my above quoted as 'bullying' yet your drivel response is somehow respectable and subdued?! Warped - badly.

No doubt it gave you much desired comfort and succor, while yes helping to undermine my position. Read my last response to OnlyMe, and to tashja later. Don't imagine this has left me feeling shattered - just somewhat angered. Recall what I said from the start in #32:

And repeated in essence in #34.
That brutally short, 6-word response from yes highly esteemed Carlo Rovelli, totally lacking qualification and elaboration, should not be taken as the final word - paddoboy.

Now, before launching into a topical-not-personal counter-attack (about the only apt wording given how it is between you and me) first tell us what you actually personally understand by the synonymous terms 'gravity gravitates', gravity begets more gravity' etc. as per your quoted line from #27. Further quote mining of mere assertions e.g. the regurgitation, once again from 'Einstein-online', in #42 just won't cut it. Obviously not asking or expecting GR tensor maths from you, just a basic but meaningful qualitative definition of what it means and implies. Trite circular definitions won't count. Once that's actually done, given it's obvious you will never seek out and quote alternate views as I suggested, I will give you mine. But only then. Best shot at a reasonably technical definition - paddoboy.

 

Once again, just in this thread, deliberately distorting my clearly enunciated position - as quoted above!, and as reiterated in my 2nd and 3rd lines (and quoting you verbatim between the two) in #38. You are an inveterate liar and defamer paddoboy. Demonstrated in many posts and in many threads. Too bad those higher up do not reign you in for it.

Once again passing over the hypocritical rant bit accusing me of all manner of evil. Fact is, as OnlyMe and I have already pointed out, without a single word of qualification, explanation, or elaboration, Carlo's 6-word reply is open to speculation. Granted he likely meant 'gravity does gravitate', it's one man's unelaborated statement.

 

You actually consider that 6-worder humorous?! For me it conjures up an image of a Stalinist show-trial court statement barked by a grim-faced rubber-stamp judge.

And, apart from my own dislike of 'polling the Profs' as encouraging argument from authority (all that imo paddoboy is good for) it's dismaying that your total effort was apparently to contact just one authority and post his 6-word reply. Without requesting any kind of imo *much needed* elaboration. In one sense I shouldn't complain too much since on one occasion, that single quote strategy was in my favor:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-fifth-fundamental-force.143167/page-2#post-3247236 (note my qualification in #27 to last bit there!) At least there 't Hooft elaborated!
Still, compare, and starkly contrast your sole effort here with busy-body efforts in:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3248850/ (and further in #946, #1046) - all Prof replies containing at very least reasonable explanations for views expressed.

Recall seeing other similar examples of at least notionally 'balanced' multi-polling; all responses carrying variously lengthy explanations, but cannot think where for now. Only you can explain why there has been such a contrast this time. Did you try approaching others? Perhaps only to get the 'wrong' answers? What the hell, one taste of how it went here and rightly or wrongly I'm inclined to henceforth suspect 'agenda' thus would have no confidence that any reactive, further 'polling' here was not selective. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

My comment was about the basis of Rovelli's response. I don't, as tashja, seems to think, believe he or any of the email responders follow any links and fully understand the context of the thread. If they did they could create an account and post for theirselves. Since they don't, unless they specifically say they read the whole discussion, as far as I am concerned they are responding only to what tashja, has included in the post, which unless edited, is all that was included in the email.

(One email responder did ask to be annonomus and had his response redacted. I assume that he did check the thread after responding and decided he did not want his comments included. Think about it, most of those posting are doing so annonomously, why would any professor or practicing physicist wish to jump into such a disscussion, other than annonomously?)

IOW I was not singling you out re: the context of the two posts quoted. It just happened that what was quoted could be read as biased by some missing context of the thread as a whole. Did that go in enogh circles?

 

Sure....a statement that aligns with accepted mainstream thinking, along with the other links I have given.
I stand by the rest of my claims.

 

You dislike arguing from authority, expert authority relevant to the particular field we are concerned about? Or you find it abhorent how anyone could be so audacious as to over ride your own unsupported, non expert opinion.
I totally praise tashja for his efforts in contacting the many authoritive expert professors that he has, although that would be obvious since none really have invalidated what I have claimed in a few threads.
Another point obviously you need to consider, is that these authoritive professional experts are most probably very busy, and far to busy then to involve themselves in ridiculous scraps between you and me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With your little jibe about what I'm good for, I'll let our peers on this forum be the judges of that, just as you will.
Yep, sure, I'm a rank amateur, but one that has read plenty, and one reasonably capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff, and just as obviously, that sorting sees my views align with the accepted mainstream position, because the accepted mainstream position became the accepted mainstream position, because it was the most obvious, logical scenario, evident by the observational and experimental data.

 

I don't believe you had a position, as much as you have an agenda....
Again space/time/gravity has a property called non linearity, which basically means that gravity begets gravity.
The rest of your post???False accusations, silly claims, the usual childish antics, excuses and cop outs.

 

You never posted your sources, Q-reeus. I would have contacted them, too. Prof. Rovelli is an authority on gravity. How was I supposed to know what his response would be? I did however, contact Paddo's source (http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity ) and here is what he said:

 

Without, Rovelli entering the discussion himself, I don't believe there is any way to know that for certain. Rovelli's comment was based on a very limited data set, as far as this discussion is concerned. My suspicion is that paddoboy's comment being quoted in a succinct way and yours (Q-reeus') quoted with unnecessary personalizations left in, may have had an impact on how each position was evaluated.

There is no mainstream consensus on this issue, once you take the question beyond the bounds of GR. I know of at least one quantum gravity approach that depends on the mechanism of gravity not being self gravitating. And there, is where the real issue lies. As long as you look at the question solely from the context of GR you don't have to deal with the specifics of any fundamental mechanisms and the impact of statements like, Gravity does self gravitate.

 

Tashja's email responses are interesting but they cannot be thought of as in context. We have no way to know that those responders ever took the time to follow any link to any of these discussions... Thus how they read what tashja provides for comment can only be thought of as incomplete, with respect to the discussion as a whole.

There is only one of those whose email responses, that was sent to tashja, that looks like the author may have actually dropped in on the discussion.., and then requested that their name be removed!... And that response was mainstream and non-controversial.

 

Q-reeus, please let me know if I can be of any further help.

 

Thanks tashja....more top notch great work!
I would like to reiterate the other previous example from a GR expert on another forum....
That of an "eternal BH" as per the following......

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
Eternal Black Hole:
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


The above is a theoretical concept of how a BH will still maintain its shape, even if we are able to remove the singularity [mass] by the simple fact, that no signal can traverse back outwards to convey to the EH that the mass that created it is gone.

Here is some more remarks by the same GR theorist...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Now let me explain my reasoning carefully: GR is a local theory - and this is why I chose to answer the question this way, because we know a lot about the local workings of GR. You can only tell what's going on here and now by looking at space-times which can naturally communicate with here and now. In terms of the theory, any event can only be described meaningfully in terms of other events in its past light cone.

The immediate example which springs to mind is the space-time between the singularity and event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. We know there is space-time there, there is gravitational curvature. But the mass at the hole's singularity is in the future light cone of all events in this space-time, so it can't communicate with them. The gravitational field will only communicate with any infalling masses, but it would still exist if no mass were infalling. This is an undisputable example of a local space-time which exists without any mass.

Now Thorne, as one of the world's leading relativists, will understand the difference between local and global applications of the theory, and will see my point. As the question was asked by Blacky, the answer I gave is kinda definitive (ie it is a real example which proves the possibility).

If on the other hand we want to ask whether it is possible to have a global solution with space-time but without mass, this is a different question. I don't really think we should include discussions of the quantum vacuum in the answer because we don't yet understand what that has to do with space-time or gravity. I think GR is still probably the best tool to use to answer that question.

So let's look at cosmological models. The de Sitter model describes an expanding universe of constant curvature which is homogenous and isotropic because the global density is zero - ie all the mass has been removed from the universe. In this model the universal radius grows exponentially and the hubble constant (which helps define the expansion with time) is related to a non-zero cosmological constant (Lambda). Now it might be possible to equate Lambda with a quantum vacuum energy, but this has not yet been performed and so we're guessing to add that factor.

Basically what I've done here is give one local example and global example of space-times which can exist without mass. It seems those who disagree with me are largely talking philosophically. I'd like anyone who disagrees with me to show me where my examples are wrong (I think I'd have to have both examples shown to be wrong to be convinced).
Hope this helps!
Chris"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


or this one...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
To think about the situation in more detail, let's consider the spatial regions of a normal schwarzschild black hole. Given that gravitational information can't travel from the singularity outwards, how does the hole maintain its gravitational field? Remember that GR is a strictly local field, we can only discuss the gravity at a point two thirds of Rs from the centre in terms of what can be locally communicated there. In that sense, then, the bulk of the curvature of space-time at that point is due to a mass which can't communicate with it at all! Locally there is no mass in that particular space-time which is responsible for the shape there. In fact, it is the nonlinearity of space-time which is holding the curvature and providing the field at this point. I would argue that space-time and the associated gravity can exist in GR without gravitating masses.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""