JB. This is my explanation of an event horizon from earlier in this thread. Other than being killed by tidal forces long before you even got close, you would never even know the event horizon existed from the inside. It is only visible to a outside observer (if you consider blackness visible) because it is the zone where light stops exiting the area around the singularity.

The the "curvature of spacetime" is the key to all this.

As you get closer to the EH, space itself is "streched" more and more.

The closer the observer gats to the EH, the more the space between the observer and the EH is "streched". So it seems, from the observer point of view, that the EH never gets any closer.

In other words, "how far away the EH is from the observer", depends on "how close the observer to th EH".

And yes, that seems intuitively paradoxical (or a simplistic identity, take your pick), but it only illustrates the nature of relativity.

"How far away the EH is from the observer" is relative to the EH.

"How close the observer is to the EH" is relative to the observer.

I just can't get my mind around that stuff. I don't understand it really.

I think I understand the absence of space and time better than I understand warped space and time relative to observers.

Also, I don't understand what people mean by the singularity.

Yeah, warped or "streched" spacetime is a very counter-intuitive concept.

Have you ever seen a movie shot where they move the camerea toward the object and zoom out at the same time? The subject stays the same size in the frame but the background gets smaller, so it looks like the background is moving away from the subject. That's a pretty fair visual representation of what happens.

Singularity? That's mostly a mathematical concept really. It's were the spacetime equations give a result of infinity.

Going back to the BH example, the closer you get to the event horizon, the more "stretched out" space is. And at the event horizon itself, space is streched out to infinity. Which is nonsensical from a human perspective - but not from a mathematical perspective.

One curious thing aboput a sigularity is that it appears to have "size" when looked at from the outside, but the math says it is really just an infinite zero-dimensional point. It doesn't really have any "size" at all from the "inside".

You could actually say that it has an "outside" but no "inside". Or you could also say that the "inside" is infinite. Either way, the concept is nonsensical from a hman experience perspective.

Both of you:




http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starstruct.html

This is how we know.

Not to mention BLACK HOLES FORM WHEN A STAR DIES. Simply the physics of either don't allow for a star to form around a Black Hole.

As for tiny singularities (as was already stated, they are NOT Black Holes), if one WERE to form inside a star we would know about it by the constant loss of size and luminosity of said star.

Again I say just because YOU don't know doesn't mean NO ONE knows.

The same science that tells us how to "see" and find oil in the earth and watch sonograms of fetuses in wombs allow us to know what in inside the sun, the earth, woman's bellies, etc. It is really sad to hear someone say, "If I can't see it than it doesn't exist." in this day where mathematics and physics define what is there more than what the human eye can directly observe. A more practical approach to lack of understanding to to seek understanding, not argue with ones who have studied the topic to a greater degree.

I'm no scientist but this description sounds similar to what a black hole does. Also, there are a few problems concerning gravity. I don't think science has that quite figured out either.



While I appreciate the current science in this area, I don't have the time to evaluate it now.

I think if I did, I would probably not believe it completely, therefore would remain a skeptic when someone says the have "proof" that there is no 'black hole' inside of a star.

I will read more and get back to you later.

"If I can't see it than it doesn't exist." is the same argument I here from scientists about the things I talk about.

You have never heard that from me. Many of the things I have worked on for most of my life were not visible. They could only be determined by physics and mathematics, and whether the end result works or not. Yesterday we had this discussion about the Cornelius effects with this big argument about "science says the math doesn't show enough force to make the water in a drain go the same direction over and over." Did you ever hear the alternate explanation? I didn't.

There are a lot of things in the world we don't understand and probably never will. I would never say we will never understand anything because we don't know what we will understand in the future.

A really good example is the limit of meaurement. It wasn't that long ago that we were told "We can never measure anything smaller than an atom because it just isn't possible to build a device to do it". Well, x-ray diffraction ended that. Then came scanning electron microscopes and micrographs.

The limit, for a long time appeared to be the measurement of time. We used the constant microwave frequency of radioactive cesium to set our atomic clocks and were told "We have reached the limit of how small we can break down a second because we will never be able to find anything more accurate than radioactivity.

Well guess what. A couple of guys sat down and figured how to split light into millions of colors (frequencies) and using interference patterns, create a clock 500,000 times more accurate than the US standards atomic clock. This opens up a world of advanced applications of which we are just starting to explore.

It won the Nobel Prize. Get Robin to explain a Comb Filter. It is in his field, not mine.

Go eat a cookie. If you can't see the calories, there must not be any.

Edit: a little more information about a comb filter.

"Hall and Hänsch, meanwhile, have been recognized for their work on using lasers to carry out extremely precise spectroscopic measurements. In particular, they have developed a technique known as the optical frequency comb, which uses interference effects to generate a series of femtosecond-length pulses. These methods have been used to probe the fine structure of atoms and the properties of atomic nuclei, as well as develop a number of applications including extremely accurate atomic clocks and improved GPS technology."

No, the argument you're getting is roughly one of "Your bizarre claims are either backed by no evidence or are contrary to existing evidence, and had you taken the time to read more about it, you'd see just how silly your claims are."

any technology sufficiently advanced will be indistinguishable from magic"

who said that? Heinlein maybe?

lots of stuff we don't understand or even see or receive

one of my favorite sayings

"Scientists discover stuff that has always been there

Engineers create things that have never existed before"



ULP!! the Cowboys are on

I'm outta here

comb filters? yikes!

have to go into color theory and pixels and progressive scanning and RGB and chroma and luminence... aieeeeee haha

maybe after the Cowboy game

Author C. Clark actually. It is known a s Clark's third law.

Clarks second law is.
The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.

And the one which seem to be the most appropiate here is....

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's first law

I'm not a scientist either, but I'd say you're still not understanding how Black Holes work.

For a Black Hole to form, all of the mass of a star (that is itself sufficiently massive) must be overcome by its resultant gravity, so that it is essentially crushed into oblivion. There is no energy radiating from the core of a Black Hole. There isn't really a core in a black hole as it is.

hahaha yeah my personal feeling is that as soon as a scientist says he has something figured out, he is invariably wrong...

the sun is the center of the universe

man will never fly

the atom is the smallest particle

gravity will never be harnessed (THATS the one I want to see disproved)

NASA's anti gravity program got axed when the guy doing the work ran out of budget. There were some "funny" circumstances along with it where some of the other people involved apparently went "black". The physics were in conjunction with the new field of physics called "spintronics". None of the physics could explain any of what was happening til some guy studied the near super conductive behavior of iron particles in field effect with a spinning disc. He recently won the Nobel Prize for quantum physics. The field is so new it doesn't have many researcher and much of that is black.

Which brings up a point. A lot of design and research is black. No one wants their new stuff copied by their competitors or the Chinese. Some of the really advanced stuff is military and they don't (usually) like to share. The Air Force has been sharing some of their stuff recently but that is generally not the rule.

That's the theory anyway. Sorry, you are right I 'don't understand the theory. (I don't dis-believe it, but I am not 100% convinced that it is exactly correct either.)

I don't know what claims you are talking about.

I have not actually made any claims about black holes, I just expressed some doubt about your claims and made some suggestions.

No need to get all bent out of shape. I have made it clear that these ideas of warped space, and event horizons, and singularities are beyond my understanding.

This is so true. I know of scientists who have made discoveries that would rock the current known science and they mysteriously disappeared of suddenly went insane.

There is a lot of 'black science' going on in this world to include cloning of humans, and genetic engineering that would shock you.

Cloning really isn't that hard. It is just politically incorrect. Some of the black genetic engineering is weapons based as is much of the technology is weapons based. The common flu has been "rumored" to have been modified years ago and probably is still being fine tuned. It is an easy, fast growing virus to work with. The only qualities that need to be weaponized are the infection rate (high) and the inflammation response (high). You then develop a vaccine for "your" side and spread it to the other. You have a low cost method of killing ninety percent of the enemy... and hope it doesn't mutate.

Oddly, the same science that allows us to measure the seismic disturbances of the sun were used by the military in secret for a long time. Doppler laser measurements of the sun are the same as the Doppler laser measurements of a pane of glass that gave spies the ability to listen to conversations in buildings from far away with no electronic gear present. The movies showed spies planting bugs and attaching mikes to phones while in reality, some guy sat in a van a block away and pointed a laser at a window and heard every word.