Leaderboard

He mentioned it: It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like. I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'... If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism. Obviously not. And your reaction: I assume Studiot thought more about Marcel Grossmann and David Hilbert. Historians more or less agree that Mileva's role was mainly that of a highly intelligent 'resonance board'.

Does that mean it's a video on polyester on polyester?

To give a very general answer - Schwarzschild spacetime relies on certain conditions that need to be in place for this particular geometry to arise. It is static, stationery, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat (ie there are no other distant sources of gravity). If any of these conditions is violated, we are no longer dealing with Schwarzschild spacetime, but something more complicated. In principle, yes. But remember, a Schwarzschild BH is stationery and relies on an otherwise empty universe, meaning it doesn’t permit any changes - so you can’t have anything falling into it. If you add even as much as a single particle falling in, it’s no longer truly a Schwarzschild BH, but some other geometry. Yes and yes. But again, this wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. That’s a really good question! I presume you mean a gravitational wave. You can certainly embed a BH into a background gravitational wave field. The result would be something pretty complicated. I don’t know for sure just exactly what would happen, because, since GR is a non-linear theory, metrics don’t just add - you’d have to actually derive an entirely new solution for this scenario, which is likely only possible with numerical methods. I can make an educated guess though - given the right wavelengths for your gravitational radiation, the event horizon of your BH would begin to oscillate and ‘vibrate’ (like a bell) and eventually achieve a state of resonance with the external wave field. But this also means that the BH itself becomes a source of gravitational radiation - so it would essentially reflect some of the radiation back out. I don’t know if it would re-radiate all of the energy, or absorb some of it and grow in mass; one would have to run the numbers to find out. What’s more, the re-radiated waves will interfere with the incoming background waves in complicated non-linear ways, changing the wave field in ways that I can’t predict here now. And to go even further - if you were to ‘turn off’ the external wave field somehow, the BH will slowly ‘ring down’ like a bell, and eventually become stationery; however, the surrounding spacetime will remain permanently altered by all these waves having gone through it. It’s called the gravitational memory effect. This is a really complicated scenario, but very interesting. Yes, the event horizon will deform and ‘bulge out’ - this happens, for example, when two BH approach one another and merge. No, because spacetime inside the horizon is empty (assuming no in-falling material), so there’s nothing there to experience stresses. Schwarzschild spacetime is always spherically symmetric. If it doesn’t have this symmetry, then it will be a different kind of geometry. Yes. No, it wouldn’t be spherical, and thus it wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. Schwarzschild geometry requires spherical symmetry.

The individual states are indeterminate, but the correlation is there.

I do not know who wrote the link you provided but it is very contradictory and does not seem an accurate account . From my understanding space-time is any mathematical model that uses the 4 dimensions of xyzt . Space-time having nothing to do with a ''fabric'' ? Can anyone provide evidence that the underlying space can in anyway change other than hearsay ? Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow but I can't see how an underlying space that isn't matter or energy could do anything . It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too . If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion . However , it isn't the underlying space that curves or expands but rather instead , it is the substance that is ''fused'' with space . The problem is though , any of the mentioned could be viewed as an aether which we are unable to detect presently ! Additionally in considering any sort of spatial ''fabric'' , we'd have to consider the laws of conservation of space , asking the question does space have the potential to conserve an amount of energy.

I would interpret the statement as saying that the virus is not the direct cause of liver cancer. Instead it damages a gene in a liver cell that tells the cell when to stop growing so the cell keeps growing out of control and that is cancer.

I don't find your responses particularly informed or useful. Others have posted cogent posts, but yours are becoming rude, and certainly not worth reading. Byeeee.