davidivad

as a subsequent responder, i will be your expert witness... it seems to me that that people in the aforementioned field get a bum wrap. i live in an area where there are quite a few sick people. to, in any way, imply that these specialists are not needed is silly. i have a severely schizophrenic neighbor that gets drunk, does not take his medicine, and is highly unpredictable to the point that it is scary. under treatment, most of these people can live a somewhat normal life. i have a friend being treated for this same disease and he holds down a job. the difference between him being medicated and not is like night and day. so, you can paint the field any color you like hook, line, and sinker. i will always bite.

my appologies. from your postings, i got the strangest impression. i think that keeping a level head is important for getting to know the players in your field. in my simplistic phrasing, you have not shown how you reach your conclusion in a complete manner. please, humor me with some math.

decraig; can you describe what you think the coordinate singularities are doing to affect the schwartzchild radius directly? if you could explain your concept of singularity for me? this might help me understand.

sometimes it is best to go back to the basics. don't get me wrong; i am not disputing your knowledge. is the amount of mass required to create a singularity across the surface area of the schwartchild radius greater than the mass of the black hole in question? remember that planck is a small man. i move this assertion; whether or not a black hole can ever have a singularity, the world may never know. it would seem that einstein's equations suggest a frozen star with an escape velocity greater than that of the speed of light. i could be wrong... suggested reading: Frozen Star by George Greenstein (i love the classics)

an event horizon is not a singularity. it is simply the point where objects must have a velocity greater than the speed of light to break orbit. a black hole is no more than a mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. the schwartzchild radius is an imaginary line that signifies where this escape velocity starts. i had made a similar mistake trying to cure the entropy problem in a recent post.

yep, and it all works out in the math. in theory, i should be able to go on about my buisness regardless of the fact that escape velocity exceeds the constant. in this sense, the schwartzchild radius is simply the escape velocity at this distance.

1

thank you; i knew i was missing something. the field is there but the attraction is cancelled out at the center (two people playing tug of war).

Quantum field theory in a nutshell by A. Zee. ....I need better math skills but that's ok. I'm working on that too.

It is my impression that gravity is a field. I have heard conclusions that you could survive the event horizon of a black hole if it were supermassive. This seems counter-intuitive considering the forces involved. I tried a thought experiment involving the earth as a test bed. In this experiment, i am sealed in a box of unobtanium at the center of the earth. In the first version I am alive and well because the crushing force of gravity is transmitted through the over-all mass pushing at me is held off by my box. In the second version, i am crushed because of the cumulative intensity of the gravitational field. i considered the second version due to a couple of external observations. 1. dense objects like neutron stars have dense crusts displaying no need for mass on the outside to compress the crust. 2. black holes can cause star formation leading to the conclusion that the field of a black hole and a cloud add the intensity both fields. I then refered back to my supermassive black hole. the first thing I considered was an object's acceleration and the resulting ionization that would occur. I then wondered if this was acceleration or simply the object following the path of einstein's terrain (an obect in orbit does not experience angular acceleration of it's orbital path). my conscience tells me that the two bodies (an object and a black hole) must cancel each other out (every action requires an equal and opposite reaction). the result would be an acceleration to the point of the object's loss of entropy and structure through radiation before the event horizon is reached. einstein contradicts me by saying i do not feel acceleration when I fall. my conclusion is that the gravitational field would crush you before you ever got there thus still giving up your entropy to heat ( just like the earth gives up heat to gravitational compression). what is your opinion?

math is a language and only appears to do work. it is us who make the rules. it is us that perform the math. fact: i can make an equation that describes absolutely nothing in the real world and it can still be correct. the question then becomes whether or not it fits observations. chaos comes from order. this can be proven by the observation of the laws of thermodynamics. i suggest a book called order out of chaos written by illya prigogine (hope i spelled that right).

what logical purpose does this question pose? do you have a better offering? maybe if all the emotionally comprimised people learned physics our problems would be solved. imagine what our forum would look like. get ready for more TOE theories. might i suggest that you let experts of the field do their job. slamming particles together will not stop you from being assaulted by a psychopath nor will a technology of raised fences and guns. you can even remove religion and this element of humanity will persist. isn't quantum physics a science? it uses statistics due to the fact of uncertainty. if we were in a court room i would ask that you rephrase the question.

i am not sure i would agree that science is the religion of god. science is an attempt to explain those things which we do not understand. as a child, due to church, i had formed the reasoning that the universe was the devil's body and that was why we were born of sin. what a strange thought... that those who could look beyond themselves would replace the angels that had fallen from heaven. one day i realized that i was trying to use logic to ascertain what i was taught in a way that made sense. upon this realization, i became an athiest. as i got older i began to realize that humanity would never have all the answers before we faded into the past. even if we had all the time in the world, we are limited by what we can measure. i am an athiest to this day. however bloody a path religion may take, i must realize that disbanding it will not make a better place scince it is the people that commit crimes and not a word. who is to say that the arrogance of having knowledge will not produce the theme of a superior body of people. after all, hitler was striving for such things. why not let the poor suffer their own hand? what is logical can become something inhumane. as scientists we must strive for proof. as people, we must realize that life is not only about the facts but also about the ability to make a mistake. it will be a cold day in ____ when someone tells me i am not allowed to believe in the cookie monster or santa clause. maybe i want to...

are you questioning whether gravity is a force or not?

either way it is discrimination.

i have enough toes already! it has been known for a very long time that the wealthy control the world. it is a conspiracy that some people are just now realizing it.

i do actually meditate...well, there are no chakras involved. i have a cycle. i read about something or work on something and then i take a break in the old captain's chair with my eyes closed. my eyes give a few quick flutters and then my mind is free to tackle things. i have actually found that when i am working with something hard, i can usually come up with an answer if i "sleep it off." i know that sounds wierd.

here is a little more fuel for the fire... if you stare at the sun, your brain compensates. the result is a visual artifact the same can be said for your ears (ringing). way back in the day, scientists built an ultrasonic device that played two different tones above hearing threshold. the difference in the two tones was equivelent to a voice speaking to you. while you could not hear the tones directly, you could percieve the difference in those tones. the end result was someone talking in your head that nobody else could hear unless they were in the direct path of the sound (high frequency noises are directional). i may be a bit off topic so let me redirect. would an audio artifact buffer the difference in sound? do we hear the difference in the noise levels?

yep, all you are doing is "WOW"ing yourself. this is a common event for people who haven't had the chance to see the beauty that math bestows upon the things we can't percieve. if you truly want to "understand" things at this level, then give the math a try. it is the only language we have that even comes close to describing it.

in my opinion, the term "friend" changes for each individual. quite often, i base its meaning on an individual's own expectations. if their own expectations do not match their actions, i cannot trust them as a friend. beyond that, anyone can be a friend of mine as long as it does not comprimise me personally.

can you define its position?

hi all, my name is davidivad. i love to take things apart and put them back together. however, i often end up with extra fasteners. my over all conclusion is that mother nature is conservative....

for anyone who does not believe psycology is a science, i recommend that they take a shopping trip. good money is paid to organize products, decide how they look, and how they make their purchases. even the latest in functional design of products can benefit from psychology.

1

it is people like you that will make these things possible young man.