csmyth3025

Can anything outside our obsevrable universe have any effect on events within our observable universe? If not, then does it make any difference whether it's infinite or not? Chris

France is a pretty big place. Can you be a bit more specific about where, exactly, in France this device is located? Also, you must realize that if you build this machine you will not only become enormously rich, but you'll also be able to write up a big "I TOLD YOU SO!" post to all the skeptics in this forum. In addition to these two very satisfying outcomes, you'll also be described in the media as the smartest man of our time. These are temptations that I couldn't resist! Chris

From your posts, then, I take it that it's your position that once a black hole initially forms it cannot gain any mass. Is this correct? Chris

There is a Wikipedia article entitled "time dilation" that explains this effect as a consequence of velocity (Special Relativity) and gravity (General Relativity) here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation It explains it in more-or-less simple terms and it also includes some of the math involved if you want to go into that aspect of it. It also provides links to related Wikipedia articles (and links to external reference sites) that can provide more in-depth information. The short answers to your questions are: Yes, time really does slow down for someone who is in a stronger gravitational field (like the Earth) compared to the time experienced by someone who is farther away (in a weaker gravitational field)....and....Yes, time really does slow down for someone who is going really fast relative to someone else. The second part of this answer is a bit more complicated - because each person will notice that the other person's time is running slower than his own. It would be better if you read through the Wikipedia article before we try to delve any deeper into these concepts. These effects are very real and they are, in fact, proven every day by our use of Garmins, TomToms and other GPS (Global Positioning System) devices: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity ) Chris

Well, I questioned the authenticity of the paper admittedly at the risk of showing my ignorance. I've obviously demonsrtated my ignorance to you by doing so. There's no point in pursuing my first question: To me, your statement that you "...would like to assess the uncertainty of the subsurface..." is like my mechanic telling me that he would like to assess the uncertainty of what's under the hood of my car. You seem to feel that your statement has a very specific meaning. To me (as a layman), it sounds uncomfortably vague. My second question: "To what 'very interesting and powerful idea' are you referring?" still stands. Since the paper in question is obviously unintelligible to me, I would ask you - or any of the other forum members who have read and understand this paper - to explain in plain English what this idea is. Finally, it's unfair to the other members of this forum for you to assume by my posts that everyone in this forum is as ignorant as am I. There are a lot of very smart and well educated people in this forum. You just had the misfortune of getting a reply from a member who isn't very smart or well educated. Chris Edited to correct spelling error

From Earthling's post #25: I have no doubt that tectonic activity has played a major role in the evoutionary process and in the periodic mass extinctions that have punctuated the history of life on Earth. I question the soundness of Earthlink's claims about the effect that the formation and subsequent break-up of Pangaea had by means of the extraordinary gravitational asymmetry (quoted above) which he asserts led initially to dinosaur gigantism and then, presumably, to the subsequent eradication of dinosaur gigantism in favor of smaller land animals. It's my belief that the strength of the gravitational field of the Earth has not changed to any significant degree (either locally or globally) over the last 4 billion years. As far as I know, claims that the center of gravity of the Earth has shifted within the interior of the planet are unsupported by any geological evidence or by any credible model of planetary evolution. I again invite Earthling to provide some sort of believable analysis that supports his claim of significant variations in the surface gravity of the Earth. Chris Edidited to correct spelling errors

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....able_acceptance ) Chris

Let's look at this claim a little more closely. The Earth's crust occupies less than 1% of the Earth's volume and its average density is about 3g/cm3. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....rust_and_Mantle ) The volume of the Earth is 1.08321×1012 km3 (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth ), which is equal to 1.08321 x 1021m3. If we use the generous estimate of 1%, the volume of the crust is 1.08321 x 1019m3 and its mass is about 3.25 x 1022kg. This is 0.0054 of the Earth's mass. (ref. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281.08321*10%5E12+km%5E3%29%280.01%29%283g%2Fcm%5E3%29 ) There is no doubt in my mind that the break-up of Pangaea led to major upheavals in the geography and lifeforms on the surface of the Earth - as did the break-up of the estimated four (or,perhaps, six) supercontintents that preceded it (in a roughly 450 million year cycle). (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent ) I seriously doubt that these comparatively minor reconfigurations of the egg-shell-thin surface layer of the Earth could have the sort of effects on the interior structure of the Earth and on the moment of inertia of the Earth that you describe. I'm sure that our forum members would like to see the calculations upon which your claims are based. Please provide a paper or other source. Chris Edited to specify "break-up" of supercontinents prior to Pangaea

The spacetime manifold (as DrRocket points out) refers to the world line (the path, if you will) of an object or event through space and time. To avoid misleading you, I again quote Dr. Rocket's post: "...In fact there is no clear separation of space and time, except locally. Spacetime is not space and time, but an intertwined amalgamation of both..." This is the specific entity in the world of observational phenomenon that the phrase denotes. The formulas of General Relativity have successfully predicted the motion of celestial bodies as varied as the tiny planet Mercury to multi-stellar-mass orbiting neutron stars based on this thing that scientists call spacetime. What more do you want in the way of a definition or "meaning"? Chris

I'm not sure what you mean by "...Things decay very fast when they're on fire..." Things are transformed into other things - is that what you mean by "decay"? (ref. http://en.wikipedia...._and_combustion ) I believe Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity does a very satisfactory job of explaining why time slows down for things in motion. Chris

I just don't understand what you're trying to get at here. As I understand it, "referent" is defined as: "The specific entity in the world that a word or phrase identifies or denotes." The inertial path of objects effected by gravity always have curved trajectories. In the real world of observable phenomenon this is the referent of the phrase "curvature of the spacetime manifold". Are you saying that it's something different? Chris

Thanks Imatfaal for the black hole calculator link you provided in post #99. It's very instructive (and handy) for someone like me who doesn't have the math knowledge to make these calculations from scratch. (This is just one example of why the Internet is so great!) I have to agree with MigL's comment: To Slinkey I would offer this bit of logic: If nothing can get past the event horizon of a black hole then all the "stuff" that gets stuck on this imaginary surface will just pile up. As more and more stuff piles up it will increase the gravity of this surface layer until the gravitational acceleration that defines an event horizon moves outward - thus enclosing the stuff that you feel is stuck on the outside of the original event horizon. Whether stuff falls through the event horizon (the mainstream view) or stuff is stuck at the event horizon (your view) and the event horizon moves outward to gobble it up (thus forming a new event horizon onto which more stuff can get stuck) - the net effect is the same. The mass of the black hole increases and the Schwarzschild radius increases in a finite time. Chris

Are you proposing that this system can be used to generate power? Chris

I'm not trying to prove any metaphysical claims about time. Time is real. If you don't believe me, wait an hour before posting a reply. Chris

I repeat my question: Have you built a working model of your pinwheel generator? Chris

This isn't the statement of a person who is trying to learn. It's the statement of a person who has already made up his mind that he's right. End of discussion. Chris

An abstraction is a notion that people use. In this case it matters not whether we want to think of time and distance as an abstraction. A deer eyeing a cougar circling the fringes of a meadow percieves 100 meters as a very real thing. The deer also perceives the time it takes for the cougar to close the distance as real. The deer (if it has good instincts) will make a run for it when the cougar gets "too close" - unconciously calculating how much of a lead it will need to get away if the cougar really is looking for a meal. The Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun. It takes a year for the Earth to make one orbit around the sun. Neither the sun or the Earth care whether we want to think of this time and this distance as an abstraction. Time and distance are very real - the world around us is a constant reminder of that inescapable fact. Chris

For me the issue with the OP isn't the fact that there were large land animals in the past (and, as Moontanman points out, also many varieties of small animals). I take issue with the OP assertion that the reason that there were very large land animals in the past and none today is that the Earth's gravity is greater today than it was in the past. Chris

Although the cosmic background radiation will, as far as I know, exist throughout all of time - it will be "stretched" more and more as the universe continues to expand. The "temperature" of this radiation will become less and less, eventually approaching (but not quite reaching) absolute zero. There will eventually come a time when the "temerature" of the cosmic background radiation will be so low that it will be even less than a few trillionths of a degree Kelvin. At this temperature even large black holes will be "warmer" than the background. (I'm guessing at this, so if anyone can make the appropriate calculation they may want to correct me on this temperature range) Once the cosmic background radiation is "cooler" than the Hawking radiation emitted by a black hole it will no longer be absorbing more radiation than it emits and will thus be able to ever so slowly evaporate. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Big_Freeze ) Chris

The proposition of the OP was that animals on Earth today are smaller than they were a long time ago because "...more dense the earth because of increasing gravity(mass),the smaller in size also the life in it..." and, more specifically: "... But if you see some majority from our history...you can see that we turn to be smaller and smaller as times go......because our earth,or a lot of planet gravity (mass) become denses and denses to a singularity..." These statements are simply wrong. The OP didn't ask "...What is it that makes living animals (and plants) the size they are?..." He stated his theory that animals are smaller today because the gravity of the Earth has increased over time. Chris

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you have a working model of your machine? If not, you'll have to build one in order to convince the "scientific types" like Swansont and John C. (and, perhaps, a few others). The up side for you, of course, is that once you build one such machine you'll never have to worry about paying an electric bill again. Chris

Bad English isn't your problem - but bad science definitely is. More to the point, what you "just figured out from....observation" is based on no science. The Earth is not getting denser to any measurable degree. The gravity on the surface of the Earth is the same today as it was over 200 million years ago. Very large land animals (dinosaurs) did rather well from then until about 65 million years ago - and they experienced the very same gravity that we enjoy today. Chris

According to General Relativity, length (along the axis of travel) and time vary according to acceleration (or, equivalently, gravity). As far as I know, width and "depth" (I assume you mean vertical height) do not change in a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.. Can you provide a reference for changes in these parameters that result from entropy? As far as your analogy is concerned, you lost me starting with "...One might say that we've changed the molecular structure via a thermo dynamic time dialation..." Chris

You might want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on Hawking radiation/black hole evaporation here: http://en.wikipedia....ole_evaporation With the exception of hypothetical primordial black holes, the smallest stellar black holes are thought to be between 1.5 and 3 solar masses: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....llar_black_hole ) The most massive neutron star known is PSR J1614–2230, which is almost 2 solar masses: (ref. http://en.wikipedia..../PSR_J1614-2230 ) This observation doesn't rule out black holes smaller than 2 solar masses, but it leads me to think that some rather exotic process would be required to form a black hole of one solar mass or less. The "neutronium" of PSR J1614–2230 can apparently support the weight of two solar masses and there are many known neutron stars with masses greater than one solar mass. (ref. http://en.wikipedia..../GRO_J0422%2B32 ) Discounting the absorption of Cosmic Background Radiation, a one solar mass black hole would take about 1.5x1057 times the present age of the universe to evaporate. This is close enough to infinity to suit me. Chris

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to answer your questions on this particular aspect of space and time. In general, however, it is possible for two "events" to occur at two different points in space at the same time. Likewise, it's also possible for two events to occur at the same point in space at two different times. In a given frame of reference two points (or "events") separated by a distance can be described as occurring at a particular point in time. In a different frame of reference this may not be so. Both the distance separating the events and the time separating the events may be different for someone in a different (moving) frame of reference. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....of_simultaneity ) Chris