Re: Infinities in Physics: was-> Re: OT: Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion?

"Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Kenton W. Mellott replied:
> > "Nick M V Salmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [...]
>
> >>>but would you even notice if you were built to withstand the original
> >>>gravitational forces & temperatures on the surface of a supergiant
> >>>star..? Perhaps you'd be feeling rather stretched on the rack of tidal
> >>>forces at the same time as you were smeared out impossibly
> >>>thin..? <LOL>  Or perhaps you wouldn't notice because tidal forces,
> >>>vertical & horizontal compression plus increasing heat & time dilation
> >>>all balance out, who knows until someone tries it and I'm not
> >>>volunteering for that one. ;-)  ]
> >>
> >
> > From what I can gather, anytime an object relatively approaches the
speed of
> > light, the ability of any matter to stay in one piece is greatly reduced
by
> > the fact that, what ever forces are holding it together have less time
to
> > react to what ever it runs into.
>
> Where did this come from? Local time is the same no matter how fast you
> are going or accelerating. Between relativistic and nonrelavistic movement
> you'll see that time appears to be moving slower in the relativistic
frame,
> but in the relativistic frame everything works as normal.

It likely is the fact that the interaction is more of an impact, in that
there is less time for in that relativistic frame to responde in a
self-sustainable way.  That is more energy, be it is expressing itself as
mass or otherwise, interact in less time.

>
> > As far as what is percieved by something
> > inside a black hole, my understandind is that even the best theorist
working
> > with string theory cannot get definitive answers.
>
> String theory does not give definitive answers. It's not really given any
> answers at all to date.

I has generated some postulations about particles to look for with high
energy physics.  Admittedly it is still trying to get itself organized, as a
whole theory.  Probably one of the biggest reasons it is hard for it to
generate detailed prediction is the fact that the formula are much like the
local weather in the world.  So getting a general prediction from them
requires a lot of local info.

>
> > From what I heard, all
> > the formulas they use start to fall apart just like the matter itself.
It
> > is my speculation that the inside of a black-hole effectively becomes
pure
> > energy after a point.
>
> 1) is there any other kind of energy?
>
> 2) at what point? What happens to the mass?
>
> 3) if the mass disappears, what causes the gravity?
>
> > This is one thing that could allow one to explode again,
>
> Again? I think you have black holes confused with something else.
>
> > especially should it become peturbed by interacting with another one
> > at relativistic speeds.
>
> Everything inside a BH is relativistic. And the above sentence is very
> confusing.
>
> > But even short of that, it may not be inpossible
> > that once the mass generating material
>
> Mass generating material?
>
> > on the shell of the black-hole can no
> > longer generate enough force to contain the 'pure' energy at its center
it
> > could explode and expand perhaps very rapidly by the force released by
all
> > the spin it had previously contained.
>From what I gather, this 'inflation' occured between 10^-40 and 10^-30
second from the beginning of the universes existance.  One way this could
happen so fast in ralationship to time is the fact that matter was not yet
existent.  So with everything moving practically at the speed of light, time
was very slow from an outsiders perspective.

Give me a place to stand and I can see the whole universe better.

>
> This is very confused. Or at least I am after reading it.
>
> > This may be one reason their is an
> > initial inflation in the theories of the universes creation.
>
> I don't see any connection.
>
> > I am still
> > personally skeptical about the anti-gravity force theory being developed
to
> > explain the extra expansion in the universe.
>
> The issue is that recent supernova studies show that the the father out
you
> look, the universe seems to be expanding faster than expected, hence the
> suggestion that some repulsive force might be at work.
Admmitedly the data from far based observations are necessary to determine
the fact, but I think that that noted as more recent in time, that is closer
to us, is expressing the uncalculated extra expansion.  Which says that
there is a driving force not being included in their formulas, or at least
not properly.

>
> > I have to believe that their
> > present theory is forgetting the gaseous pressure gradient within the
new
> > universe when they go into the theory of the whole expanding equally all
> > over to explain why we don't percieve a 'center' and 'perimeter'.
>
> And what caused this pressure gradient?

    The release of the energy into space which is relatively free of energy.
You inherently end up with a energy gradient of some type.  As some of that
energy become matter that has protons and electrons.  You have a hot gas
which will, quite likely, generally mirror that gradient to a large degree.
As mass collecting objects form they will also modify the gradient araound
them.

>
> [...]
>
>
> > I have to admit you are leaving me in the dust in many places as I don't
> > have the Schwartchild theory under any real grasp.
>
> Deriving the Schwarzschild radius is easy, calculate the distance for a
> mass where the escape velocity is 'c'.
>
> > I also have not read
> > your earlier posting.  After seeing the NOVA special on STRING theory,
ideas
> > seen to need to get vented here also.  I have to suspect, for instance,
that
> > there is still only three basic dimensions and time.  The 7 others are
> > allowed by the fact that energy is unable to interact with each other
after
> > its spectrum is shifted too far.  This occurs as it interacts with other
> > energy fields at higher intensities, effectively causing time to slow
down
> > in that arena.  If one says there are two other levels where there is
enough
> > 'time' for energy to interact sideways that gives 6 more 'dimensions'
and a
> > final one where 'time' is so slow that it only has one direction, i.e..
its
> > direction of motion.
This may even imply there is some potential for interaction between the
dimensions through energy in an intermediary stage.

> >                                 Even in this final direction energy
twists around,
> > just not to its own perspective.
To imagine the interaction easier, note the effect of light being 'bent' by
interacting with a glass lense.
>
> I think you overestimate the value of string theory.

Admittedly, that is to be seen.  But at least the numbers are holding
together with what is know about the reality they imply.  And as has been
said, it is rare that something that theoretically 'beautiful' fails to be
valid in some way.

>
> Here's a recent post from sci.physics on string theory.
>
> From: Uncle Al ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Subject: Re: PBS NOVA show on String Theory Tuesday!
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: 2003-10-27 17:19:10 PST
>
> Roger Hane wrote:
> >
> > I can't wait! It should be mind blowing. Here's the show's web site:
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
>
> If you have been following recent threads in sci.physics.research you
> know how interesting the program could be.  String theory is in
> crisis.  It has infinite solutions both physical and (mostly)
> non-physical.  It has no unique empirically testable predictions.
> Anything this complex and useless is usually called "economics."
>
> Galileo traded his personal freedom to insist on experimentation
> overruling theory.  We have expertly gotten away from that, and are
> paying the exhorbitant price of erecting huge empty cathedrals to the
> great god of least publishable unit theory (probably Sterculius).
>
> I think this pretty much sums it up.
>
> Rich

Admittedly the tools as of present are pretty primative for the task at
hand, given all the potential routes the formulas can go.  Maybe when we
make our furnaces with CPU cores for generating heat for our houses, etc.,
we may have efficient enough use of our energy to take on the task more
effectively,

The obvious goal is, as explained by Steven Weinberg:
"But if string theory unifies gravity with the other forces, and correctly
predicts the 18 mysterious numbers in the standard model, then I think we'll
be within our rights to ring a bell and say, "Hey, this is it." "

>
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gregory D. MELLOTT
> > son and computer maintainer
> > of Kenton W. MELLOTT
> >
> >
>

Sincerely again,

Gregory D. MELLOTT
son and computer maintainer
of Kenton W. MELLOTT