"You offer no argument for why it won't."
I didn't make a claim. Why don't you offer me an argument that the moon isn't made of green cheese or that Apollo doesn't drive the sun across the sky in his fiery chariot?
You refuse to get the point that you make fatuous statements about mathematics without the slightest knowledge of how mathematics works. Not to pick on you, John -- that seems to be the team sport around here.
Yes, and if we do find the event horizon a superfluous assumption, like the luminiferous ether or phlogiston of days past, we are a giant step closer to a unitary model free of arbitrary coordinates and other ad hoc propositions.
Okay, I can't stand it any more -- apparently no one in the thread has the good research sense to find out that infinity isn't a number. So stop treating it like one.
Tom,
It is only by convention that zero is a number. I'm not trying to multiply infinity by 12.
Why do you think I'm treating infinity as a number? How about if I just say, "Anything multiplied by zero is zero." "Anything" is not a number either. Would that satisfy your religious convictions?
Regards,
John M
"Why do you think I'm treating infinity as a number? How about if I just say, 'Anything multiplied by zero is zero.' 'Anything' is not a number either. Would that satisfy your religious convictions?"
No, it would only satisfy me further that you (among others) don't know a damn thing about mathematics, though you continue to hold forth on it. Business as usual.
Re: Thomas Howard Ray - Oct. 7, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT
"Yes, and if we do find the event horizon a superfluous assumption, like the luminiferous ether or phlogiston of days past, we are a giant step closer to a unitary model free of arbitrary coordinates and other ad hoc propositions."
Tom, I am glad you said that. It always seemed to me suspect that there could be a black hole horizon. How could there be a "membrane" (for lack of a better description) at which all objects behave the same? Wouldn't it depend on the mass and the speed and the trajectory of a given object at which it would (or wouldn't) be captured by the gravity of the black hole?
That would make the black hole horizon a very bumpy and abstract structure that did not really contribute any information toward the understanding of black holes.
I will again restate my earlier plea that I will not reply to anyone. The reason is that I am not as versed in physics nor mathematics as the rest of you (or most of) are. But if you ask me a "philosophical" question or reply in that "vein," then I can deal with it.
Vladimir,
One cycle to keep in mind in these discussions and knowledge in general, is the relation of simplicity to complexity as a form of expansion/contraction cycle.
Especially in math, there is a natural tendency to treat complex forms as a sort of platonic reality that naturally pre-exists any physical manifestation, because they are, by definition, regular. The assumption being these patterns are inevitable, so their existence must be a deterministic given.
I would argue they are still ultimately bottom up. That no form pre-exists its physical manifestation and regularity is a consequence of the same processes yielding the same results.
Remember that factors are in essence nouns and functions are verbs. We do actually have to commit the act of adding one and one, in order to arrive at two as the answer. If the cause does not occur, there is no effect. In the void, there is no form.
The larger point being is that this flower of expanding mathematical complexity is just as natural and dynamic as an actual flower blooming and regular as a field of flowers, yet still not nearly as complex.
So when we get around to discussions of what is the best course to follow, everyone is naturally going to have their own perspective and lead off in a particular direction, which is good. Like ants exploring for food, our knowledge should go in all directions. Now the resulting complex of input will eventually contract. Either because some answer to the issue in question is found and then the group effort then becomes to expand from that new level of understanding, or no answer is found, the joint effort breaks down and everyone goes off in their own directions, scattered to other endeavors.
Either way, it is that cycle of expansion and then collapse, contraction, or consolidation, depending on the intentions and results.
Regards,
John M
Tom,
"No, it would only satisfy me further that you (among others) don't know a damn thing about mathematics, though you continue to hold forth on it."
Hopefully your math makes more sense than your grammar.
Regards,
John M
John,
I agree with you. But the question remains: primordial ontological structure of space, the nature of information and time. I think that the only answer to this question, and not solving equations and observations provide an opportunity to talk about the essential nature of "black holes" and the inclusion of the concept of "black hole" or other more clear and distinct concept in the scientific picture of the world. I think the problem is conceptual and ontological, as well as the problem of "dark matter" and "dark energy". In addition to the standard empirical justification of the fundamental knowledge is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Oh, now the topic is grammar, is it?
Steve,
Of course, quantitatively should read qualitatively.
Tom,
as usual, instead of trying to defend what you learned you managed distracting from my arguments, this time against what I consider a relapse to inapt pebble-like instead of Euclidean numbers. I blame this relapse for unreal topological models leading to mere artifacts, in particular to singular points in IR.
Eckard
Steve,
Time has amplitude and phase (?) don't you need space for that? Same with 'matter'.
Eckard,
You want Euclidian points. What size? Take your pick, there is an infinite selection between oo.
John M.
Prejudice is a part of the human condition, bigotry is irrational prejudice whether it's against race, culture or math.
jrc
Tom,
It's a big world.
John C,
Are there no biases in math, or is that ruled out?
For instance, is zero just a point on the line between 1 and -1, or does it represent the void?
How do we reconcile those two concepts, or would such discussion be prejudicial?
Regards,
John m
Yes, John, the world is big enough even for your profound innocence of all things mathematical. You may think the world is better for it.
Vladimir,
I think the issue is conceptual as well. We have this linear premise of the black hole are a final state, but the entire process leading up to it is radiating energy back out, as the structure, order and mass draws inward. This energy then loops out to start over.
Eventually what is left to fall into the vortex at the center, gets ejected out the poles.
This dynamic cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass/order is a basic model, of which linear projections only reflect one side.
Regards,
John M
" ... unreal topological models ..."
If that were true, Eckard, general relativity would be falsified. The very simplest complex sphere, the Riemann sphere, figures prominently in the geometry of spacetime.
If a probe could fall into a black hole "event horizon" and somehow survive long enough to record data, then there is a strange paradox. The probe would be accelerated to an extremely high time dilation. In principle, the probe could record events coming from flat space-time. But as we look at the probe as it falls in, from the safetly of flat space-time, it would slow down and sssllloooowwww ddoowwwwnn. In principle, the probe could record events from our future as if those events were determined; but we already know that quantum mechanics introduces quantum uncertainty, which prevents determninism.
To fix this problem, either the probe has to be destroyed, or its ability to receive information has to be comprimisized, or the probe is somehow stuck in the fabric of space-time goo, unable to progress normally.
Tom,
At least my naivete doesn't lead to multiverses and blocktime.
Eventually the grand edifice will suffer a reset.
Regards,
John M
"At least my naivete doesn't lead to multiverses and blocktime."
I wouldn't say that naivete leads to anything.
Tom,
Possibly because you have a static view of reality, rather than a dynamic one. Naivete would be the element of consciousness prior to the acquisition of knowledge.
Regards,
John M