Black holes do reduce light in LEDs?

[Sam Wormley]

Matter causes spacetime curvature.
Spacetime curvature influences matter (gravity).

Matter warps the fabric of spacetime and the curvature
of spacetime tell matter how to move (gravitation).

Essentially that same thing, but I like my words better.
And this is general relativity in a nutshell... it is
fiercely difficult mathematically... but it sure does
agree with observation and experiment...

A theory is fruitful (whether right or wrong) if it
accounts for observations and make predictions that lead
to new understanding about nature... General relativity
is fruitful in deed!

So far there had not been any prediction of general
relativity that has been contradicted by an observation.

Not doctrine John... empirical fact. What part of science
do you not understand?

 

[Richard Henry]

First, let's look at the present doctrine.

Matter causes spacetime curvature.
Spacetime curvature influences matter (gravity).

Essentially, matter creates gravity and then is controlled by it.

You have a cause (matter), an effect (gravity), which then
acts on the matter.

The matter is controlling itself.

Thus, you arrive at the paradox- the Black Hole.
It's a closed loop.

Stupid.

John

What's missing is you better doctrine. Unless you were summing it all up
with the word "stupid".

 

[Jan Panteltje]

So far there had not been any prediction of general
relativity that has been contradicted by an observation.

An instant of selective memory Sam:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

And that is just one.

And what did you say the speed of that gravity was?

 

[John O'Flaherty]

First, let's look at the present doctrine.

Matter causes spacetime curvature.
Spacetime curvature influences matter (gravity).

Essentially, matter creates gravity and then is controlled by it.

You have a cause (matter), an effect (gravity), which then
acts on the matter.

The matter is controlling itself.

Thus, you arrive at the paradox- the Black Hole.
It's a closed loop.

All of this stuff arises together. Why do you split it into parts and
call it cause and effect? Maybe that's why it looks like a paradox.

 

[malibu]

Matter warps the fabric of spacetime and the curvature
of spacetime tell matter how to move (gravitation).

Essentially that same thing, but I like my words better.
And this is general relativity in a nutshell... it is
fiercely difficult mathematically... but it sure does
agree with observation and experiment...

A theory is fruitful (whether right or wrong) if it
accounts for observations and make predictions that lead
to new understanding about nature... General relativity
is fruitful in deed!

So far there had not been any prediction of general
relativity that has been contradicted by an observation.

Not doctrine John... empirical fact. What part of science
do you not understand?

You have a closed loop here, Sam.
The matter is the master of the matter.

No wonder it takes some fiercely difficult
math. The cause is the effect and
the effect is the cause. You are
*missing* a piece of the puzzle.

It is like saying a windmill is blown by the wind
and the spinning of the blade causes the wind
which then spins the blade.

It *doesn't make sense*.

The part of science I don't understand
is the nonsensical part.

John

 

[malibu]

What's missing is you better doctrine. Unless you were summing it all up
with the word "stupid".

OK, there is Dark Energy pushing
in all directions.
Matter absorbs this energy in order to offset the energy
lost by the *movement of its atoms' constituent parts*
(movement requires energy no matter what
your 'science' tells you- even the movement of electrons and
protons).
This absorption causes a local sink around bodies of matter
that shelters other bodies from the Dark Energy coming
from that direction.

It is called the Le Sage Theory
of gravity.

Stupid?

John

 

[Sam Wormley]

An instant of selective memory Sam:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

And that is just one.

And what did you say the speed of that gravity was?

Perhaps you mean gravitational waves and not gravity.

 

[malibu]

Perhaps you mean gravitational waves and not gravity.

He means 'an instance' of selective memory.
In your case, Sam, I'm afraid it has lasted and will last
more than an instant.
Regrettably.

John

 

[Sam Wormley]

You have a closed loop here, Sam.
The matter is the master of the matter.

Misconception on your part John--
Matter warps the fabric of spacetime and the curvature
of spacetime tell matter how to move (gravitation).
Two bodies to "attract" each other... each warping
space-time. Earth and Sun are easy to visualize.

It *doesn't make sense*.

The part of science I don't understand
is the nonsensical part.

Maybe we can help you make sense of it...
Are you interested in learning a bit of physics, John?

 

[Sam Wormley]

He means 'an instance' of selective memory.
In your case, Sam, I'm afraid it has lasted and will last
more than an instant.
Regrettably.

Why would you care about me, John?

 

[Sam Wormley]

OK, there is Dark Energy pushing
in all directions.
Matter absorbs this energy in order to offset the energy
lost by the *movement of its atoms' constituent parts*
(movement requires energy no matter what
your 'science' tells you- even the movement of electrons and
protons).
This absorption causes a local sink around bodies of matter
that shelters other bodies from the Dark Energy coming
from that direction.

It is called the Le Sage Theory
of gravity.

Stupid?

John

Le Sage's theory of gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

"The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified
several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate
to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational
aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a
general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a
progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the
twentieth century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory
of general relativity".

 

[Sam Wormley]

OK, there is Dark Energy pushing
in all directions.
Matter absorbs this energy in order to offset the energy
lost by the *movement of its atoms' constituent parts*
(movement requires energy no matter what
your 'science' tells you- even the movement of electrons and
protons).
This absorption causes a local sink around bodies of matter
that shelters other bodies from the Dark Energy coming
from that direction.

It is called the Le Sage Theory
of gravity.

Stupid?

John

Le Sage's theory of gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

"The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified
several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate
to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational
aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a
general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a
progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the
twentieth century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory
of general relativity".

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Perhaps you mean gravitational waves and not gravity.

No, I mean gravity.
The time it takes say, from if you removed the sun,
to when the earth starts going on a tangent.

Sure, the speed of gravity will have an effect on any gravitational wavelength,
(excuse the word 'gravitational'), as always
wavelength = propagation speed / frequency.
But we have not detected gravitational waves, the LIGO project so far sees
nothing.
We _do_ have gravity though

 

[malibu]

Le Sage's theory of gravitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

"The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified
several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate
to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational
aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a
general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a
progressive loss of interest in Le Sage's theory. Ultimately in the
twentieth century Le Sage's theory was eclipsed by Einstein's theory
of general relativity".

A shift away from mechanical based theories..............to?
Imagination based theories?
Dream based theories?
Math based theories?

 

[TheM]

No, I mean gravity.
The time it takes say, from if you removed the sun,
to when the earth starts going on a tangent.

That's what I asked my high school physics professor, she
had no answer for me which I thought was rather pathetic.

The correct answer should be that it takes the same time as
it takes the light to travel to earth. c still rules.

Anyway, observation seems to at least suggest that it can't be
infinite and is probably c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

There goes your interstellar subspace radio.

M

 

[Androcles]

: > No, I mean gravity.
: > The time it takes say, from if you removed the sun,
: > to when the earth starts going on a tangent.
:
: That's what I asked my high school physics professor, she
: had no answer for me which I thought was rather pathetic.
:
: The correct answer should be that it takes the same time as
: it takes the light to travel to earth. c still rules.

Pathetic drool. Totally impossible to prove, doesn't happen, never will,
so any moron can claim his answer is "correct". Spamming cretin.

 

[Greg Neill]

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:53:47 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley


No, I mean gravity.
The time it takes say, from if you removed the sun,
to when the earth starts going on a tangent.

It seems that you really mean gravitational
waves, given your example. You're interested
in the time for a disturbance in a static
gravitational field (Sun's gravity field) to
propagate to some remote point (Earth's orbit).

Consider a water wave analogy. A pebble dropped
onto the surface of the water of a still pond
(the static "field") will cause ripples to
propagate outwards at a given speed. It's the
wave that propagates not the water, which merely
oscillates up and down in place (more or less).
We don't talk about the "speed of water" when
referring to the wave propagation.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

It seems that you really mean gravitational
waves, given your example. You're interested
in the time for a disturbance in a static
gravitational field (Sun's gravity field) to
propagate to some remote point (Earth's orbit).

Yes, among other things

Consider a water wave analogy. A pebble dropped
onto the surface of the water of a still pond
(the static "field") will cause ripples to
propagate outwards at a given speed.
Correct.

It's the
wave that propagates not the water, which merely
oscillates up and down in place (more or less).

If you removed a stone from that water,
then the water would fill up the empty space,
and would move towards were the stone was, at some speed.

The analogy is just that, an analogy, it does not hold.
Keep to the facts.

We don't talk about the "speed of water" when
referring to the wave propagation.

Sam mentioned waves, I merely mentioned gravity speed.
The example of removing the sun is clear enough I think.
So how long will it take before we notice on earth if
the sun was removed?
So what IS the speed of gravity?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

That's what I asked my high school physics professor, she
had no answer for me which I thought was rather pathetic.

The correct answer should be that it takes the same time as
it takes the light to travel to earth. c still rules.

Anyway, observation seems to at least suggest that it can't be
infinite and is probably c.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Yes I did read that article.
It is always a bit tricky, because it used general relativity
to prove that, and that theory has c as max speed in all its assumptions.

There goes your interstellar subspace radio.

M

Yep.
For the moment

 

[Greg Neill]

On a sunny day (Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:58:55 -0500) it happened "Greg Neill"
<[email protected]>:

If you removed a stone from that water,
then the water would fill up the empty space,
and would move towards were the stone was, at some speed.

The analogy is just that, an analogy, it does not hold.
Keep to the facts.

Removing a stone from a pond creates a void that
is filled by water rushing in (local field collapse).
Assuming that the pond is large (water volume and
surface area is large compared to the stone) the
resulting disturbance propagates outwards as waves.

Sam mentioned waves, I merely mentioned gravity speed.
The example of removing the sun is clear enough I think.
So how long will it take before we notice on earth if
the sun was removed?
So what IS the speed of gravity?

The field surrounding a static mass is static; It's
already everywhere. Remove a source by disappearing
a mass (thought experiment only!) and the field
collapses from that source location outwards at the
wave propagation speed. Think of it as the response
of the sum total of the fields of all sources (the
"background") adjusting itself to a local stimulus --
just like the pebble in the pond analogy.