On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry





The non-Euclidean geometries are called geometries, because they have been developed from the Euclidean geometry. The non-Euclidean geometries are called geometries, because they employ the methods and the axioms and the rules of the Euclidean geometry. The non-Euclidean geometries are called geometries, because the educated folks have agreed to call them geometries. And the non-Euclidean geometries are called geometries, because of very cogent arguments like the strong argument below.


In a lecture entitled 'On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry', Bernhard Riemann argues very convincingly in favor of non-Euclidean geometries:

It is known that geometry assumes, as things given, both the notion of space and the first principles of constructions in space. She gives definitions of them which are merely nominal, while the true determinations appear in the form of axioms. The relation of these assumptions remains consequently in darkness; we neither perceive whether and how far their connection is necessary, nor a priori, whether it is possible. From Euclid to Legendre (to name the most famous of modern reforming geometers) this darkness was cleared up neither by mathematicians nor by such philosophers as concerned themselves with it. The reason of this is doubtless that the general notion of multiply extended magnitudes (in which space-magnitudes are included) remained entirely unworked. I have in the first place, therefore, set myself the task of constructing the notion of a multiply extended magnitude out of general notions of magnitude. It will follow from this that a multiply extended magnitude is capable of different measure-relations, and consequently that space is only a particular case of a triply extended magnitude. But hence flows as a necessary consequence that the propositions of geometry cannot be derived from general notions of magnitude, but that the properties which distinguish space from other conceivable triply extended magnitudes are only to be deduced from experience. Thus arises the problem, to discover the simplest matters of fact from which the measure-relations of space may be determined; a problem which from the nature of the case is not completely determinate, since there may be several systems of matters of fact which suffice to determine the measure-relations of space - the most important system for our present purpose being that which Euclid has laid down as a foundation. These matters of fact are - like all matters of fact - not necessary, but only of empirical certainty; they are hypotheses. We may therefore investigate their probability, which within the limits of observation is of course very great, and inquire about the justice of their extension beyond the limits of observation, on the side both of the infinitely great and of the infinitely small.

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

That man called 'Riemann' was just trying to make name for himself by shouting 'darkness' in the middest of lights!


In any case, those 'general notions of magnitude', the main topic of Riemann's Lecture, are what algebra is all about.


All in all, there is absolutely no difference between those non-Euclidean geometries and this matrix algebra:

http://people.hofstra.edu/stefan_waner/realworld/Summary3.html


Also, there is no difference of any kind between matrix algebra and this geometry of General Relativity:

http://www.math.harvard.edu/~shlomo/docs/semi_riemannian_geometry.pdf


So, those non-Euclidean geometries are, in the final analysis, geometries in name and only in name and nothing else.

Hello AAF,

>>So, those non-Euclidean geometries are, in the final analysis, geometries in name and only in name and nothing else.<<

You seem touched very wide and general questions especially with this somewhat simplified conclusion of yours. Well, both non-euclidean geometries (hyperbolic and elliptic respectively) can be postulated and INTERPRETED in many different might be counterintuitive but logicaly fully justified and even amazing ways.

For example, Lobachevskie-Bolyai hyperbolic geometrie can be seen as a system raised over axiom of no-parallels through any point, OR, as a space with constant negative curvature. Similary goes with Gauss-Riemann elliptic geomtries. Both of them possess their PRESENTATIONS on the parabolic (Euclid) geometrie but vice versa as well.

The other pair of sleavs is physical interpretaion (of even USAGE) of such systems. SR/GR via Minkowski space-time and later on the so-called GR tensorial field as metric one are interpretations of the kind and those seems are, in the end, among the biggest blunders throughout entire "history of science". Simply put, realistic cosmic dynamics cannot be expressed in geometrical manner at all. Only problem is how to honestly admit that simple thruth and finally reject one utterly wrong and in fact sterile "paradigm".

However, rejecting that way doesn't and simply cannot mean a comeback under secure Newton's arm.

Best regards

Hello Turanyanin:




Yes, it's a simplified conclusion, but it's true.


Using the Euclidean conic sections as analogies, Lobachevsky & Bolyai & Gauss have come up with a “non-Euclidean geometry, also called Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss geometry, having constant sectional curvature -1. This geometry satisfies all of Euclid's postulates except the parallel postulate, which is modified to read: For any infinite straight line L and any point P not on it, there are many other infinitely extending straight lines that pass through P and which do not intersect L”:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperbolicGeometry.html


However, from the standpoint of geometry, these analogies of theirs as well as that of Riemann are flawed and false. Since it's impossible to demonstrate in any way or manner the reality and logical consistency and coherence of any other type of surfaces, except one-dimensional and two-dimensional surfaces:

http://www.carliner-remes.com/jacob/math/project/math.htm


And so, it follows that every non-Euclidean geometry is no geometry at all and mere algebraic construction based mainly on alphabetical symbols and algebraic principles and rules.


As algebraic systems, non-Euclidean geometries are indeed consistent and rigorous; but as geometries, those so-called 'non-Euclidean geometries' are non-coherent, non-logical, and absurd, and don't make any sense at all.

You may call these multi-spatial geometries matrix algebra, even though matrix algebra is an independent and highly developed field in its own right.


However, no one can justify labeling the geometry of general of relativity as algebraic & non-geometrical.


That is because, unlike other non-Euclidean geometries, the geometry of general relativity has only three spatial co-ordinates.
And since its fourth co-ordinate geometrical is a time co-ordinate, the geometry of general relativity is a true geometry
that can be used and has been successfully used to describe the physical world.

It's quite the opposite.

As a matter of fact, the geometry of General Relativity is the least physical and the least self-consistent among all non-Euclidean geometries:

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm


With exception of the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory, the co-ordinate axes of other non-Euclidean geometries are of the spatial type. And this dimensional homogeneity gives those geometries some degree of consistency as closed systems of axioms and symbols.


The geometry of Einstein's General Relativity, by comparison, is composed of three spatial co-ordinates and one temporal co-ordinate. And this makes it inconsistent right for the beginning.


Within this inhomogeneous system of mixed co-ordinates, Einsteinians switch frequently and silently between the treatment of the time co-ordinate as a real time co-ordinate in the conventional sense and the treatment of the time co-ordinate as the fourth spatial co-ordinate just like the other three spatial co-ordinates as it suits their purposes.


In short, the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of General Relativity is incoherent and inconsistent and pseudo and pseudo out and out and completely unsuitable for describing anything inside the Universe or outside the Universe.

AAF: The geometry of Einstein's General Relativity, by comparison, is composed of three spatial co-ordinates and one temporal co-ordinate. And this makes it inconsistent right for the beginning.

Within this inhomogeneous system of mixed co-ordinates, Einsteinians switch frequently and silently between the treatment of the time co-ordinate as a real time co-ordinate in the conventional sense and the treatment of the time co-ordinate as the fourth spatial co-ordinate just like the other three spatial co-ordinates as it suits their purposes.

cinci: Time is never treated as a coordiante equivalent to spatial coordinates. The metric can be written as follows

(ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (cdt)^2.

Notice the minus sign...it means you're wrong. Nobody is "switching" anything unless it's you switching from one inane argument against relativity to another.

Cincirob: "AAF at it again”.



AAF: And Cincirob is under it and below it and beneath it all over again!



Cincirob: “Nobody is "switching" anything unless it's you switching from one inane argument against relativity to another”.



AAF: They are doing it all the time! The geometry of Einstein's General Relativity is composed of three spatial co-ordinates and one temporal co-ordinate. And this makes it inconsistent right from the beginning. Within this inhomogeneous system of mixed co-ordinates, Einsteinians switch frequently and silently between the treatment of the time co-ordinate as a real time co-ordinate in the conventional sense and the treatment of the time co-ordinate as the fourth spatial co-ordinate just like the other three spatial co-ordinates as it suits their purposes.



Cincirob: “Time is never treated as a coordinate equivalent to spatial coordinates. The metric can be written as follows (ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (cdt)^2. Notice the minus sign...it means you're wrong. Nobody is "switching" anything unless it's you switching from one inane argument against relativity to another”.



AAF: Don't be stubborn & wrong-headed! This equation is the Metric Equation of Einstein's Special Relativity, where the space and time co-ordinates are supposed to be Euclidean. But even here, the incoherence and the mixing up of different types of co-ordinates are very obvious. You believe wrongly the minus sign can make the difference. It doesn't; it says only that whenever the space co-ordinates point upwards, the time co-ordinate points downwards; and when they point to the right, it points to the left; and so on. Accordingly, your weak and 'inane' defensive argument does not and cannot help Relativity:

http://www.answers.com/topic/spacetime

[AAF]: "This equation is the Metric Equation of Einstein's Special Relativity, where the space and time co-ordinates are supposed to be Euclidean."

No, ignoramus. In special relativity the space is Minkowski. So is the metric.
Ans so are the coordinates. Obviously you don't know the difference.

AAF: This equation is the Metric Equation of Einstein's Special Relativity, where the space and time co-ordinates are supposed to be Euclidean.


Anticrank: "No, ignoramus. In special relativity the space is Minkowski. So is the metric. Ans so are the coordinates. Obviously you don't know the difference”.



AAF: So according to your 'cranky and very 'dumb' comment above, Einstein was ignoramus; I like that!

In his 1916 paper, Einstein wrote:


"In a space which is free of gravitational fields we introduce a Galilean system of reference K (x, y, z, t), and also a system of co-ordinates K' (x', y', z', t') in uniform rotation relatively to K. Let the origins of both systems, as well as their axes of Z, permanently coincide. We shall show that for a space-time measurement in the system K' the above definition of the physical meaning of lengths and times cannot be maintained. For reasons of symmetry it is clear that a circle around the origin in the X, Y plane of K may at the same time be regarded as a circle in the X', Y' plane of K'. We suppose that the circumference and diameter of this circle have been measured with a unit measure infinitely small compared with the radius, and that we have the quotient of the two results. If this experiment were performed with a measuring-rod at rest relatively to the Galilean system K, the quotient would be [ð]. With a measuring-rod at rest relatively to K', the quotient would be greater than [ð]. This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the "stationary" system K, and take into consideration that the measuring-rod applied to the periphery undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along the radius does not. Hence Euclidean geometry does not apply to K'. The notion of co-ordinates defined above, which presupposes the validity of Euclidean geometry, therefore breaks down in relation to the system K'. So, too, we are unable to introduce a time corresponding to physical requirements in K', indicated by clocks at rest relatively to K'. To convince ourselves of this impossibility, let us imagine two clocks of identical constitution placed, one at the origin of co-ordinates, and the other at the circumference of the circle, and both envisaged from the "stationary" system K. By a familiar result of the special theory of relativity, the clock at the circumference -- judged from K -- goes more slowly than the other, because the former is in motion and the latter at rest. An observer at the common origin of co-ordinates, capable of observing the clock at the circumference by means of light, would therefore see it lagging behind the clock beside him. As he will not make up his mind to let the velocity of light along the path in question depend explicitly on the time, he will interpret his observations as showing that the clock at the circumference "really" goes more slowly than the clock at the origin. So he will be obliged to define time in such a way that the rate of a clock depends upon where the clock may be. We therefore reach this result: -- In the general theory of relativity, space and time cannot be defined in such a way that differences of the spatial co-ordinates can be directly measured by the unit measuring-rod, or differences in the time co-ordinate by a standard clock".

Imbecile, Einstein is talking about a Galilean System of Reference (as in Frame of Reference).
Besides, the 1916 paper you are citing is about General relativity, NOT special relativity. Your incorrect post was about the space of Special relativity.
I just explained to you that in SR, the spacetime is Minkowski, the metric is Minkowski and the coordinates are also Minkowski, you dumbass.
How does an imbecile like you get everything wrong is wondrous.

Cincirob: “AAF at it again”.



AAF: And Cincirob is under it one more time!



Cincirob: “Nobody is "switching" anything unless it's you switching from one inane argument against relativity to another”.



AAF: The geometry of Einstein's General Relativity is composed of three spatial co-ordinates and one temporal co-ordinate. And this makes it inconsistent right from the beginning. Within this inhomogeneous system of mixed co-ordinates, Einsteinians switch frequently and silently between the treatment of the time co-ordinate as a real time co-ordinate in the conventional sense and the treatment of the time co-ordinate as the fourth spatial co-ordinate just like the other three spatial co-ordinates as it suits their purposes.



Cincirob: “Time is never treated as a coordinate equivalent to spatial coordinates. The metric can be written as follows (ds)^2 = (dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (cdt)^2. Notice the minus sign...it means you're wrong. Nobody is "switching" anything unless it's you switching from one inane argument against relativity to another”.



AAF: Don't be stubborn & wrong-headed! This equation is the Metric Equation of Einstein's Special Relativity, where the space and time co-ordinates are supposed to be Euclidean. But even here, the incoherence and the mixing up of different types of co-ordinates are very obvious. You believe wrongly the minus sign can make the difference. It doesn't; it says only that whenever the space co-ordinates point upwards, the time co-ordinate points downwards; and when they point to the right, it points to the left; and so on. Accordingly, your weak and 'inane' defensive argument does not and cannot help Relativity:

http://www.answers.com/topic/spacetime



Anticrank: “No, ignoramus. In special relativity the space is Minkowski. So is the metric. Ans so are the coordinates. Obviously you don't know the difference”.



AAF: So according to your cranky & dumb' comment above, Einstein was ignoramus; I like that!

In his 1916 paper, Einstein wrote:

"In a space which is free of gravitational fields we introduce a Galilean system of reference K (x, y, z, t), and also a system of co-ordinates K' (x', y', z', t') in uniform rotation relatively to K. Let the origins of both systems, as well as their axes of Z, permanently coincide. We shall show that for a space-time measurement in the system K' the above definition of the physical meaning of lengths and times cannot be maintained. For reasons of symmetry it is clear that a circle around the origin in the X, Y plane of K may at the same time be regarded as a circle in the X', Y' plane of K'. We suppose that the circumference and diameter of this circle have been measured with a unit measure infinitely small compared with the radius, and that we have the quotient of the two results. If this experiment were performed with a measuring-rod at rest relatively to the Galilean system K, the quotient would be [π]. With a measuring-rod at rest relatively to K', the quotient would be greater than [π]. This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the "stationary" system K, and take into consideration that the measuring-rod applied to the periphery undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along the radius does not. Hence Euclidean geometry does not apply to K'. The notion of co-ordinates defined above, which presupposes the validity of Euclidean geometry, therefore breaks down in relation to the system K'. So, too, we are unable to introduce a time corresponding to physical requirements in K', indicated by clocks at rest relatively to K'. To convince ourselves of this impossibility, let us imagine two clocks of identical constitution placed, one at the origin of co-ordinates, and the other at the circumference of the circle, and both envisaged from the "stationary" system K. By a familiar result of the special theory of relativity, the clock at the circumference -- judged from K -- goes more slowly than the other, because the former is in motion and the latter at rest. An observer at the common origin of co-ordinates, capable of observing the clock at the circumference by means of light, would therefore see it lagging behind the clock beside him. As he will not make up his mind to let the velocity of light along the path in question depend explicitly on the time, he will interpret his observations as showing that the clock at the circumference "really" goes more slowly than the clock at the origin. So he will be obliged to define time in such a way that the rate of a clock depends upon where the clock may be. We therefore reach this result: -- In the general theory of relativity, space and time cannot be defined in such a way that differences of the spatial co-ordinates can be directly measured by the unit measuring-rod, or differences in the time co-ordinate by a standard clock".



Anticrank: “Imbecile, Einstein is talking about a Galilean System of Reference (as in Frame of Reference). Besides, the 1916 paper you are citing is about General relativity, NOT special relativity. Your incorrect post was about the space of Special relativity. I just explained to you that in SR, the spacetime is Minkowski, the metric is Minkowski and the coordinates are also Minkowski, you dumbass. How does an imbecile like you get everything wrong is wondrous”.



AAF: You 'idiot'; you gambled all your savings away in one week and got your moronic self stranded in Las Vegas! The space-time continuum of Special Relativity is flat and Euclidean according to Einstein himself. Read very carefully the following passage by Einstein:

IN classical mechanics, as well as in the special theory of relativity, the co-ordinates of space and time have a direct physical meaning. To say that a point-event has the X₁ co-ordinate x₁ means that the projection of the point-event on the axis of X¹, determined by rigid rods and in accordance with the rules of Euclidean geometry, is obtained by measuring off a given rod (the unit of length) x₁ times from the origin of co-ordinates along the axis of X₁. To say that a point-event has the X₄ co-ordinate x₄=t, means that a standard clock, made to measure time in a definite unit period, and which is stationary relatively to the system of co-ordinates and practically coincident in space with the point-event, will have measured off x₄>=t periods at the occurrence of the event. This view of space and time has always been in the minds of physicists, even if, as a rule, they have been unconscious of it. This is clear from the part which these concepts play in physical measurements; it must also have underlain the reader's reflexions on the preceding paragraph for him to connect any meaning with what he there read. But we shall now show that we must put it aside and replace it by a more general view, in order to be able to carry through the postulate of general relativity, if the special theory of relativity applies to the special case of the absence of a gravitational field".



Cincirob: “Sure it sounds fishy to you because you don't have a clue about how real physics is done. It's done openly and shared freely across international borders. There aren't any cults protecting Einstein or anybody else. It's time for you and Pentcho to grow up”.



AAF: It doesn't just sound fishy; it's outright fishy! Cincirob has never shown any interest in the Quantum mechanics or its fundamental particles. So what is the real reason behind leaving his beloved Cincinnati for three days and paying his way and the hotel in Chicago? To attend some boring lectures at Fermilab? http://ed.fnal.gov/
No; Cincirob does not make trips for an inane and silly reason like that; or does he?

You're, probably, just saying that because the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of general relativity is a tough subject to learn; let alone to criticize!


As I pointed out before, the three spatial co-ordinates give the geometry of general relativity all the realistic characteristics and ease of picturing and comprehension of the Euclidean geometry. At the same time, time as the fourth co-ordinate gives it the generality and versatility of higher geometries.


And so far from rendering it incoherent and inconsistent, the mixed co-ordinates allows general relativity to have the best of both worlds: the Euclidean world and the non-Euclidean world.

This great theory of Einstein has passed so many tests including this most recent one:

"A system like this, with two very massive objects very close to each other, is precisely the kind of extreme 'cosmic laboratory' needed to test Einstein's prediction," said Victoria Kaspi, leader of McGill University's Pulsar Group.

And Einstein’s greatest scientific theory, general relativity, has passed its latest test with flying colours.

The finding has come as a great relief to most scientists who are happy with the status quo, though is tinged with the disappointment of a few theorists who want to see Einstein fail, which may offer a glimpse of the next "theory of everything."

General relativity is a theory of gravity that overturned the ideas of Sir Isaac Newton and, when his radical new idea was first backed after World War 1 by a British expedition, propelled Einstein to international fame so that he became as well known as Charlie Chaplin.

When Einstein himself first glimpsed the truth, which he unveiled as a fully fledged theory in 1915, he said: "Something snapped inside me. The feeling was so extreme. I couldn’t work for days. I was beside myself. In all my life, I never felt such joy."

Scientists are of two minds about experiments to test such theories: it is great to confirm that general relativity works but could be even better if it is shown to fail sometimes, since that points towards new theories. But, in a study published today by an international team in the journal Science, observations of unique dead star system show that Einstein still rules the cosmos.

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/03/scieinstein103.xml

(2) http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/03/theory-of-relativity-passes-another-test/

Re: Stanley 16, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 24 2008, 5:02 PM

As I pointed out before, the three spatial co-ordinates give the geometry of general relativity all the realistic characteristics and ease of picturing and comprehension of the Euclidean geometry. At the same time, time as the fourth co-ordinate gives it the generality and versatility of higher geometries.

And so far from rendering it incoherent and inconsistent, the mixed co-ordinates allows general relativity to have the best of both worlds: the Euclidean world and the non-Euclidean world.

Thanks for the link Stanley, a very interesting read. I do think it would have been a bit more professional of them to at least quote the passage from GR where Einstein made that prediction, it could very well be that Einstein was relying on Newtonian mechanics for the effects on those gravitational bodies. Again, thanks for the link.

bob s

Bob;

I haven't read their Science report yet; but I assume this new experiment is a repetition of the same experiment for which Hulse & Taylor were rewarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1993:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html

Re: Stanley 16, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 25 2008, 12:59 AM

I haven't read their Science report yet; but I assume this new experiment is a repetition of the same experiment for which Hulse & Taylor were rewarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1993:

Actually Stanley, there were two different Pulsar systems; Hulse & Taylor was PSR 1913 + 16 and the latest is PSR J0737-3039A/B. But what I would like to read is where in Einstein’s GR he made the twin pulsar prediction and I thought that since you are so well versed in GR you could direct me to the passage. You see, the problem I have (among others) is that GR is 1915 yet pulsars were not discovered till 1967 so what they are saying (at least to me) is that Einstein predicted something that was not even known to exist in 1915.

bob s

bob s: Actually Stanley, there were two different Pulsar systems; Hulse & Taylor was PSR 1913 + 16 and the latest is PSR J0737-3039A/B. But what I would like to read is where in Einstein’s GR he made the twin pulsar prediction and I thought that since you are so well versed in GR you could direct me to the passage. You see, the problem I have (among others) is that GR is 1915 yet pulsars were not discovered till 1967 so what they are saying (at least to me) is that Einstein predicted something that was not even known to exist in 1915.

cinci: I don't think they say that Einstein knew about or calculated anything about pulsars. Inthe article cited I find this sentences:

"This change was presumed to occur because the system is emitting energy in the form of gravitational waves in accordance with what Einstein in 1916 predicted should happen to masses moving relatively to each other." In fact he first rejected the idea of black holes as being too bizarre. I don't know if he changed his mind later.

So I think they're just saying he predicted the effect. He may have done it to estimate the effect of these waves on planets in the sloar system to see if they should all be spiraling into the Sun. That would be a check on the reality of his theory. We know for instance that the precession of the planet Mercur's orbit was calculated using relativity (but perhaps not by Albert himself). So there were astronumical calculatins being done relating org\biting bodies and relativity.

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 25 2008, 4:48 PM

So I think they're just saying he predicted the effect. He may have done it to estimate the effect of these waves on planets in the sloar system to see if they should all be spiraling into the Sun. That would be a check on the reality of his theory. We know for instance that the precession of the planet Mercur's orbit was calculated using relativity (but perhaps not by Albert himself). So there were astronumical calculatins being done relating org\biting bodies and relativity.

Thank you Cincirob, I know “what” they (they, being the authors of the two articles linked by Stanley) are saying “Einstein predicted the effect” but “they” did not cite their source. I assume (which is not always the best thing to do) that the prediction is from General Relativity however, my question to Stanley was ‘where’ can I read what Einstein said and how he made the prediction. Stanley 16, has shown remarkable insight of GR and I was hoping he could point out the proper passages. I can, and have, read GR but it would be somewhat easier, and avoid any misunderstanding, if I could focus on the proper section in which the prediction is to be found, if in fact it is to be found in GR; Einstein has written many papers and follow-ups to his Relativity(s).

I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!). GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

bob s

Bob s.: I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

cinci: I've never heard this description of a black hole.
******************************

Bob s. GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

cinci: I don't think "capturing" quite describes it. There is a region outside the event horizon where light can orbit the black hole. A photon moving away from a black hole loses energy s it overcomes the gravity so that it becomes redshifted. The effect gets mor pronuounced when the phton begins its journey closer to the event horizon. At the horizon, time stands still and photons cannot be emitted or looked at another way, would have to have infinfite energy to be emitted.

As far as invalidating SR goes, SR isn't valid in the presence of a gravitatinal field. It is predicated on no gravity. It turns out the low level of gravity in the vicinity of the Earth causes very little departure from the predictions of SR.
****************************

Re: Cicirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 12:35 AM

Bob s.: I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

cinci: I've never heard this description of a black hole.
******************************

Collapse and implode are synonymous; to explode would be the antonym of either.

Bob s. GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

cinci: I don't think "capturing" quite describes it. There is a region outside the event horizon where light can orbit the black hole. A photon moving away from a black hole loses energy s it overcomes the gravity so that it becomes redshifted. The effect gets mor pronuounced when the phton begins its journey closer to the event horizon. At the horizon, time stands still and photons cannot be emitted or looked at another way, would have to have infinfite energy to be emitted.

Light can only be omitted at the event horizon because that is where the event happens.

Light can orbit a Black Hole! Wow...I didn’t see that coming. According to Relativity an object can not attain the speed of light because to do so would require infinite energy; it must follow then that if light is already at that speed then it (light) already has infinite energy; Relatively speaking of course. And yes, "capture" describes it quite well.

Cinci: As far as invalidating SR goes, SR isn't valid in the presence of a gravitatinal field. It is predicated on no gravity. It turns out the low level of gravity in the vicinity of the Earth causes very little departure from the predictions of SR.

No, SR is not predicated on “no gravity”, SR is predicated on the speed of light. However, General Relativity is predicated on Special Relativity hence the title Relativity: The Special and General Theory. And furthermore, if SR is not valid in a gravitational field then a clock at the equator running slower than a clock at the pole is a pointless experiment...Right! And if it is not pointless then SR is valid in a gravitational field...Right!

bob s

When it comes to testing Einstein's theories, it's always the same old story!


Some upstarts in physics come up with some experiment or observation to verify one of Einstein's predictions. Their result is hailed as a triumph and vindication of Einstein and his theories. After a decade or so, their result turns out to be wrong. And so on ...

This current observation on the binary pulsars is no different. And most certainly, it will turn out to be flawed and way wrong as well.


Take, for example, the fabled gravitational redshift of General Relativity.
At first, the Relativists solemnly thought it's verified and vindicated by the sun.
As it turns out, the surface of the sun is in turmoil and the minute gravitational redshift of Einstein, if any, is completely masked by and cannot be separated from the ordinary Doppler effect of atoms in turbulence and random motion:

http://www.greatdreams.com/solar/sun.htm


Einsteinians, however, moved on to the white dwarfs in pursue of their holy grail of gravitational redshift. And they thought they found it there. But it turns out their observation is a mirage and those dwarfs are too tiny and dim and faraway to be useful in this regard:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html


But Einsteinians didn't give up and moved on to search for their elusive gravitational redshift in the O stars. And you bet; they were wrong again; and it turns out that those stars are so hot and too faraway to be useful for this purpose:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~pberlind/atlas/htmls/ostars.html


More recently, however, Einsteinians have been hooked on pulsars as a means of proving their 'messiah' was right:

http://esciencenews.com/sources/physorg/2008/07/03/einstein.was.right.unique.stellar.system.provides.laboratory.testing.relativity


The main problem, here, is that pulsars are too mysterious and of uncertain nature to do them any good.

What are the pulsars? All the possibilities, in this regard, are still wide open; and they range from being radio beacons by extraterrestrial civilizations: http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-Pulsars.html
to simply being kinematic mirages caused by the variable speed of light.


And among all these scenarios for the pulsars, the Relativistic scenario of them as extremely dense dead stars is the least plausible and the least scientific. And so using the unknown to test the unknown can never work for the Einsteinians and the non-Einsteinians.


It follows, therefore, that this 'old man of the sea' is absolutely right:


The three consequences stemming from Einstein's theory of gravitation, that are usually brought forward as supporting it, are also not impressive. The movement of the perihelion of Mercury was known before and can be explained in various ways (Whittaker 1953). The 'bending of light' round the Sun had been suggested before, and the much advertised confirmation in the eclipse of 1919 involved assuming Einstein's law of 'bending' to obtain the 'scale constants', with the help of which the results were derived which were supposed to prove it. The deflections of stars that moved transversely or in the opposite direction to that predicted were omitted. The mean deviation and its direction varied from plate to plate during the eclipse, suggesting refraction in a turbulent diffuse 'atmosphere'. Nevertheless a mean value was obtained "in exact accord with the requirements of the Einstein theory" (Lick Observatory Bulletin 1922, No. 346). Later attempts have given different values. This must be one of the most extraordinary self-deceptions in the whole history of science (see Poor 1930). The gravitational red shift of light now appears to be confirmed, but this follows from Mach's hypothesis. [fn. Einstein and others call it Mach's principle, but it is not a principle—it is a physical hypothesis.] that inertial forces are due to interaction with the distant bodies of the Universe [fn. Newton considered this possibility (see Brown 1943)], and does not require 'relativity' as the author has shown (Brown 1955). We see, then, that the general theory is based physically on a fallacy (principle of equivalence) and on a principle that is barren (covariance) and which is also, mathematically, almost intractable. Genuine physicists may well agree with Fock that it is not a major contribution to physics.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 2:02 AM

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 12:35 AM

Bob s.: I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

cinci: I've never heard this description of a black hole.

Bob s: Collapse and implode are synonymous; to explode would be the antonym of either.

cinci: Yes, you're correct about what the words mean, but I've never heard anyone say that it was gravity that implodes. Material implodes, but the gravity is still there.
**************************************

Bob s. GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

cinci: I don't think "capturing" quite describes it. There is a region outside the event horizon where light can orbit the black hole. A photon moving away from a black hole loses energy s it overcomes the gravity so that it becomes redshifted. The effect gets more pronuounced when the photon begins its journey closer to the event horizon. At the horizon, time stands still and photons cannot be emitted or looked at another way, would have to have infinfite energy to be emitted.

Bob s: Light can only be omitted at the event horizon because that is where the event happens.

cinci: Actually that is where events cease to happen. Time stands still.
********************************

Bob s: Light can orbit a Black Hole! Wow...I didn’t see that coming. According to Relativity an object can not attain the speed of light because to do so would require infinite energy; it must follow then that if light is already at that speed then it (light) already has infinite energy; Relatively speaking of course. And yes, "capture" describes it quite well.

cinci: We know the path of light can be bent by gravity and sufficient gravity will make it go in a circle so perhaps you should have seen it coming. And capture does describe this pretty well but it wasn't what you were talking about earlier. The energy of light is a function of photons is a function only of their frequency and nothing make them infinite.
**************************

Cinci: As far as invalidating SR goes, SR isn't valid in the presence of a gravitatinal field. It is predicated on no gravity. It turns out the low level of gravity in the vicinity of the Earth causes very little departure from the predictions of SR.

Bob s: No, SR is not predicated on “no gravity”, SR is predicated on the speed of light. However, General Relativity is predicated on Special Relativity hence the title Relativity: The Special and General Theory. And furthermore, if SR is not valid in a gravitational field then a clock at the equator running slower than a clock at the pole is a pointless experiment...Right! And if it is not pointless then SR is valid in a gravitational field...Right!

cinci: SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitaitonal field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments.
*******************************************

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 4:41 PM

AAF: When it comes to testing Einstein's theories, it's always the same old story!

cinci: I agree. And the story is they relativity always comes through with flying colors. Thanks for reminding everyone.
***********************

AAF: Some upstarts in physics come up with some experiment or observation to verify one of Einstein's predictions. Their result is hailed as a triumph and vindication of Einstein and his theories. After a decade or so, their result turns out to be wrong. And so on ...

cinci: This is your persistent dream I supose...it certainly isn't reality.
******************************

AAF: This current observation on the binary pulsars is no different. And most certainly, it will turn out to be flawed and way wrong as well.

cinci: Is this from the crystal ball in your secret Early Einstein Shrine? You now think you can predict the future as well as rewrite the past.
****************************

AAF: Take, for example, the fabled gravitational redshift of General Relativity.
At first, the Relativists solemnly thought it's verified and vindicated by the sun.
As it turns out, the surface of the sun is in turmoil and the minute gravitational redshift of Einstein, if any, is completely masked by and cannot be separated from the ordinary Doppler effect of atoms in turbulence and random motion:

http://www.greatdreams.com/solar/sun.htm

cinci: You posted a site entitled "WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF THE SUN?" whose author is "Red Ravager" and as far as I can see it doesn't say anything about realtivity at all. What is "fabled" is that you ever had any eveidence against relativity.
********************************

AAF: Einsteinians, however, moved on to the white dwarfs in pursue of their holy grail of gravitational redshift. And they thought they found it there. But it turns out their observation is a mirage and those dwarfs are too tiny and dim and faraway to be useful in this regard:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html

cinci: Here you have just posted a site describing white dwarfs and it says nothing about any relativistic experiment. And the article shows they are "so far away" by having a picture of one.
****************************

AAF: But Einsteinians didn't give up and moved on to search for their elusive gravitational redshift in the O stars. And you bet; they were wrong again; and it turns out that those stars are so hot and too faraway to be useful for this purpose:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~pberlind/atlas/htmls/ostars.html

cinci: Another score for AAF. These stars are "so far away" that the article sited gives a detailed graph of their spectrum. Nice try......for you.
******************************

AAF: More recently, however, Einsteinians have been hooked on pulsars as a means of proving their 'messiah' was right:

http://esciencenews.com/sources/physorg/2008/07/03/einstein.was.right.unique.stellar.system.provides.laboratory.testing.relativity


The main problem, here, is that pulsars are too mysterious and of uncertain nature to do them any good.

cinci: Right on target here AAF. The title of this one is "Einstein was right: Unique stellar system provides 'laboratory' for testing relativity". What's happening in the universe you inhabit? Up is down? Left is right? Are you sure you arne't Alice from Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass"?
*******************************

AAF: What are the pulsars? All the possibilities, in this regard, are still wide open; and they range from being radio beacons by extraterrestrial civilizations: http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-Pulsars.html
to simply being kinematic mirages caused by the variable speed of light.

cinci: typical! First you say we can't use them to demonstrate relativity and now you admit you don't even know what they are.
*************************

AAF: And among all these scenarios for the pulsars, the Relativistic scenario of them as extremely dense dead stars is the least plausible and the least scientific. And so using the unknown to test the unknown can never work for the Einsteinians and the non-Einsteinians.

It follows, therefore, that this 'old man of the sea' is absolutely right:

The three consequences stemming from Einstein's theory of gravitation, that are usually brought forward as supporting it, are also not impressive. The movement of the perihelion of Mercury was known before and can be explained in various ways (Whittaker 1953). The 'bending of light' round the Sun had been suggested before, and the much advertised confirmation in the eclipse of 1919 involved assuming Einstein's law of 'bending' to obtain the 'scale constants', with the help of which the results were derived which were supposed to prove it. The deflections of stars that moved transversely or in the opposite direction to that predicted were omitted. The mean deviation and its direction varied from plate to plate during the eclipse, suggesting refraction in a turbulent diffuse 'atmosphere'. Nevertheless a mean value was obtained "in exact accord with the requirements of the Einstein theory" (Lick Observatory Bulletin 1922, No. 346). Later attempts have given different values. This must be one of the most extraordinary self-deceptions in the whole history of science (see Poor 1930). The gravitational red shift of light now appears to be confirmed, but this follows from Mach's hypothesis. [fn. Einstein and others call it Mach's principle, but it is not a principle—it is a physical hypothesis.] that inertial forces are due to interaction with the distant bodies of the Universe [fn. Newton considered this possibility (see Brown 1943)], and does not require 'relativity' as the author has shown (Brown 1955). We see, then, that the general theory is based physically on a fallacy (principle of equivalence) and on a principle that is barren (covariance) and which is also, mathematically, almost intractable. Genuine physicists may well agree with Fock that it is not a major contribution to physics.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

cinci: One more time, http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.

Just start working your way through all of these. My guess is taht you'll end up saying they're all bogus because we can't set clocks, make mirrors, build lasers, and a myriad other nonsense objections to established science. I'd think by now youwould have learned something by accident but I guess not.
*****************

Re: bobs, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 25 2008, 8:32 PM

In re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 25 2008, 4:48 PM

Cincirob: So I think they're just saying he predicted the effect. He may have done it to estimate the effect of these waves on planets in the sloar system to see if they should all be spiraling into the Sun....

bob s: Thank you Cincirob, I know “what” they (they, being the authors of the two articles linked by Stanley) are saying “Einstein predicted the effect” but “they” did not cite their source. I assume (which is not always the best thing to do) that the prediction is from General Relativity [H]owever, my question to Stanley was ‘where’ can I read what Einstein said and how he made the prediction. Stanley 16, has shown remarkable insight of GR and I was hoping he could point out the proper passages. I can, and have, read GR but it would be somewhat easier, and avoid any misunderstanding, if I could focus on the proper section in which the prediction is to be found, if in fact it is to be found in GR; Einstein has written many papers and follow-ups to his Relativity(s).

Cincirob, and/or Stanley 16, can you, or can you not, tell me where and when Einstein mad the prediction in question. If you can I would appreciate it and if you can not I will understand.

bob s

From

There are principally two distinct methods whereby gravitational radiation can be estimated in the theories. First, the EIH (Einstein, Infeld, Hoffmann) method (8) consists in solving the equations of motion in a power series in a suitable parameter such as v/c .

AAF: When it comes to testing Einstein's theories, it's always the same old story!
Some upstarts in physics come up with some experiment or observation to verify one of Einstein's predictions. Their result is hailed a triumph and vindication of Einstein and his theories. After a decade or so, their result turns out to be wrong. And so on ... This current observation on the binary pulsars is no different. And most certainly, it will turn out to be flawed and way wrong as well.


Cincirob: “I agree. And the story is they relativity always comes through with flying colors. Thanks for reminding everyone. This is your persistent dream I suppose...it certainly isn't reality. Is this from the crystal ball in your secret Early Einstein Shrine? You now think you can predict the future as well as rewrite the past”.


AAF: The theory of Relativity can never come through with flying colors or non-flying colors, because it's false and flawed at every level; and it has not chance in hell of being true even remotely. Take, for example, the fabled gravitational redshift of General Relativity. At first, the Relativists solemnly thought it's verified and vindicated by the sun. As it turns out, the surface of the sun is turmoil and the minute gravitational redshift of Einstein, if any, is completely masked by and cannot be separated from the ordinary Doppler effect of atoms in turbulence and random motion: http://www.greatdreams.com/solar/sun.htm




Cincirob: “You posted a site entitled "WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF THE SUN?" whose author is "Red Ravager" and as far as I can see it doesn't say anything about relativity at all. What is "fabled" is that you ever had any evidence against relativity”.



AAF: That website is intended to show you that the sun surface is turbulent and in turmoil; but as usual, you didn't get it! Anyway, Einsteinians moved on to the white dwarfs in pursue of their holy grail of gravitational redshift. And they thought they found it there. But it turns out their observation is a mirage and those dwarfs are too tiny and dim and faraway to be useful in this regard: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html



Cincirob: “Here you have just posted a site describing white dwarfs and it says nothing about any relativistic experiment. And the article shows they are "so far away" by having a picture of one”.



AAF: This website, too, is intended to show you that white dwarfs are very dim and hard to spot; but you didn't get it as usual! In any case, Einsteinians didn't give up and moved on to search for their elusive gravitational redshift in the O stars. And you bet; they were wrong again; and it turns out that those stars are so hot and too faraway to be useful for this purpose: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~pberlind/atlas/htmls/ostars.html



Cincirob: “Another score for AAF. These stars are "so far away" that the article sited gives a detailed graph of their spectrum. Nice try......for you”.



AAF: Also, this website is intended to show you that the O stars are very faraway and very hot; so much so that it's absolutely impossible to sort out Doppler shifts as great as that caused by the galactic motion of the Solar System; let alone Einstein's tiny prediction. More recently, however, Einsteinians have been hooked on pulsars as a means of proving their 'messiah' was right:
http://esciencenews.com/sources/physorg/2008/07/03/einstein.was.right.unique.stellar.system.provides.laboratory.testing.relativity
The main problem, here, is that pulsars are too mysterious and of uncertain nature to do them any good.




Cincirob: “Right on target here AAF. The title of this one is "Einstein was right: Unique stellar system provides 'laboratory' for testing relativity". What's happening in the universe you inhabit? Up is down? Left is right? Are you sure you aren't Alice from Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass"? typical! First you say we can't use them to demonstrate relativity and now you admit you don't even know what they are. One more time, http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
Just start working your way through all of these. My guess is that you'll end up saying they're all bogus because we can't set clocks, make mirrors, build lasers, and a myriad other nonsense objections to established science. I'd think by now you would have learned something by accident but I guess not.”.




AAF: You bet; I'm right on target; this website is intended to show you that Einsteinians have been recently hooked on the pulsars; and this time, you did get it1 Now, what are the pulsars? All the possibilities, in this regard, are still wide open; and they range from being radio beacons by extraterrestrial civilizations: http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-Pulsars.html to simply being kinematic mirages caused by the variable speed of light. And among all these scenarios for the pulsars, the Relativistic scenario of them as extremely dense dead stars is the least plausible and the least scientific. And so using the unknown to test the unknown can never work for the Einsteinians and the non-Einsteinians. It follows, therefore, that this 'old man of the sea' is absolutely right:

The three consequences stemming from Einstein's theory of gravitation, that are usually brought forward as supporting it, are also not impressive. The movement of the perihelion of Mercury was known before and can be explained in various ways (Whittaker 1953). The 'bending of light' round the Sun had been suggested before, and the much advertised confirmation in the eclipse of 1919 involved assuming Einstein's law of 'bending' to obtain the 'scale constants', with the help of which the results were derived which were supposed to prove it. The deflections of stars that moved transversely or in the opposite direction to that predicted were omitted. The mean deviation and its direction varied from plate to plate during the eclipse, suggesting refraction in a turbulent diffuse 'atmosphere'. Nevertheless a mean value was obtained "in exact accord with the requirements of the Einstein theory" (Lick Observatory Bulletin 1922, No. 346). Later attempts have given different values. This must be one of the most extraordinary self-deceptions in the whole history of science (see Poor 1930). The gravitational red shift of light now appears to be confirmed, but this follows from Mach's hypothesis. [fn. Einstein and others call it Mach's principle, but it is not a principle—it is a physical hypothesis.] that inertial forces are due to interaction with the distant bodies of the Universe [fn. Newton considered this possibility (see Brown 1943)], and does not require 'relativity' as the author has shown (Brown 1955). We see, then, that the general theory is based physically on a fallacy (principle of equivalence) and on a principle that is barren (covariance) and which is also, mathematically, almost intractable. Genuine physicists may well agree with Fock that it is not a major contribution to physics.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

cinci: At http://www.davis-inc.com/relativity/index.shtml I found the quote below.

"There are principally two distinct methods whereby gravitational radiation can be estimated in the theories. First, the EIH (Einstein, Infeld, Hoffmann) method (8) consists in solving the equations of motion in a power series in a suitable parameter such as v/c . "

The (8) refers to this footnote: A. Einstein, L. Infeld, and B. Hoffmann, Ann. Math., 39, 65 (1938). I searched on this footnote and got a lot of references to this article. This may be what you're looking for but you need access to Ann. Math.

I also found this quote: (at http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/factsheet.html )
"Albert Einstein predicted the existence of these gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, but only since the 1990s has technology become powerful enough to permit detecting them and harnessing them for science. Although they have not yet been detected directly, the influence of gravitational waves on a binary pulsar (two neutron stars orbiting each other) has been measured accurately and is in good agreement with the predictions. Scientists therefore have great confidence that gravitational waves exist."

So maybe there's a version in his 1916 paper. Here is a site that claims to have teh paper but it won't open for me. Maybe you'll have better luck: http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 6:59 PM

Bob s: I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

cinci: I've never heard this description of a black hole.

Bob s: Collapse and implode are synonymous; to explode would be the antonym of either.

cinci: Yes, you're correct about what the words mean, but I've never heard anyone say that it was gravity that implodes. Material implodes, but the gravity is still there.
**************************************

Yes! And you could have been more clear as to what it was you did not understand. The phenomena is referred to as “gravitational collapse”. I went the semantics route whit some Bozo some time back who claimed he did not understand what I meant by “void”. We can argue physics, we can argue grammar or we can just argue, your choice! (By ‘argue’ I mean a discussion of opposing view points)


Bob s. GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

cinci: I don't think "capturing" quite describes it. There is a region outside the event horizon where light can orbit the black hole. A photon moving away from a black hole loses energy s it overcomes the gravity so that it becomes redshifted. The effect gets more pronuounced when the photon begins its journey closer to the event horizon. At the horizon, time stands still and photons cannot be emitted or looked at another way, would have to have infinfite energy to be emitted.

Bob s: Light can only be omitted at the event horizon because that is where the event happens.

cinci: Actually that is where events cease to happen. Time stands still.

Bob s: Light can orbit a Black Hole! Wow...I didn’t see that coming. According to Relativity an object can not attain the speed of light because to do so would require infinite energy; it must follow then that if light is already at that speed then it (light) already has infinite energy; Relatively speaking of course. And yes, "capture" describes it quite well.

cinci: We know the path of light can be bent by gravity and sufficient gravity will make it go in a circle so perhaps you should have seen it coming. And capture does describe this pretty well but it wasn't what you were talking about earlier. The energy of light is a function of photons is a function only of their frequency and nothing make them infinite.
**************************

Time ‘may’ stand still going in; light on the other hand ‘should’ stop coming out and the subject on point was ‘light’ and ‘the orbiting of same’ not ‘time’. You said light orbits a Black Hole; an orbit can only happen ‘around’, or outside of an orbited body, and light is not suppose to be able to escape a Black Hole (the orbited body in question) so it ‘may’ follow then; “Wow!...I didn’t see that coming” which means your statement took me by surprise. I don’t know of any scientific expression for surprise except “Eureka” so I will amend my statement to read; Eureka!!! Cincirob has revealed that light orbits a Black Body.


Cinci: As far as invalidating SR goes, SR isn't valid in the presence of a gravitatinal field. It is predicated on no gravity. It turns out the low level of gravity in the vicinity of the Earth causes very little departure from the predictions of SR.

That is a self contradictory statement Cincirob, SR either has ‘some’ validity in a gravitational field or it has ‘no’ validity in a gravitational field.


Bob s: No, SR is not predicated on “no gravity”, SR is predicated on the speed of light. However, General Relativity is predicated on Special Relativity hence the title Relativity: The Special and General Theory. And furthermore, if SR is not valid in a gravitational field then a clock at the equator running slower than a clock at the pole is a pointless experiment...Right! And if it is not pointless then SR is valid in a gravitational field...Right!

cinci: SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitaitonal field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments.
*******************************************

First I would suggest you look up the meaning of “predicated” and then look up the meaning of “inertial frames”, an inertial frame does not forbid gravity; SR does not forbid gravity, it (SR) just does not use gravity so therefor; SR is not predicated on the use, or non use, of gravity it (SR) is predicated on the consistency of the speed of light and the Laws of physics in an inertial frame. If you will read the postulates of Special Relativity it holds for ‘all’ Laws of physics, of which, gravity is one. If Einstein had wanted to omit gravity he should have said (some) Laws of physics.

I am often amused that non-relativists understand SR an GR better than relativists. We, the non-relativists, try to argue what Einstein ‘did’ say as opposed to relativists who just want to argue or play the semantics game.

bob s

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 12:12 PM

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 26 2008, 6:59 PM

Bob s: I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

cinci: I've never heard this description of a black hole.

Bob s: Collapse and implode are synonymous; to explode would be the antonym of either.

cinci: Yes, you're correct about what the words mean, but I've never heard anyone say that it was gravity that implodes. Material implodes, but the gravity is still there.

Yes! And you could have been more clear as to what it was you did not understand. The phenomena is referred to as “gravitational collapse”. I went the semantics route with some Bozo some time back who claimed he did not understand what I meant by “void”. We can argue physics, we can argue grammar or we can just argue, your choice! (By ‘argue’ I mean a discussion of opposing view points)

cinci: We can argue anything. Your comment is that "gravity cannot collpse into itself". The gravity doesn't collapse at all. If you're very far away from the a star that collapses and becomes a black hole there isn't any change in gravity so the gravity isn't collapsing. That's physics, not semantics. I agree that gravity cannot collapse into itself but you can't use that fact to say there aren't any black holes because nobody says that's what happens to forma black hole.
**********************


Bob s. GR may predict the capture of light but to do so would invalidate SR which would then invalidate GR.

cinci: I don't think "capturing" quite describes it. There is a region outside the event horizon where light can orbit the black hole. A photon moving away from a black hole loses energy s it overcomes the gravity so that it becomes redshifted. The effect gets more pronuounced when the photon begins its journey closer to the event horizon. At the horizon, time stands still and photons cannot be emitted or looked at another way, would have to have infinfite energy to be emitted.

Bob s: Light can only be omitted at the event horizon because that is where the event happens.

cinci: Actually that is where events cease to happen. Time stands still.

Bob s: Light can orbit a Black Hole! Wow...I didn’t see that coming. According to Relativity an object can not attain the speed of light because to do so would require infinite energy; it must follow then that if light is already at that speed then it (light) already has infinite energy; Relatively speaking of course. And yes, "capture" describes it quite well.

cinci: We know the path of light can be bent by gravity and sufficient gravity will make it go in a circle so perhaps you should have seen it coming. And capture does describe this pretty well but it wasn't what you were talking about earlier. The energy of light is a function of photons is a function only of their frequency and nothing make them infinite.

Time ‘may’ stand still going in; light on the other hand ‘should’ stop coming out and the subject on point was ‘light’ and ‘the orbiting of same’ not ‘time’. You said light orbits a Black Hole; an orbit can only happen ‘around’, or outside of an orbited body, and light is not suppose to be able to escape a Black Hole (the orbited body in question) so it ‘may’ follow then; “Wow!...I didn’t see that coming” which means your statement took me by surprise. I don’t know of any scientific expression for surprise except “Eureka” so I will amend my statement to read; Eureka!!! Cincirob has revealed that light orbits a Black Body.

cinci: You're welcome.
*****************************

Cinci: As far as invalidating SR goes, SR isn't valid in the presence of a gravitatinal field. It is predicated on no gravity. It turns out the low level of gravity in the vicinity of the Earth causes very little departure from the predictions of SR.

Bob s: That is a self contradictory statement Cincirob, SR either has ‘some’ validity in a gravitational field or it has ‘no’ validity in a gravitational field.

cinci: Where's the self contradiction? In the absence of gravity SR works. When there is low level gravity its predictions are very accurate. Newton's theory has been replaced by GR but Newton's theory works quite well at low gravity also and is still useful. You don't discard useful theories in regimes where they make accurate predictions.
*************************************

Bob s: No, SR is not predicated on “no gravity”, SR is predicated on the speed of light. However, General Relativity is predicated on Special Relativity hence the title Relativity: The Special and General Theory. And furthermore, if SR is not valid in a gravitational field then a clock at the equator running slower than a clock at the pole is a pointless experiment...Right! And if it is not pointless then SR is valid in a gravitational field...Right!

cinci: SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitaitonal field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments.

First I would suggest you look up the meaning of “predicated” and then look up the meaning of “inertial frames”, an inertial frame does not forbid gravity; SR does not forbid gravity, it (SR) just does not use gravity so therefor; SR is not predicated on the use, or non use, of gravity it (SR) is predicated on the consistency of the speed of light and the Laws of physics in an inertial frame. If you will read the postulates of Special Relativity it holds for ‘all’ Laws of physics, of which, gravity is one. If Einstein had wanted to omit gravity he should have said (some) Laws of physics.

I am often amused that non-relativists understand SR an GR better than relativists. We, the non-relativists, try to argue what Einstein ‘did’ say as opposed to relativists who just want to argue or play the semantics game.

cinci: Yes, I'm amused also. Actually Einstein doesn't say "all" laws. He says in his 1905 paper: "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates
in uniform translatory motion." Gravity doesn't fit that description. But I'm open. If you can find a reference that says inertial frames may be subject to gravitational fields, I'd like to see it.

Cincirob: “SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitational field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments”.




AAF: Does Einstein believe that his Special Relativity holds good in the midst of gravitational fields no matter how strong they are? Yes, he does! And this is his trick: go as deep as you can into the world of the infinitesimals and the infinitely small; if you do and if the assumption that [Curvature = Gravitation] is true, then gravity will vanish and go down towards zero in all those infinitesimal regions and his Special Relativity will apply and hold good!

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 6:20 PM

* Einstein's Postulates

* Postulate 1: “They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.” ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein June 30, 1905 Translated, 1922

The issue Cincirob, is that you stated that SR is predicated on “no gravity” and I say it (SR) is predicated on the speed of light. The above quoted passage does not address the issue of gravity so there is no (predicate) of gravity.
PREDICATE: to assert to be a quality, attribute, or property of.
ASSERT: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively. Again, the issue on point is what SR is “predicated on”. You are mis-using the word (predicated).

Cinci: I agree that gravity cannot collapse into itself but you can't use that fact to say there aren't any black holes because nobody says that's what happens to forma black hole.

Then obviously you have never herd or read the phrase “gravitational collapse”.
BLACK HOLES: The primary formation process for black holes is expected to be the gravitational collapse of heavy objects such as stars, but there are also more exotic processes that can lead to the production of black holes. (emphasis added) source Wikipedia. So obviously Cincirob, “somebody” besides me uses “gravitational collapse” to describe a Black Hole.

You are trying to prevail on semantics, I would hope you can do better.

bob s

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 8:51 PM

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 6:20 PM

* Einstein's Postulates

* Postulate 1: “They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.” ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein June 30, 1905 Translated, 1922

The issue Cincirob, is that you stated that SR is predicated on “no gravity” and I say it (SR) is predicated on the speed of light. The above quoted passage does not address the issue of gravity so there is no (predicate) of gravity.

PREDICATE: to assert to be a quality, attribute, or property of.

ASSERT: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively. Again, the issue on point is what SR is “predicated on”. You are mis-using the word (predicated).

cinci: Just because I said SR was predicated on no gravity doesn't mean it was the only thing it was predicated on. It's also predicated on the principle of relativity. And it's not predicated on the speed of light if you want to get all technical about it, it's predicated on the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers. And if you are an inertial observer you cannot be subjected to gravitational forces.

And if you want to keep discussing semantics (and you apparently do) here is another definition of predicated: "To base or establish (a statement or action, for example): I predicated my argument on the facts." In this case I would say Einstein predicated his argument on the constancy of the speed of light, and principle of relativity, and inertial systems which are not subject to gravity.
****************************

Cinci: I agree that gravity cannot collapse into itself but you can't use that fact to say there aren't any black holes because nobody says that's what happens to form a black hole.

Bob s: Then obviously you have never heard or read the phrase “gravitational collapse”.

BLACK HOLES: The primary formation process for black holes is expected to be the gravitational collapse of heavy objects such as stars, but there are also more exotic processes that can lead to the production of black holes. (emphasis added) source Wikipedia. So obviously

Cincirob, “somebody” besides me uses “gravitational collapse” to describe a Black Hole.

You are trying to prevail on semantics, I would hope you can do better.

cinci: Sure, I've heard of "gravitational collapse" and I know what the phrase means. The problem is you didn't use that phrase. You said "gravity can not collapse into itself". And "gravitational collapse" does not mean that gravity collapses into itself. This isn't semantics, you said something that simply doesn't happen. If you want to know what gravitaional collapse means read about Chandrasekhar and his prediction of the limit on the size of white dwarf stars.

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 8:04 PM

Cincirob: “SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitational field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments”.

AAF: Does Einstein believe that his Special Relativity holds good in the midst of gravitational fields no matter how strong they are? Yes, he does! And this is his trick: go as deep as you can into the world of the infinitesimals and the infinitely small; if you do and if the assumption that [Curvature = Gravitation] is true, then gravity will vanish and go down towards zero in all those infinitesimal regions and his Special Relativity will apply and hold good!

cinci: So now you are acknowledging that SR is a good theory when in the other string you said Einstein got everything wrong? Did you go back to your Einstein shrine and channel this bit of logic from the old boy himself? Do you have a better reference than yourself, an old Superman comic perhaps?

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 11:34 PM

cinci: Just because I said SR was predicated on no gravity doesn't mean it was the only thing it was predicated on.

Gravity is not a predicate to SR; you said it was; you were wrong.

It's also predicated on the principle of relativity.

True, but you were still wrong about gravity being a predicate to SR.

And it's not predicated on the speed of light if you want to get all technical about it, it's predicated on the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers.

Omitting the word “constancy” does not diminish the predicate of “speed of light”. Yes, I could have said “constancy of the speed of light”. Sue me!

And if you are an inertial observer you cannot be subjected to gravitational forces.

Inertia does not exist outside of a gravitational field.

And if you want to keep discussing semantics (and you apparently do) here is another definition of predicated: "To base or establish (a statement or action, for example): I predicated my argument on the facts." In this case I would say Einstein predicated his argument on the constancy of the speed of light, and principle of relativity, and inertial systems which are not subject to gravity.
****************************

I am not discussing semantics, rather, I am countering your use of semantics in trying to prevail in our discussion.

cinci: Sure, I've heard of "gravitational collapse" and I know what the phrase means. The problem is you didn't use that phrase. You said "gravity can not collapse into itself". And "gravitational collapse" does not mean that gravity collapses into itself.

If a gravitational body collapses because of gravitational collapse then the gravity of the gravitational body must collapse with the body that is collapsing otherwise it would be only the body collapsing and not the gravity so therefor it must hold that when a gravitational body collapses the gravity is (allegedly) collapsing into itself, that is, unless you think that the gravity stays where it is and only the body collapses but then it would not be called a gravitational collapse, would it?.

Cinci: This isn't semantics, you said something that simply doesn't happen.

Of course I said something that “simply doesn’t happen” (gravitational collapse) because, and read this slowly, gravity can not collapse into itself. Again; a gravitational body, of any size, or any mass, does not collapse because gravity can not collapse into itself, and get this straight, it makes no difference how much gravity the body has to begin with or accumulates over a period of time. Therefor, the phrase “gravitational collapse” has no relevant meaning except in the deluded minds of relativists and those of similar ilk.

bob s

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 28 2008, 2:19 AM

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 11:34 PM

cinci: Just because I said SR was predicated on no gravity doesn't mean it was the only thing it was predicated on.

Bob s: Gravity is not a predicate to SR; you said it was; you were wrong.

cinci: It's also predicated on the principle of relativity.

Bob s: True, but you were still wrong about gravity being a predicate to SR.

cinci: I guess we'll just have to diagree on this.
***********************************

cinci: And it's not predicated on the speed of light if you want to get all technical about it, it's predicated on the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers.

Bob s: Omitting the word “constancy” does not diminish the predicate of “speed of light”. Yes, I could have said “constancy of the speed of light”. Sue me!

cinci: Well on that basis, gravity is stillone of the predicates of SR.
***********************************

cinci: And if you are an inertial observer you cannot be subjected to gravitational forces.

Bob s: Inertia does not exist outside of a gravitational field.

cinci: Inertia doesn't have anything to do with gravitational fields. Here's the definition:

"Physics. a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force."

See, no mention of gravity. But don't let the facts get in your way.
**************************************

cinci: And if you want to keep discussing semantics (and you apparently do) here is another definition of predicated: "To base or establish (a statement or action, for example): I predicated my argument on the facts." In this case I would say Einstein predicated his argument on the constancy of the speed of light, and principle of relativity, and inertial systems which are not subject to gravity.

Bob s: I am not discussing semantics, rather, I am countering your use of semantics in trying to prevail in our discussion.

cinci: Well so far I've just been giving you some facts about gravitational collapse and relativity. I'm not sure how you intend to "prevails" over the facts.
*********

cinci: Sure, I've heard of "gravitational collapse" and I know what the phrase means. The problem is you didn't use that phrase. You said "gravity can not collapse into itself". And "gravitational collapse" does not mean that gravity collapses into itself.

Bob s: If a gravitational body collapses because of gravitational collapse then the gravity of the gravitational body must collapse with the body that is collapsing otherwise it would be only the body collapsing and not the gravity so therefore it must hold that when a gravitational body collapses the gravity is (allegedly) collapsing into itself, that is, unless you think that the gravity stays where it is and only the body collapses but then it would not be called a gravitational collapse, would it?.

cinci: Well no, the gravity doesn't collapse at all. The material body collapses but the mass is still there and so is the gravity. The gravity field intensity inside the original surface of the body changes because the mass distribution changes but the gravity field outside the original surface of the body doesn't change.
*******************************

Cinci: This isn't semantics, you said something that simply doesn't happen.

Bob s: Of course I said something that “simply doesn’t happen” (gravitational collapse) because, and read this slowly, gravity can not collapse into itself.

cinci: Well read this very slowly: Gravitational collapse doesn't mean that "gravity collapses into itself". Nobody but you ever said gravity collapses into itself. So I guess you find yourself in complete agreement with relativists because they don't say that it happens. .
***************************************

Bob s: Again; a gravitational body, of any size, or any mass, does not collapse because gravity can not collapse into itself, and get this straight, it makes no difference how much gravity the body has to begin with or accumulates over a period of time. Therefore, the phrase “gravitational collapse” has no relevant meaning except in the deluded minds of relativists and those of similar ilk.

cinci: You know, the least you could do it try to understand what it is you don't believe. Bodies do collapse but that doesn't mean the gravity does. If you don't want to believe science that's your business. But in this case you don't believe something that scientists don't believe either. So don't blame "relativists and those of similar ilk" for not believing in black holes, you made up your own ficticious reasons.

Cincirob: “SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitational field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments”.




AAF: Does Einstein believe that his Special Relativity holds good in the midst of gravitational fields no matter how strong they are? Yes, he does! And this is his trick: go as deep as you can into the world of the infinitesimals and the infinitely small; if you do and if the assumption that [Curvature = Gravitation] is true, then the gravitational field will vanish in those those infinitesimal regions and his Special Relativity will apply and hold good!




Cincirob: “So now you are acknowledging that SR is a good theory when in the other string you said Einstein got everything wrong? Did you go back to your Einstein shrine and channel this bit of logic from the old boy himself? Do you have a better reference than yourself, an old Superman comic perhaps"?





AAF: Dream on, Cincirob! You are the father of all trash talk! Everybody knows that Cincirob is bonding with Albert very strongly. As I said earliear, 'acknowledging', 'a couple of candles and incense', 'old Superman', 'old boy', 'sincerity', 'a photo of Albert', and other humbug are for human bonding and cultists in love and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and are not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Dr. Joe; and I am not going here to second-guess him! But you might be interested in this:

http://classylittleeinsteins.com/

The true Riemannian geometry is more consistent than the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of Einstein's General Relativity. That is a fact.


Moreover, having three spatial dimensions plus time makes the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of General Relativity more complex and less realistic and unphysical-like and incapable of being imagined and illustrated than the true Riemannian ones. In short, the coherence of the former has been demolished and wiped out by the vague definition and the inconsistent employment of the time co-ordinate as used in the theory of General Relativity.

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry
July 28 2008, 10:42 AM

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 28 2008, 2:19 AM

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 27 2008, 11:34 PM

cinci: Just because I said SR was predicated on no gravity doesn't mean it was the only thing it was predicated on.

Bob s: Gravity is not a predicate to SR; you said it was; you were wrong.

cinci: It's also predicated on the principle of relativity.

Bob s: True, but you were still wrong about gravity being a predicate to SR.

cinci: I guess we'll just have to diagree on this.
***********************************

cinci: And it's not predicated on the speed of light if you want to get all technical about it, it's predicated on the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers.

Bob s: Omitting the word “constancy” does not diminish the predicate of “speed of light”. Yes, I could have said “constancy of the speed of light”. Sue me!

cinci: Well on that basis, gravity is stillone of the predicates of SR.
***********************************

cinci: And if you are an inertial observer you cannot be subjected to gravitational forces.

Bob s: Inertia does not exist outside of a gravitational field.

cinci: Inertia doesn't have anything to do with gravitational fields. Here's the definition:

"Physics. a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force."

See, no mention of gravity. But don't let the facts get in your way.
**************************************

cinci: And if you want to keep discussing semantics (and you apparently do) here is another definition of predicated: "To base or establish (a statement or action, for example): I predicated my argument on the facts." In this case I would say Einstein predicated his argument on the constancy of the speed of light, and principle of relativity, and inertial systems which are not subject to gravity.

Bob s: I am not discussing semantics, rather, I am countering your use of semantics in trying to prevail in our discussion.

cinci: Well so far I've just been giving you some facts about gravitational collapse and relativity. I'm not sure how you intend to "prevails" over the facts.
*********

cinci: Sure, I've heard of "gravitational collapse" and I know what the phrase means. The problem is you didn't use that phrase. You said "gravity can not collapse into itself". And "gravitational collapse" does not mean that gravity collapses into itself.

Bob s: If a gravitational body collapses because of gravitational collapse then the gravity of the gravitational body must collapse with the body that is collapsing otherwise it would be only the body collapsing and not the gravity so therefore it must hold that when a gravitational body collapses the gravity is (allegedly) collapsing into itself, that is, unless you think that the gravity stays where it is and only the body collapses but then it would not be called a gravitational collapse, would it?.

cinci: Well no, the gravity doesn't collapse at all. The material body collapses but the mass is still there and so is the gravity. The gravity field intensity inside the original surface of the body changes because the mass distribution changes but the gravity field outside the original surface of the body doesn't change.
*******************************

Cinci: This isn't semantics, you said something that simply doesn't happen.

Bob s: Of course I said something that “simply doesn’t happen” (gravitational collapse) because, and read this slowly, gravity can not collapse into itself.

cinci: Well read this very slowly: Gravitational collapse doesn't mean that "gravity collapses into itself". Nobody but you ever said gravity collapses into itself. So I guess you find yourself in complete agreement with relativists because they don't say that it happens. .
***************************************

Bob s: Again; a gravitational body, of any size, or any mass, does not collapse because gravity can not collapse into itself, and get this straight, it makes no difference how much gravity the body has to begin with or accumulates over a period of time. Therefore, the phrase “gravitational collapse” has no relevant meaning except in the deluded minds of relativists and those of similar ilk.

cinci: You know, the least you could do it try to understand what it is you don't believe. Bodies do collapse but that doesn't mean the gravity does. If you don't want to believe science that's your business. But in this case you don't believe something that scientists don't believe either. So don't blame "relativists and those of similar ilk" for not believing in black holes, you made up your own ficticious reasons.

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 28 2008, 10:19 PM

Cincirob: “SR is valid for inertial frames and inertial frames are defined as having constant velocity, no rotation, and no gravity. GR is an extension of SR to include gravity. The gravitational field at the pole is the same as the gravitational field at the equator. The difference is that the clock at the equator is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour relative to the one at the pole. That differential velocity causes the equatorial clock to run slower. As I noted, the gravitational field of the earth can be ignored for many SR experiments”.

AAF: Does Einstein believe that his Special Relativity holds good in the midst of gravitational fields no matter how strong they are? Yes, he does! And this is his trick: go as deep as you can into the world of the infinitesimals and the infinitely small; if you do and if the assumption that [Curvature = Gravitation] is true, then the gravitational field will vanish in those those infinitesimal regions and his Special Relativity will apply and hold good!

Cincirob: “So now you are acknowledging that SR is a good theory when in the other string you said Einstein got everything wrong? Did you go back to your Einstein shrine and channel this bit of logic from the old boy himself? Do you have a better reference than yourself, an old Superman comic perhaps"?

AAF: Dream on, Cincirob! You are the father of all trash talk! Everybody knows that Cincirob is bonding with Albert very strongly. As I said earliear, 'acknowledging', 'a couple of candles and incense', 'old Superman', 'old boy', 'sincerity', 'a photo of Albert', and other humbug are for human bonding and cultists in love and newlywed couples in the city of Amsterdam, and are not suitable for scientists and critics and truth seekers. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Dr. Joe; and I am not going here to second-guess him! But you might be interested in this:

cinci: You're repeating yourself again, Out of ideas?

Re: On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry July 28 2008, 10:53 PM

AAF: The true Riemannian geometry is more consistent than the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of Einstein's General Relativity. That is a fact.

cinci: So now there's two kinds of Riemmanian geometry?
***************************

AAF: Moreover, having three spatial dimensions plus time makes the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of General Relativity more complex and less realistic and unphysical-like and incapable of being imagined and illustrated than the true Riemannian ones.

cinci: You know, just because it's complex and yoiu can't imagine it doesn't mean that it's wrong. It just means it's too complex for YOU and YOU are incapable of imagining it.
************************

AAF: In short, the coherence of the former has been demolished and wiped out by the vague definition and the inconsistent employment of the time co-ordinate as used in the theory of General Relativity.

cinci: What, now you don't believe intime?
*******************

AAF: The true Riemannian geometry is more consistent than the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of Einstein's General Relativity. That is a fact. Moreover, having three spatial dimensions plus time makes the pseudo-Riemannian geometry of General Relativity more complex and less realistic and unphysical-like and incapable of being imagined and illustrated than the true Riemannian ones. In short, the coherence of the former has been demolished and wiped out by the vague definition and the inconsistent employment of the time co-ordinate as used in the theory of General Relativity.



Cincirob: “So now there's two kinds of Riemmanian geometry? You know, just because it's complex and yoiu can't imagine it doesn't mean that it's wrong. It just means it's too complex for YOU and YOU are incapable of imagining it. What, now you don't believe intime”?



AAF: Don't you know? There are indeed two geometries: true Riemannian geometry consisting of space co-ordinates only, and pseudo-Riemannian geometry made up of mixed co-ordinates of space and time. Anyway, if it can't be imagined, then it can't be geometry. It can be anything, but it can never be geometry. It's as simple as that. Is this clear or I have to explain it one more time to you, you father of all trash talk?




Cincirob: “My, my! Such denial. I must have hit a soft spot. It was just a lucky guess about the Einstein shrine but apparently you do have one. As the Bard of Avon said, "Methinks he protesteth too much." As far as being the "father of trash talk" goes, thanks for the compliment. Or are you bein disingenuous again? In any case I can discuss science or I can trash talk. Discussing science with you is a waste of time. Trash talking keeps you too busy to spread your nonsense science so it's a win for good science”.




AAF: Beware, Cincirob, of trash talk! Trash talk can at times inflect more damage than straight talk. Besides, you got your diagnosis from Dr. Joe; and I am not going here to second-guess him:
http://classylittleeinsteins.com/




Cincirob: “You really shouldn't exaggerate. There isn't anything that everybody knows about cincirob”.



AAF: You are a humble man, Cincirob; and I like you!



Cincirob: “How can you tell when an antirelativists is out of ideas? Easy, he starts calling everybody liars”.



AAF: I didn't call anyone a 'liar'; maybe DC did, but not me; I said only that you're humble and I like you! In any case, you can't talk about Einstein and ignore his pal, Lorentz.



Cincirob: “You can't understand Einstein by talking about Lorentz. Lorentz never got the whole theory right. Can you duplicate his math that gives the length contraction formula? If you could, you would know that it has nothing to do with ether”.



AAF: Just because I said I like you, it doesn't mean you gain the right to tell me unmitigated nonsense such this! Nobody can understand Einstein and his theory without understanding first Lorentz and his Transformations. It is as simple as that.

Bold emphasis added

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/pulsars.html
Neutron stars are one of the possible ends for a star. They result from massive stars which have mass greater than 4 to 8 times that of our sun. After these stars have finished burning their nuclear fuel, they undergo a supernova explosion. This explosion blows off the outer layers of a star into a beautiful supernova remnant. The central region of the star collapses under gravity. It collapses so much that protons and electrons combine to form neutrons. Hence the name "neutron star".

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/help/tutorials/pulsar.htm
During their lifetimes, all stars continuously perform an energy balancing act. The heat and energy generated in a star's core want to make it expand, while the star's gravity wants to make it contract. The perfect balance between the two can keep a star shining stably for billions of years. A star in this phase of life is said to be "on the main sequence."

Eventually, however, a star runs out of fuel in its center. When this happens, there is no longer a generation of heat and energy in the interior, and nothing is present to counteract the self-gravitation of the star. For very massive stars (more than 10 times bigger than our sun) the sudden, catastrophic, gravitational collapse of the star results in the supernova explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Neutron star
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the story by Larry Niven, see Neutron Star (story).

A neutron star is a type of remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html
In any case, the basic idea is that when the central part of the star fuses its way to iron, it can't go any farther because at low pressures iron 56 has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any element, so fusion or fission of iron 56 requires an energy input. Thus, the iron core just accumulates until it gets to about 1.4 solar masses >(the "Chandrasekhar mass")<, at which point the electron degeneracy pressure that had been supporting it against gravity gives up the ghost and collapses inward.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-neutron-star.htm
A neutron star is a stellar remnant--a super-compressed object left over when stars with a mass between 1.4 and about 3 times the mass of our Sun exhaust their nuclear fuel and collapse inwards. The result is a condensed sphere of matter about 20 km (12 miles) across, with a gravitational field approximately 2 x 10^11 times stronger than that of Earth's.

bob s: “Collapses inwards”??? Now, I wonder what could cause the inward collapse...hmmm...hmmm I know...I know!!! Gravity.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/neutronstar.html
One of the possible endpoints of stellar evolution. A neutron star, with a mass of 1.4 to 3 solar masses, forms from the collapsing core of a massive star immediately following the star's exhaustion of its fusion energy reserves. With the outflow of radiation from the stellar core suddenly switched off, the core can no longer support the overlying layers against the inward force of gravity.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/N/Neutron+Star
Neutron stars comprise one of the possible evolutionary end-points of high mass stars. Once the core of the star has completely burned to iron, energy production stops and the core rapidly collapses, squeezing electrons and protons together to form neutrons and neutrinos. The neutrinos easily escape the contracting core but the neutrons pack closer together until their density is equivalent to that of an atomic nucleus. At this point, the neutrons occupy the smallest space possible (in a similar fashion to the electrons in a white dwarf) and, if the core is less than about 3 solar masses, they exert a pressure which is capable of supporting a star. For masses larger than this, even the pressure of neutrons cannot support the star against gravity and it collapses into a stellar black hole....

bob s: “rapidly collapses”??? Now, I wonder what could cause the rapid collapse?...hmmm...hmmm I know...I know!!! Gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse
Gravitational collapse in astronomy is the inward fall of a massive body under the influence of the force of gravity. It occurs when all other forces fail to supply a sufficiently high pressure to counterbalance gravity and keep the massive body in hydrostatic equilibrium.

bob s: “inward fall”??? OH! I get it...influenced by the force of gravity”...Do you get it Cincirob?

Many of you may not know it but according to Cincirob I am the only person in the known universe who claims that gravity can not collapse into itself, which, may make me unique but, not necessarily wrong.

And for you Cincirob, because of your special problem I will repeat;
g r a v i t y, c a n, n o t, c o l l a p s e, i n t o, I t s e l f.
And, Cinci, best of luck with your remedial reading classes.

bob s

Bob,

You are not alone. Neutron stars and black holes are fiction. The force of gravity cannot overcome electrostatic forces, let along the strong force.

Acknowledge that magnetic fields MUST be maintained by electric currents in space (plasma), and the need for these fantasies evaporate.

-Dave

Re: Dave Roscoe, For my friend Cincirob et al July 30 2008, 8:56 PM

Bob,
You are not alone. Neutron stars and black holes are fiction. The force of gravity cannot overcome electrostatic forces, let along the strong force.

Thank you Dave, being unique does not mean being alone I guess.

Acknowledge that magnetic fields MUST be maintained by electric currents in space (plasma), and the need for these fantasies evaporate.

Very true. I know your work on gravity (and I remember now that I owe you a response on your gravity paper) but where do you stand on magnetic currents ie;

http://www.josephnewman.com/Single_Magnetic_Charges.html

Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.

We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges, which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a medium conducting magnetism.

I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at the same time.
--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.

bob s

Bob,

I do not buy into 'magnetic currents'. After reading the material, I believe the author's view of the mechanics of the vacuum is flawed. At least, it is not consistent with my view (which is itself inconsistent with the currently accepted view), which would attribute a differing explanation.

What he is describing as magnetic currents is actually a normal magnetic field, but in this case, the photon is the moving charge source. Unlike matter, which have 'locked in' charges, photons exhibit virtual charge forces, resulting from the vacuum polarization due to the propagation of the photon through it. Since magnetism is caused by this same polarization, regardless of the cause, it is easy to miss the charge-like behavior of the photon, and observe the resulting magnetic forces as being isolated. If other matter occupies the same local vacuum as a passing photon, it will exhibit magnetic behavior due to the induced polarization forces occurring on the medium it is immersed in.

Does that make any sense to you? It is hard for me because I intuit these things from my own model, having been at it so long, and sometimes take things as being self-evident where others might not.

I would be interested in seeing the pictures they refer to before I comment any further. I believe this is likely the 2-dimensional view of matter moving through a discretized vacuum, whos discrete units are spherical. This is in line with my view of the vacuum plenum, without the troublesome notion of "lines of force", which I also do not believe are real.

Best regards,
-Dave

Re: Dave Roscoe, Magnetic current July 31 2008, 6:50 PM

Bob,

I do not buy into 'magnetic currents'. After reading the material, I believe the author's view of the mechanics of the vacuum is flawed. At least, it is not consistent with my view (which is itself inconsistent with the currently accepted view), which would attribute a differing explanation.

Dave, here is a link to more details on his work. http://www.rexresearch.com/ehrenhaf/ehrenhaf.htm
I am mot pushing this concept but in some respects it makes sense, we have particles with single charge is it so hard to conceive of particles with single poles. Actually, it adds to the continuum of electromagnetism. I view electricity and magnetism as separate but in-separable forces ie; one has charge the other poles, but where one exists the other also exists, if a single charge why not a single pole.

What he is describing as magnetic currents is actually a normal magnetic field, but in this case, the photon is the moving charge source. Unlike matter, which have 'locked in' charges, photons exhibit virtual charge forces, resulting from the vacuum polarization due to the propagation of the photon through it. Since magnetism is caused by this same polarization, regardless of the cause, it is easy to miss the charge-like behavior of the photon, and observe the resulting magnetic forces as being isolated. If other matter occupies the same local vacuum as a passing photon, it will exhibit magnetic behavior due to the induced polarization forces occurring on the medium it is immersed in.

I think those concerns are addressed in the new link I provided.

Does that make any sense to you?

A very interesting question but things that may make sense do not always follow through logically to the next step which does not mean I disagree but magnetic current deserves further consideration.

I have been conditioned since highschool to think N S poles as indivisible and I usually dismissed the thought of magnetic current and it is only recently I did a search and found the work of Pro. Ehrenaft. What I did not realize was that the link I first sent was from a site that promotes perpetual energy, which, I don’t buy.

It is hard for me because I intuit these things from my own model, having been at it so long, and sometimes take things as being self-evident where others might not.

Now that is a statement I can relate to. I have often heard there is a fine line between science and religion but I think there is a much finer line between science and philosophy. Science and religion want me to accept what they say as self-evident because they say it and philosophy tells me nothing is self-evident no matter who says it. I am not a follower nor a leader but I enjoy observing those who do either. What you consider as self-evident may not be to me but if you have the courage of your convictions then I owe it to myself to try and find out why we differ. There is unity in nature and if in fact there is magnetic current it could add one more link in that unity.

I would be interested in seeing the pictures they refer to before I comment any further. I believe this is likely the 2-dimensional view of matter moving through a discretized vacuum, whos discrete units are spherical. This is in line with my view of the vacuum plenum, without the troublesome notion of "lines of force", which I also do not believe are real.

There are pictures but if they address your concerns I am doubtful, but they are confirmed by others with scientific backgrounds. I do perceive a connection with inertia but it is to sketchy to explain right now.

bob s

Bob,

My view of the vacuum is that it is not a void. It has structure and the discrete units which comprise this structure contain intrinsic angular momentum.

After reading several of the articles on that page, I still feel that the described behaviors can be attributed to my view of the vacuum, and the effects of charge forces upon it, without resorting to magnetic currents. I will continue to look through it to see if there is anything that would pose a problem for my model. Admittedly I did not read all of the articles, as there's quite a bit of information there.

Best regards,
-Dave

Re: Dave Roscoe, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry August 1 2008, 8:11 AM

My view of the vacuum is that it is not a void. It has structure and the discrete units which comprise this structure contain intrinsic angular momentum.

I guess this is what I meant by science and philosophy. The science tells me of a structure of discreet units then the philosopher tells me that the void the discrete units exist within does not exist. If the discrete units be real then the void is self-evident by deduction. Something can not exist independent of a place in which to exist. I fail to see how a void compromises your model of discrete units. You are aware that Webster’s defines “vacuum” as; “1: emptiness of space and2 a: a space absolutely devoid of matter...”.

After reading several of the articles on that page, I still feel that the described behaviors can be attributed to my view of the vacuum, and the effects of charge forces upon it, without resorting to magnetic currents.

My thoughts were that a magnetic current (if it exists) might add to your model. My model is not ready for the mold yet so I try to be flexible. If nothing else, it was an interesting read.

bob s

I define the vacuum as, "that which contains matter and energy". It is a void from the standpoint of all definitions of matter and energy, because both reside in and are borne of the vacuum. If you remove all matter and currently known energy forms from the universe, the vacuum would remain, and it is indeed empty. Just as a box is empty but has sides, the vacuum is empty but has "walls". The walls are not matter, and are not any detectable form of energy, so from the standpoint of our understanding, it is a void.

Definitely an interesting read, and I am not convinced there isn't something to it. I just haven't come across anything yet that makes me think... "uh oh".

Best regards,
-Dave

To Bob S.

Are you trying to forget what you said or convince me you didn't say it. Your comment was "I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!)."

Thanks for all the nice articles, but none of them say gravity collapses into itself. The stars collapse, but the gravity is still there. How do we know this? Becasue we see them orbiting other bodies and in some cases we see mass being drawn into them. The gravity DID NOT COLLAPSE. Even people who need remedial reading could see that your statement isn't supported by any of the sites you posted. Have a nice day!

Cincirob: “To Bob S. Are you trying to forget what you said or convince me you didn't say it. Your comment was "I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!)." Thanks for all the nice articles, but none of them say gravity collapses into itself. The stars collapse, but the gravity is still there. How do we know this? Becasue we see them orbiting other bodies and in some cases we see mass being drawn into them. The gravity DID NOT COLLAPSE. Even people who need remedial reading could see that your statement isn't supported by any of the sites you posted. Have a nice day”!





AAF: Bob's statement is based upon a question extremely hard to answer in the conventional way; Monsieur Cincirob! How can gravity get itself out of a black hole? The Relativistic answer to this very basic question, below, is ad hoc and unsatisfactory; take a look:

It is believed that gravity, like other forces, has a counterpart in the particle world, usually called the "graviton". How come the graviton can escape the inner side of a black hole ? Since the space-time fabric inside a black hole makes everything move toward the center, gravitons should never escape, therefore black holes should not have a gravity field outside the horizon. I'm an engineer in information technology, and I have a good knowledge of what a black hole is. Don't hesitate to show me formulas!
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980601a.html

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry August 1 2008, 9:00 PM

Cinci: Are you trying to forget what you said or convince me you didn't say it.

bob s: No! In fact what I said is so profound and so prophetic it bears repeating; I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!).

Cinci: Your comment was "I too reject Black Holes, as are presently modeled, because, among other reasons, gravity can not collapse into itself (explode...possible! Implode...can’t happen!)."

bob s: That is correct Cinci, that was my comment. There are three phenomena as issue; 1. Neutron Stars 2, Pulsars and 3. Black holes. Each of which are said to be the result of ‘gravitational collapse’, I say it is not true because; gravity can not collapse into itself and if it did, (which it doesn’t) the amount of gravity would remain the same.

Cinci: Thanks for all the nice articles, but none of them say gravity collapses into itself.

bob s: Yes they do, that is why they use the phrase “gravitational collapse”. ie; The structure of the star can no longer support its own weight and it (the star) collapses. I say, no it does not (collapse); a star does not collapse because of any mechanical cause, a star does not collapse because of any dynamical effect and a star does not collapse because of any gravitational effect. I say, a star may explode but it can not collapse. The sites I sent to you were not intended to support what I say. They (the sites) were intended to show you what conventional science claims to be the cause of, Neutron Stars, Pulsars and Black Holes; first an explosion and then the collapse. The explosion happens because of fuel exhaustion and the collapse happens because the star can not support itself from the effect of gravity. The result being (in their view not mine) the star collapses under its own weight, which is why they (not me) call it gravitational collapse.

Cinci: The stars collapse, but the gravity is still there. How do we know this?

bob s: You (being the representative of your referenced “we”) do not “know this”, why? Because it (the collapse) can not happen, by any means of known physics.

Cinci: Becasue we see them orbiting other bodies and in some cases we see mass being drawn into them. The gravity DID NOT COLLAPSE.

bob s: Thank you, “The gravity DID NOT COLLAPSE” and neither did the star!

Cinci: Even people who need remedial reading could see that your statement isn't supported by any of the sites you posted.

bob s: That’s good Cinci, I am proud of you, it shows the classes are working for you and apparently, the others as well. Remember, sit up front and pay attention. Also, you should pay better attention to AAF he is just trying to help you understand physics better.

And thank you AAF, for the support. Relativists! Ya just gotta love ‘em.

bob s

I'm not surprised you referred to AAF in your message. You and he have a lot in common.....never admit a mistake no matter how obvious. He thinks photns and electrons are the same thing and you think gravity collapsed.

Just a word for your remedial reading class. "Gravitational" is and adjective. So "gravitational collapse" is a collapse caused by gravitation. It isn't the gravity itself. Cling to the idea that gravity collapses as long as you can stand to look silly.

And your other suggestion, that gravity might explode.................too silly for words.

Re: Cincirob, On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry August 2 2008, 10:26 AM
I'm not surprised you referred to AAF in your message. You and he have a lot in common.....never admit a mistake no matter how obvious. He thinks photns and electrons are the same thing and you think gravity collapsed.

Just a word for your remedial reading class. "Gravitational" is and adjective. So "gravitational collapse" is a collapse caused by gravitation. It isn't the gravity itself. Cling to the idea that gravity collapses as long as you can stand to look silly.

And your other suggestion, that gravity might explode.................too silly for words.

You must have a twin sibling Cincirob, because no one person can be as stupid as you are.

Cincirob: “ I'm not surprised you referred to AAF in your message. You and he have a lot in common.....never admit a mistake no matter how obvious. He thinks photns and electrons are the same thing and you think gravity collapsed. Just a word for your remedial reading class. "Gravitational" is and adjective. So "gravitational collapse" is a collapse caused by gravitation. It isn't the gravity itself. Cling to the idea that gravity collapses as long as you can stand to look silly. And your other suggestion, that gravity might explode.................too silly for words”.




AAF: Stop playing around; Cincirob! If electrons emit photons, then they must be composed of photons or play at least the role of nature's most efficient factories for making them. In any case, this 'cling to the idea...' of yours is a distortion of Bob's real statement and it's a silly distortion and nothing good can come out of it, except giving me the chance to spank you one more time! And so the challenge to you on this black-hole topic is quite simple: answer this very good question; It is believed that gravity, like other forces, has a counterpart in the particle world, usually called the "graviton". How come the graviton can escape the inner side of a black hole ? Since the space-time fabric inside a black hole makes everything move toward the center, gravitons should never escape, therefore black holes should not have a gravity field outside the horizon. I'm an engineer in information technology, and I have a good knowledge of what a black hole is. Don't hesitate to show me formulas! http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980601a.html




Bob S:: “You must have a twin sibling Cincirob, because no one person can be as stupid as you are”.


AAF: Bob, I know for sure that Cincirob did not and will not share any room with any sibling male or female in the past or the future in Cincinnati or elsewhere:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33872.php

Cincirob: “ I'm not surprised you referred to AAF in your message. You and he have a lot in common.....never admit a mistake no matter how obvious. He thinks photns and electrons are the same thing and you think gravity collapsed. Just a word for your remedial reading class. "Gravitational" is and adjective. So "gravitational collapse" is a collapse caused by gravitation. It isn't the gravity itself. Cling to the idea that gravity collapses as long as you can stand to look silly. And your other suggestion, that gravity might explode.................too silly for words”.

AAF: "Stop playing around; Cincirob! If electrons emit photons, then they must be composed of photons or play at least the role of nature's most efficient factories for making them."

cinci: Oh, so now there's an "or" in your statement. You're making progress.
**********************************

AAF: In any case, this 'cling to the idea...' of yours is a distortion of Bob's real statement and it's a silly distortion and nothing good can come out of it, except giving me the chance to spank you one more time!

cinci: Bob is just observing the time honored tradition of most anti-relativitists....say something that doesn't make any sense (gravity collapses into itself), imply that relativists made the nonsensical statement, and then say that relativists are wrong because of his statement. My only question is whether he developed the technique on his own or whether you helped him.
****************************

AAF: And so the challenge to you on this black-hole topic is quite simple: answer this very good question; It is believed that gravity, like other forces, has a counterpart in the particle world, usually called the "graviton".

cinci: Good grief, it's hard to know where to start. How about, nobody has a credible theory for quantum gravity so your statment "It is believed.....etc" is off the mark going in.
***********************************

AAF: How come the graviton can escape the inner side of a black hole?

cinci: Here it is again. Do you know a credible physicist that says "gravitons escape from the inner side of a black hole"? If you have a source, let me know. I don't have time to sort through that hodge-podge site you posted.
*************************

AAF: Since the space-time fabric inside a black hole makes everything move toward the center, gravitons should never escape, therefore black holes should not have a gravity field outside the horizon.

cinci: More gravitron questions? See above.
*************************

AAF: I'm an engineer in information technology, and I have a good knowledge of what a black hole is. Don't hesitate to show me formulas! http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980601a.html

cinci: If you have a good knowledge of them, then you know gravity doesn't collpase into itself, don't you. And if you know what they are, why don't YOU tell Bob S. what they are. He eosn't thnk there are any.

The theory for general relativity has been shown by experiment to describe gravity to a very high degree of accuracy and gravitons are not part of it. General relativity predicts black holes. So if you want to know about black holes, then study general realtivity. If you want to know about gravitons I suggest you ask Bob S. He apparently has all the answers.
******************************