...
Geez. I knew I was going to miss some good stuff when this thread really got going. Oh, well, I'm back, a day short and a dollar long.
It has occurred to me, we have quite a brotherhood here. Curious folks that not only like to read and understand their world, but write ...and write. Imagine, if you will, a stranger stopping into this Lounge for a quick one. He would either be captured ...or severely "WTF" appalled. Gotta love it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JAMO
Wes...that was good. I took one astronomy class in the midst of my political science major. When I walked into class...
|
Thanks, Jamo. I wish I could take an astronomy class now ...and some political science classes too. Maybe after retirement ...along with my more stable amateur-astronomer brother. Actually I wish I was 17, again, with my reversed slim physique but generous memory, knowing what I know now.
Don't we all.
-----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RON61
Actually an easy example of magnetism, which is the same as gravity when taken in that context, has been bending light since the first TVs were invented. Around the neck of the old CRTs were the big magnets that would pull the light beam across and up and down the screen as it in a simple explanation painted the picture on the screen.
I have always thought of Black Holes in somewhat the same as a Worm Hole...
Ron
|
Figuratively, yes, Ron. Actually, I think the magnetism is able to bend, or sweep, an
electron beam because electrons have a negative charge. The swept beam of invisible electrons cause light when they spray/strike the "light capable" phosphorus coating on the backside of the glass screen. (I know you know or knew this.) Only gravity (or the acceleration of an elevator) can bend light (or space, rather), light photons having a neutral or zero charge.
I like your idea of thinking of a worm hole as similar to black holes. Because of the extreme, nearly infinate, velocity that I imagine the expanding volume of visible matter achieved since the beginning, it is not so hard for me to imagine something with nearly infinately small volume. Perhaps, to the guy within, there is a lot of "relative" room inside black holes but not between worm hole ends.
There is a theme that runs through these posts regarding being torn apart by the immense gravity furnished by black holes. I would like to mention that a person in free fall to earth normally feels no gravity at all. So
at the outer-space beginning of falling into a black hole, feet first, there would be an early point, high up, where the "attraction" of gravity would be identical to earth ...no big deal. But as ones body fell closer, and gravity increased, the
significant difference of the attraction of ones feet, which were closer, would suddenly be much greater than the "attraction" to ones head which would be further away. We would theoretically be badly stretched (not sure I agree). Remember, gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the black holes center. Actually as we stand on earth, our feet are pulled only very slightly more than our head because of this principle. If we stood on our head the opposite would be true. A more extreme earthly example would be that one
measurably weighs more at the base of a mountain than at the top. At any rate, anything left of our atoms in a black hole would be severely compressed, as Buzz says in his next post. If I ever fall into a black hole, I will try to lie (fall) horizontal and hope for the best. Preferably face down if any schwartzchild stretch causes a permanent, reshaping condition.
Heh, heh. He said schwartz. 
-------------------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BUZZ
Good stuff, Wes. Right up to this part which, while interesting from a theorizing for the fun of it point of view (and it IS fun), seems to me a gross over-complication of a very simply explained phenomena. I can just picture the blank stare from your grandkid after that explanation.
Firstly, given the speed of light at the relatively tiny distance we're talking about, any historical variation in mass or size would be way too small to be observed. The objects appear smaller simply because the path of light basically radiates outward through the pupil from the small spot on the back of your retina. As distance from the eye's pupil increases, so does the field of view. Distant objects appear smaller just because they take up a proportionally smaller percentage of the overall field of view. I will run this by the next kid I see and I'm sure they will nod and say "Got it."...
...Amazing stuff.
__________________
Tropical Buzz
|
I'm glad you brought up this point, Buzz. Part of me found this hard to accept also, and still does. Stared at myself blankly in a mirror... But...
In conventional General Theory, we are led to believe that Einstein could, and did, demonstrate that gravity can be considered an acceleration, similar, identical, BUT DIFFERENT, to the momentum reaction of Newtons Laws of Motion model. Einstein goes on to describe this acceleration both mathematically and also from our preferred unique "frame of reference" where he states that anyone can consider their frame of reference to be at rest. But can we consider our frame of reference, with it's indisputable built-in acceleration (gravity) in every atom, to be at rest ...again, like we always do... and still observe the real universe.
rant on By what right do we have to claim that we "own" space with our constant, immutable size? Especially if we might to observe evidence to the contrary? Shall we have an Inquisiton to insist that God has made two laws of nearly identical, but separate, acceleration?rant off
Yet, I agree, we should accept there are two laws, and gravity is a special separate force, if that is
only what we truly observe. I have no argument with convention nor the numbers. My problem is that I suspect both geometric perspectives are, and must continue to be, true ...at least true mathematically ...if that makes any sense.
...Firstly, given the speed of light at the relatively tiny distance we're talking about, any historical variation in mass or size would be way too small to be observed....
Buzz, I know you know this, but I'll say it anyway. Sunlight takes about eight minutes to get here. We cannot see the sun as it is, but only as it was in history, eight minutes ago. If a universal (literally) expansion has built up, over time, (to an extreme "fastest possible" velocity, that of
C itself) it has
unfortunately dawned on me the observable variation in apparent size should,
and logically must, began to visually occur with very little difference in history. I think any non-linear expansion theory is stuck with it. Written formula/math-wise, because it is squared, use of the quantity
C˛ is still equal to use of the quantity (
-C˛), but NOT identical geometrically. The most sophisticated math in the world doesn't automatically catch stuff like this.
C, Light Speed itself, or matter speed, or half and half, depends on how one looks at it. It is a matter of interpretation of the evidence, something that has fooled us over and over. So I wonder.
You are absolutely correct in describing Euclidean geometry as
...the path of light basically radiates outward through the pupil...
But I was not the first one to throw Euclidean geometry out the window when it comes to relativity. Euclidean geometry allows for three dimensions. Einstein has demonstrated to us that there are
at least four dimensions,
up/down, sideways, front/back and the fourth dimension,
time. (Notice how I corrected this description from my earlier hurried post?
)
The fourth dimension is similar to the axis of all three others (X,Y,Z) in that it is at a right angle to all three others. This is very difficult to imagine or draw. As an example, imagine a
being living in a two dimensional world. Living on a flat sheet of paper, this
being can see sideways, and front/back ...but cannot see, nor imagine, up/down. How would this
being realise there is at least one more invisible dimension, up/down? This
being might determine mathematically that this is so ...but be forever banned in the ability to directly observe such. But contrary to descriptions I have seen worded (almost identical to what I have just said), one should include both time and up/down as a possible future discovery to this
being. And I'm also saying time can be directly observed, even in this two dimensional world. Lines of observable dimension simply again radiate from any given point. For a reason. The angle is time itself. Time is, always without fail, part of the other dimensions.
And that is why I said in my first post,
"history (time) taken to see it is the fourth dimension in all its glory" regarding what we off-handedly know as the "vanishing point". That is part of what I love about such a theory. It IS so simple. I'm contending, contrary to popular belief, the fourth dimension can not only seemingly be directly observed, but the view is obvious to any child. It is one of those DUH things. I'm saying apparently the fourth dimension CAUSES our surroundings to appear, Euclidean,
including a vanishing point, as our surroundings most certainly do appear. We all see the effect. What do you think the root cause is? That is what I asked myself ....as I stood helplessly staring in the mirror. It wasn't so funny at first.
Therefore, because of it's simplicity, and my own insane pride, I insist my theory qualifies as Elegantą.
ąCharacterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style.
1. attractive and graceful or stylish
2. cleverly simple and clear:
Of course, it is probably dead wrong, but Elegant never-the-less.
Yes, I admit, I'm embarrassed how long I've been "banging" away on this (pardon the pun).
But I haven't lost my sense of humor over it.
At one less sophisticated time, that of Aristotle, gravity was thought to exist because "things belong on the ground". Today, we presently believe that the simple vanishing point exists because it "belongs that way".
And, in keeping on subject:
To an observer at a faster rate of "gravitational matter expansion", our entire universe would soon appear to be a black hole, as he far "outran" our relative volume. Space ...the final frontier. Bigger than we think.
Buzz, you seem to have a particularily good handle on this stuff. Is it a fervent hobby, or are you a pro? How about some of you other guys?
---------------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bomelia
Damn Wes! That is some good stuff! Unfortunately I am into my third Scotch and my eyes are twirling right now. But I WILL read this again tomorrow. Thanks Ron for starting such an interesting thread.
Mike
|
Thanks, Mike. Actually got back and into a couple of beers last night after an unusually quick 29 hour round trip. Between lack of sleep, beer and neccessary spousal greeting, it disabled me from posting stuff like this. I have enough trouble when fully alert.
Wes
...