BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 09:59 am
@iantresman,
Black holes can exist even under Newton laws and we can see stars rotating around a large mass<a few hundred millions stars mass> of something in most galaxies centers and in many cases putting out very large amounts of energy.

So what kind of questions can anyone have about them existing?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 12:44 pm
@iantresman,
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 03:46 pm
@iantresman,
iantresman wrote:
No, the Universe is an observatory, not a laboratory. That's why we can't easily test, for example, whether black holes exist, and have to rely on inferences.

That being the case, then we can't "test" whether Stars exist either, but we know they do. And the exact same thing can be said for Black Holes.
iantresman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:40 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
That being the case, then we can't "test" whether Stars exist either, but we know they do. And the exact same thing can be said for Black Holes.


Completely different cases.In the laboratory, I can test all manner of astrophysical plasmas, and extrapolate my results into the Solar environment, and test the results directly (eg. the Ulysses spacecraft)

I can't do the same for singularities, black holes, dark matter, superstrings, wormholes, and whatever is supposed to make up neutron stars, because none of the stuff is known to exists, except beyond the reach of mankind.

Which is not to say that none of them exist, but that the ability to test them are quite different.
iantresman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:00 am
@BillRM,
I wrote wrote:
Your house may be as solid a house as you can get (you may even have the test results to show it). But it says nothing about my house.
BillRM wrote:
Well that comment of your seem fairly sense free.

Sorry about that. Your theory may be as solid a theory as you can get, but its says nothing about the soundness of my theory. I am not doubting the mainstream theory. But I have yet to see one criticism of the Electric Universe, except claims that certain papers show otherwise.
0 Replies
 
iantresman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:02 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
we can see stars rotating around a large mass

I believe we see the stars rotating about a centre, but the "large mass" is inferred.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:07 am
@iantresman,
can't do the same for singularities, black holes, dark matter, superstrings, wormholes, and whatever is supposed to make up neutron stars, because none of the stuff is known to exists, except beyond the reach of mankind.

Which is not to say that none of them exist, but that the ability to test them are quite different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think the stars in the center of galaxies are rotating around?

Second black holes follow newton laws for the most part so to say that it is not proven that you get a black hole under conditions that newton laws would call for a black hole seem to imply that you question even newton laws and that is somewhat crazy.
iantresman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 03:39 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
What do you think the stars in the center of galaxies are rotating around?

Some of the evidence infers a black hole.

But Plasma Cosmology uses the known properties of astrophysical plasmas, to model galaxies with (a) flat rotation curves (b) other galactic characteristics, without the need for black holes, nor dark matter.

I'm not saying it's right, only that there some evidence supporting it.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 04:59 pm
@iantresman,
You can come on for some evidence supporting any theory however the proof of a theory is if it fit into the whole framework of our understanding of the universe.

Newton laws support black hole theory and been around for a few hundred years to start with. In any case this thread seem to had run it course if you wish to give fringe theories more credit then I think they are worth that is your right.

By the way you never bother to response to my question are you also a ID supporter?

Is that another theory you think we should grant a hearing to?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:22 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Black holes can exist even under Newton laws...

Black holes were noticed in 1915 by Karl Schwarzschild in the solutions to Einstein's General Relativity field equations.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
Black holes were noticed in 1915 by Karl Schwarzschild in the solutions to Einstein's General Relativity field equations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know somewhat the story of the prediction of black holes existing but that still does not mean that good old Newton is not able to set up the event horizon conditions.

In fact you only need Einstein theory as it relate to black holes in connection with C being the universal speed limit for information of any kind.

Using good old Newton equations give you the conditions where the gravity well demand a speed of C as the escape velocity as in V=(2GM/r)^2.

In the case of a black hole r is the event horizon and V is the speed of light in a vacuum.

So a black hole existing fit into the whole past framework of physic going back to Newton and that is my point.

And yes you get time/space bending ETC so the figures from Newton will not fit 100 percent but that is second order corrections.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 07:28 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Black holes were noticed in 1915 by Karl Schwarzschild in the solutions to Einstein's General Relativity field equations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know somewhat the story of the prediction of black holes existing but that still does not mean that good old Newton is not able to set up the event horizon conditions.

In fact you only need Einstein theory as it relate to black holes in connection with C being the universal speed limit for information of any kind.

Using good old Newton equations give you the conditions where the gravity well demand a speed of C as the escape velocity as in V=(2GM/r)^2.

In the case of a black hole r is the event horizon and V is the speed of light in a vacuum.

So a black hole existing fit into the whole past framework of physic going back to Newton and that is my point.

And yes you get time/space bending ETC so the figures from Newton will not fit 100 percent but that is second order corrections.


They are entirely different theories. In Newtonian physics, space doesn't have curvature, there is no reason to believe that gravity effects light, and the metric is ds^2 = dx^2 +dy^2 + dz^2.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 07:51 pm
@Brandon9000,
They are entirely different theories. In Newtonian physics, space doesn't have curvature, there is no reason to believe that gravity effects light, and the metric is ds^2 = dx^2 +dy^2 + dz^2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newton's equations still can give your the event horizon and can predict black holes if you accept that no information can travel at greater speed then light my friend.

Yes newton does not assume a curve space or more to the point it does not address curve space/time at all one way or another.

It would be somewhat surprising it Newton came up with curve/space time now would it not.

As space is not curve to any great degree within the solar system and it took detail and very accurate readings to show that Newton equations did not fit in a perfect manner to the orbit of Mercury and therefore gave some indication that Space is curve. Far beyond any tools that Newton had on hand.

Hell it was more then a hundred years before tools/instruments come available to see that newtons equations did not fit the universe in a perfect manner.


Oh if light particles are assume to have mass then I do not see that Newton laws would have a problem with light being bended in a gravity field either.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:17 pm
@BillRM,
Second comment curve space change the results you get within the solar system to such a small degree NSA used Newton good old flat space laws for plotting the paths for space probes or the orbits of comets.

In fact, the only time that you needed to take into account curve space/time in near earth orbit was in the timing of GPS satellites signals that I am aware of.

Newton’s laws are just a special case of where space/time is very mildly curve as it is for the solar system.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:14 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

..Newton's equations still can give your the event horizon and can predict black holes if you accept that no information can travel at greater speed then light my friend...

False. An event horizon is a radius beneath which no information can leave the viscinity of a black hole. In Newtonian physics, information can always get out with sufficient power.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 01:20 am
@Brandon9000,
False. An event horizon is a radius beneath which no information can leave the viscinity of a black hole. In Newtonian physics, information can always get out with sufficient power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not hearing me at all now are you?

GIVEN repeat GIVEN that the speed of light is the limit then the event horizon can be found with Newtons equations.

If you ACCEPT outside of Newton WORLD VIEW or his THEORY or whatever that C is the LIMIT then you can find r as in the EVENT HORIZON or even PREDICT that there will be conditions of mass where you get an escape v of c and therefore a BLACK HOLE.

Lord why do you not read my comments as given? I never said that Newton predicted curve space/time or the limit of C but accepting the limit of C as a GIVEN then Newton Equations will allow you to calculate the size of black holes for any given mass at least to the first few orders of precision.

Now do you understand my comments or not?

Hell the Newton equation e=1/2mv^2 is just the first term of a serial under Einstein theory and under any "normal" speed is the overwhelming important term.

Newton laws are just a special case of Einstein laws.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 04:14 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

False. An event horizon is a radius beneath which no information can leave the viscinity of a black hole. In Newtonian physics, information can always get out with sufficient power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not hearing me at all now are you?

GIVEN repeat GIVEN that the speed of light is the limit then the event horizon can be found with Newtons equations.

If you ACCEPT outside of Newton WORLD VIEW or his THEORY or whatever that C is the LIMIT then you can find r as in the EVENT HORIZON or even PREDICT that there will be conditions of mass where you get an escape v of c and therefore a BLACK HOLE.

Lord why do you not read my comments as given? I never said that Newton predicted curve space/time or the limit of C but accepting the limit of C as a GIVEN then Newton Equations will allow you to calculate the size of black holes for any given mass at least to the first few orders of precision.

Now do you understand my comments or not?

Hell the Newton equation e=1/2mv^2 is just the first term of a serial under Einstein theory and under any "normal" speed is the overwhelming important term.

Newton laws are just a special case of Einstein laws.

I think you're going to have to prove that given c as a limiting speed as an add-on to Newton's equations, then there is a radius below which nothing can ever escape. Either derive that result or give me a link to a reference.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 05:09 am
@Brandon9000,
I think you're going to have to prove that given c as a limiting speed as an add-on to Newton's equations, then there is a radius below which nothing can ever escape. Either derive that result or give me a link to a reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why you can not get a simple idea in your head however that seem to be the case here so the end of this discusssion.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 05:20 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I think you're going to have to prove that given c as a limiting speed as an add-on to Newton's equations, then there is a radius below which nothing can ever escape. Either derive that result or give me a link to a reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why you can not get a simple idea in your head however that seem to be the case here so the end of this discusssion.

No, it's not the end of the discussion. Either derive the result for me or provide a link to this result. You didn't just post a wild assertion that you made up with no basis did you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Saturn as seen by Cassini - Discussion by littlek
New Comet May Be Observers' Dream Come True - Discussion by Zarathustra
Are you ready for the solar eclipse Sunday? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Red dwarf stars and their planets - Discussion by gungasnake
Geology and astronomy combined - Question by Lapetus
Total Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 - Discussion by rosborne979
physics - Discussion by usmankhalid665
A Series of Humbling Pictures - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Early Universe - Question by piratejack5150
Universal Census of the Universe - Discussion by tsarstepan
More new planets in from ESO - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 12:52:50