Starship Asterisk*

I am a realist. nothing else matters in my mind.

"so the power of dm and de have the reason to expand spacetime more than it all ready has. And yet the unbelievable power that a black hole has. does not have the power to reverse Spacetime. ?"

The above statement tells a story.. but it means nothing to me. cos i was been sarcastic. i,m sorry i cant explain any more. i ent got a clue about nowt.

G'day Mark

Time cannot be changed regardless of what ever power.

G'day harry, greetings to the land of ozzzzzz,

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

G'day Makc

Righy now I have the flu, to me every thing is an illusion.

I just hope pigs cannot fly.

G'day harry

what are you talking about, flying pigs would be awesome.

hope you're getting well.

G'day MarkC

It was in reference to swine flu.

G'day harry,

dont you worry, chickens cant fly very well either...

p.s. I still think flying pigs are awesome

What does it mean to be a realist when one lives in a fantasy world?

Thanks for the quote, makc. Pantheistic Rationalism, I'm going to have to read some Spinoza.

bystander wrote:a realist

when I was told meaning #2 in university I had a hard time accepting it. I still can't see where it comes from... I mean "universals are real" yeah so what you could take "unicorns are real" and make a definition of realism out of that just as well

This is where space and time come to an End.....

http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

mark swain wrote:This is where space and time come to an End.....

http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

I think it would be more accurate to say that this shows the point where our existing theories are outside their limits of validity. Simply put, we don't know what happens to space or time at the event horizon, or inside a black hole.

BTW, that link you provided states that the largest black hole is 3 billion solar masses. Therefore the site falls into your definition of "complete Rubbish", making me wonder why you are referencing it...

Still smarting are we Chris?

Chris Peterson wrote:Explain what? That a natural object is found in a range of sizes, depending on its formation history? What's remarkable about that? And what "varies (sic) large black holes" are you talking about in galaxy centers? There is only one black hole found in such spots, perhaps two where there has been a merger of galaxies. There aren't swarms of them. (And I think the largest identified black hole is only two or three billion solar masses, not eighteen.)

mark swain wrote:Whats this? http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html I think you may need to upgrade your database Chris.

You no what? Its time to move on... Lots to learn...

makc wrote:when I was told meaning #2 in university I had a hard time accepting it. I still can't see where it comes from... I mean "universals are real" yeah so what you could take "unicorns are real" and make a definition of realism out of that just as well

Realism, compare to nominalism.

I equate universals to axioms or postulates in traditional logic or mathematics. A small coherent set of "truths" from which the remaining theory ensues. A realist would say these axioms are true (real). A nominalist would say we perceive these axioms to be true (not real). A conceptualist would say these axioms are true because we perceive them to be (they are what we make them). Semantics.

We hold these truths to be self evident, ...

Objectives?

mark swain wrote:Still smarting are we Chris?

I never was. I was just reminding you to be careful what you say, lest it come back and bite you on the keester...

bystander,

realism and the question of universals can be seen from another angle. consider things with N common and M distinct properties - whenever M > 0 you get particulars, but when M = 0 (and maybe N = 1) you get universals. from this angle, there is no any fundamental distinction between both, and so realism vs nominalism issue disappears...

btw, you missed my point about unicorns just as I missed your point about axioms. I just dont get it. Please explain more.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Relative TIME will change when entering or leaving a condensed matter that has electromagnetic fields that slow or prevent EMR from escaping.

Its all in the communication time.

Actual time can not be changed.

Hi harry..

Scroll to the bottom of the link i provided.. And it says This: At the center of the black hole is a singularity, a point of infinite of curvature, where space and time as you know them come to an end. http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

What else does this mean? This is just one example. As they describe space Falls to the singularity ..But if the BB was also from a singularity Why is the out come Different?

Mark

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:This is where space and time come to an End.....

http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html

I think it would be more accurate to say that this shows the point where our existing theories are outside their limits of validity. Simply put, we don't know what happens to space or time at the event horizon, or inside a black hole.

BTW, that link you provided states that the largest black hole is 3 billion solar masses. Therefore the site falls into your definition of "complete Rubbish", making me wonder why you are referencing it...

And why, pray tell, can a black hole, if such things exist outside theoretical boundaries, that area inclusive of fact, not be three billion solar masses? By the way, Local Ottawa Cosmos Ottawa (LOCO) is now accepting membership applications.

bystander wrote:

We hold these truths to be self evident, ...

If all men were created equal, why did the beholders of self evident truth embrace slavery?

harry wrote:
and I made a wish upon a falling star, or is it a shooting star?

That might maybe perhaps depend on whether the meteor's velocity is faster than gravitational attraction could account for, taking into account all slingshot effects in the meteor's path, and whether or not the meteor's tail contains gunpowder.

Chris Peterson wrote:I think it would be more accurate to say that this shows the point where our existing theories are outside their limits of validity. Simply put, we don't know what happens to space or time at the event horizon, or inside a black hole.

Sorry Chris, I did not see this statement until now.. And it is this that i am trying to understand. Its my fault for not making myself clear. sorry.. i must have read past this statement without taking it in.

Mark

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:I think it would be more accurate to say that this shows the point where our existing theories are outside their limits of validity. Simply put, we don't know what happens to space or time at the event horizon, or inside a black hole.

Sorry Chris, I did not see this statement until now.. And it is this that i am trying to understand. Its my fault for not making myself clear. sorry.. i must have read past this statement without taking it in.

Every theory has a set of conditions under which it is valid. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a useful theory (which is in common use), but it breaks down for velocities that are not much less than c. It would be incorrect to say that the theory is bad, only that it has a limited- and well defined- range of validity. This is true for all theories, including those that are at the core of our understanding of black holes- especially General Relativity. Certainly GR breaks down when you have a gravitational singularity, and it almost certainly breaks down as you approach one. It is unable to describe what happens as you cross an event horizon. People work with GR and try making variations that could help, but this is a very difficult area because there is almost no observational evidence that can be used to test these new theories.

Chris Peterson wrote:Every theory has a set of conditions under which it is valid. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a useful theory (which is in common use), but it breaks down for velocities that are not much less than c. It would be incorrect to say that the theory is bad, only that it has a limited- and well defined- range of validity. This is true for all theories, including those that are at the core of our understanding of black holes- especially General Relativity. Certainly GR breaks down when you have a gravitational singularity, and it almost certainly breaks down as you approach one. It is unable to describe what happens as you cross an event horizon. People work with GR and try making variations that could help, but this is a very difficult area because there is almost no observational evidence that can be used to test these new theories.

Thanks Chris i am going to study what you have just said, It is a very difficult area as you said.. And what ever anybody comes up with there is no way of proving. How ever.. My mind tells me,, The Big Bang Lives on, In some way inside black holes. Next time i post i will make more effort to make clear what i,m saying.

Thanks.

Mark

Loco wrote:If all men were created equal, why did the beholders of self evident truth embrace slavery?

slaves were considered to be different from men, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism

Chris Peterson wrote:It is unable to describe what happens as you cross an event horizon.

what do you mean?