Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:In any case, however, my earlier comment stands: if people want to talk about bending, or ripping, or devouring spacetime, those concepts need to be framed in the math of GR. The words by themselves mean little or nothing.

In other words a person needs to have super advanced degrees in the mathematics of cosmology to participate in discussions here?

To participate in discussions? Certainly not. To suggest new theories or new interpretations of mainstream theory? Yes, such qualifications are likely to be important.

You consider that I am suggesting a new theory?

rstevenson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:In other words a person needs to have super advanced degrees in the mathematics of cosmology to participate in discussions here?

Of course not. But some subjects can't be sensibly framed in common English, so any attempt to ask or answer questions devolves into a discussion of nomenclature rather than the subject itself.

Rob

Neufer doesn't seem to have a problem with simple language.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote: In other words a person needs to have super advanced degrees in the mathematics of cosmology to participate in discussions here?

To participate in discussions? Certainly not. To suggest new theories or new interpretations of mainstream theory? Yes, such qualifications are likely to be important.

You consider that I am suggesting a new theory?

I don't know what you're suggesting, because you are inventing terminology that isn't part of existing mainstream theory. If you don't understand GR, you should try asking more basic questions about what parts of it mean.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: To participate in discussions? Certainly not. To suggest new theories or new interpretations of mainstream theory? Yes, such qualifications are likely to be important.

You consider that I am suggesting a new theory?

I don't know what you're suggesting, because you are inventing terminology that isn't part of existing mainstream theory. If you don't understand GR, you should try asking more basic questions about what parts of it mean.

Perhaps Chris, (Christopher? Christine?) You might consider restricting your input to more advanced areas of discussion. I can't think of a more basic question than, 'if Black Holes swallow matter, do they also swallow spacetime?'

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote: You consider that I am suggesting a new theory?

I don't know what you're suggesting, because you are inventing terminology that isn't part of existing mainstream theory. If you don't understand GR, you should try asking more basic questions about what parts of it mean.

Perhaps Chris, (Christopher? Christine?) You might consider restricting your input to more advanced areas of discussion. I can't think of a more basic question than, 'if Black Holes swallow matter, do they also swallow spacetime?'

But that question was answered several times.

Chris Peterson wrote:
But that question was answered several times.

I fail to see the answer. Perhaps because it's cloaked in exclusive language in so many pages of posts.

A simple yes or no might satisfy me as to someone else's opinion though.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
But that question was answered several times.

I fail to see the answer. Perhaps because it's cloaked in exclusive language in so many pages of posts.

A simple yes or no might satisfy me as to someone else's opinion though.

No. And that's not an opinion, but an observation based on the consequences of GR. It is my opinion that GR is an accurate representation of nature. But if GR is, in fact, correct, it is not an opinion that spacetime isn't something that can be swallowed by or otherwise be steadily consumed by a black hole.

If an analogy would help, do you consider the fact that water flows down a drain at the bottom of a sink to be suggestive of the possibility that the material of the sink itself flows down that drain?

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
But that question was answered several times.

I fail to see the answer. Perhaps because it's cloaked in exclusive language in so many pages of posts.

A simple yes or no might satisfy me as to someone else's opinion though.

No. And that's not an opinion, but an observation based on the consequences of GR. It is my opinion that GR is an accurate representation of nature. But if GR is, in fact, correct, it is not an opinion that spacetime isn't something that can be swallowed by or otherwise be steadily consumed by a black hole.

If an analogy would help, do you consider the fact that water flows down a drain at the bottom of a sink to be suggestive of the possibility that the material of the sink itself flows down that drain?

Thank you for your opinion.

What part of the universe do you liken the sink to?

I'll say the drain is a black hole opened by whatever opens black holes, water is spacetime, and the bubbles in the water are matter .. that leaves the sink itself as whatever is borders spacetime. Obviously my opinion differs from yours. But difference is the right of liberty, right? Informed opinions being based on varying sources and understanding of information.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No. And that's not an opinion, but an observation based on the consequences of GR. It is my opinion that GR is an accurate representation of nature. But if GR is, in fact, correct, it is not an opinion that spacetime isn't something that can be swallowed by or otherwise be steadily consumed by a black hole.

If an analogy would help, do you consider the fact that water flows down a drain at the bottom of a sink to be suggestive of the possibility that the material of the sink itself flows down that drain?

Thank you for your opinion.

As noted, not an opinion, but a consequence of GR. If you disagree, you disagree with GR, in which case the rules of this forum require that you have the aforementioned educational and research qualifications.

What part of the universe do you liken the sink to?

The sink is spacetime. The drain is a mass (black hole or star, it doesn't really matter). The water is matter.

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
It is my opinion that GR is an accurate representation of nature. But if GR is, in fact, correct, it is not an opinion that spacetime isn't something that can be swallowed by or otherwise be steadily consumed by a black hole.

If an analogy would help, do you consider the fact that water flows down a drain at the bottom of a sink to be suggestive of the possibility that the material of the sink itself flows down that drain?

What part of the universe do you liken the sink to?

The sink is spacetime. The drain is a mass (black hole or star, it doesn't really matter). The water is matter.

I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

neufer wrote:I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

Subject line changed to reflect refinement of opinion. It is often useful to consider extreme cases to illustrate and explain concepts. Nice post Art.

Bruce

neufer wrote:I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

I don't think expansion is creating more space (just more volume... although that's one of those things that probably doesn't lend itself well to a non-mathematical treatment). It does generate more spacetime, however, as the expansion of the Universe is along the time axis. Mass concentrations distort spacetime, but they don't consume it. Black holes effectively hide some of the properties of matter and energy, but they don't remove those properties (or the matter or energy) from the Universe.

I don't know why this isn't obvious, but just introduce movement to the BH to illustrate the difference between it "eating" matter and distorting spacetime. The BH will move across spacetime and there is no issue with it going "in" one side and coming "out" the other as it moves. The matter doesn't do this.

geckzilla wrote:I don't know why this isn't obvious, but just introduce movement to the BH to illustrate the difference between it "eating" matter and distorting spacetime. The BH will move across spacetime and there is no issue with it going "in" one side and coming "out" the other as it moves. The matter doesn't do this.

I like the example of the moving black hole in terms of visualizing a distortion of spacetime without any consumption of spacetime. I don't understand what you mean by "the matter doesn't do this", however. Doesn't do what?

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I don't know why this isn't obvious, but just introduce movement to the BH to illustrate the difference between it "eating" matter and distorting spacetime. The BH will move across spacetime and there is no issue with it going "in" one side and coming "out" the other as it moves. The matter doesn't do this.

I like the example of the moving black hole in terms of visualizing a distortion of spacetime without any consumption of spacetime. I don't understand what you mean by "the matter doesn't do this", however. Doesn't do what?

Behave like spacetime.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote: What part of the universe do you liken the sink to?

The sink is spacetime. The drain is a mass (black hole or star, it doesn't really matter). The water is matter.

I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

Thanks for the encouragement, Neufer .. can you tell me why a Black Hole is said to increase in mass http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy ... d3_q9.html

when everything that enters it is said to go into a singularity .. which as I understand it at this point is a mathematical point only .. having no mass at all. Or is my current understanding completely wrong? (As it could easily be as my most recent reading easily points out that singularities are a very, very, very complex topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spac ... ularities/

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:
I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

Thanks for the encouragement, Neufer .. can you tell me why a Black Hole is said to increase in mass http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy ... d3_q9.html

when everything that enters it is said to go into a singularity .. which as I understand it at this point is a mathematical point only .. having no mass at all. Or is my current understanding completely wrong? (As it could easily be as my most recent reading easily points out that singularities are a very, very, very complex topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spac ... ularities/

1) Quarks and electrons are also considered to be mathematical points with the attributes of mass, spin, charge and a characteristic dimension.

2) Everything that enters a classical BH quickly falls into a singularity in accord with its own personal time frame. As far as the rest of us are concerned, however, everything that enters a BH is said to flatten out on the event horizon in anticipation of a release in the distant future under Hawking radiation. It is fun to contemplate how these two scenarios are compatible.

neufer wrote:
when everything that enters it is said to go into a singularity .. which as I understand it at this point is a mathematical point only .. having no mass at all. Or is my current understanding completely wrong? (As it could easily be as my most recent reading easily points out that singularities are a very, very, very complex topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spac ... ularities/

1) Quarks and electrons are also considered to be mathematical points with the attributes of mass, spin, charge and a characteristic dimension.

2) Everything that enters a classical BH quickly falls into a singularity in accord with its own personal time frame. As far as the rest of us are concerned, however, everything that enters a BH is said to flatten out on the event horizon in anticipation of a release in the distant future under Hawking radiation. It is fun to contemplate how these two scenarios are compatible.[/quote]

That kind of fun I can do without, if you know what I mean.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:
1) Quarks and electrons are also considered to be mathematical points with the attributes of mass, spin, charge and a characteristic dimension.

2) Everything that enters a classical BH quickly falls into a singularity in accord with its own personal time frame. As far as the rest of us are concerned, however, everything that enters a BH is said to flatten out on the event horizon in anticipation of a release in the distant future under Hawking radiation. It is fun to contemplate how these two scenarios are compatible.

That kind of fun I can do without, if you know what I mean.

We all thought that sort of think was your favorite kind of fun.

neufer wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:
1) Quarks and electrons are also considered to be mathematical points with the attributes of mass, spin, charge and a characteristic dimension.

2) Everything that enters a classical BH quickly falls into a singularity in accord with its own personal time frame. As far as the rest of us are concerned, however, everything that enters a BH is said to flatten out on the event horizon in anticipation of a release in the distant future under Hawking radiation. It is fun to contemplate how these two scenarios are compatible.

That kind of fun I can do without, if you know what I mean.

We all thought that sort of think was your favorite kind of fun.

Nah. I'm basically a believer in a simpler kind of reality, Neufer, and am slowly giving in to that belief, as the mass of my head can't stand the spin and charge.

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

Thanks for the encouragement, Neufer .. can you tell me why a Black Hole is said to increase in mass when everything that enters it is said to go into a singularity .. which as I understand it at this point is a mathematical point only .. having no mass at all. Or is my current understanding completely wrong? (As it could easily be as my most recent reading easily points out that singularities are a very, very, very complex topic.

Art spun up an artfully obtuse "answer" which was true, but failed to directly address warming³'s question, so I'm not copacetic with just leaving this alone. A very important principle of nature is conservation of energy. Energy (matter is made of energy, E=mc²) that enters a black hole is not lost to the universe, it adds to the three (and only three) properties of a black hole that can potentially be observed from the outside; mass, electric charge, and spin, aka angular momentum. There is no reason to believe that a BH's singularly has "no mass at all". But, otoh we can't even say for sure that BHs really have singularlies at their cores.

Was that helpful?

BDanielMayfield wrote:

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:

neufer wrote:I'm perfectly copacetic with warmings's visualization of matter "(black hole or star, it doesn't really matter)" consuming space (i.e., converging spacetime). If there had been a lot more matter then all of space would have been consumed (and time ended) in the The Big Crunch. However, the Big Bang, Inflation and Dark Energy have all been having a field-day generating new space (i.e., diverging spacetime) such that the nibbling of matter doesn't really matter all that much.

Thanks for the encouragement, Neufer .. can you tell me why a Black Hole is said to increase in mass when everything that enters it is said to go into a singularity .. which as I understand it at this point is a mathematical point only .. having no mass at all. Or is my current understanding completely wrong? (As it could easily be as my most recent reading easily points out that singularities are a very, very, very complex topic.

Art spun up an artfully obtuse "answer" which was true, but failed to directly address warming³'s question, so I'm not copacetic with just leaving this alone. A very important principle of nature is conservation of energy. Energy (matter is made of energy, E=mc²) that enters a black hole is not lost to the universe, it adds to the three (and only three) properties of a black hole that can potentially be observed from the outside; mass, electric charge, and spin, aka angular momentum. There is no reason to believe that a BH's singularly has "no mass at all". But, otoh we can't even say for sure that BHs really have singularlies at their cores.

Was that helpful?

Copacetic... certainly one of the most adorably abstruse words of the English language!

Bruce, I quite agree with you that there is no reason to believe that a black hole's singularity has no mass at all. I would think that while the amount of mass in a singularity simply can't be infinite, it might, indeed, be infinitely compressed!

Art, if time and space would have been utterly consumed in a Big Crunch, does that mean that time and space was regurgitated by the Big Bang?

Or would it be more accurate to think of the Big Bang as a tremendously fertile womb, nurturing the beginnings of the universe inside its near-infinitely tiny uterus, and then explosively bringing the baby cosmos forth in a matricidal parturition of the universe?

Ann

Ann wrote:Art, if time and space would have been utterly consumed in a Big Crunch, does that mean that time and space was regurgitated by the Big Bang?

I would have said that time and space were created by the Big Bang, and if there were a Big Crunch, it would destroy (or eliminate) both. That's quite different from "consuming" them, a word which suggests that they went somewhere else.

Ann wrote:
Art, if time and space would have been utterly consumed in a Big Crunch, does that mean that time and space was regurgitated by the Big Bang? Or would it be more accurate to think of the Big Bang as a tremendously fertile womb, nurturing the beginnings of the universe inside its near-infinitely tiny bowels, and then explosively bringing the baby cosmos forth in a matricidal parturition of the universe?

neufer wrote:

Ann wrote:
Art, if time and space would have been utterly consumed in a Big Crunch, does that mean that time and space was regurgitated by the Big Bang? Or would it be more accurate to think of the Big Bang as a tremendously fertile womb, nurturing the beginnings of the universe inside its near-infinitely tiny bowels, and then explosively bringing the baby cosmos forth in a matricidal parturition of the universe?

Bowels

(Hang on a sec, I think I've misunderstood how this whole birth thing works.)

Well, I searched for a synonym for "womb", and "bowels" was suggested to me.

Can you believe they didn't suggest "uterus", and that I didn't remember that word?

I remembered it now, and have edited my post.

Ann