Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news09Te.168973$E95.89836@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:GVtRe.156125$E95.37789@fed1read01...
Dear Geroge Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
Whether it is or not, you still need to explain how
taking the current matter density and "playing the
film backwards" can avoid a hot dense plasma some
few thousands of years after the bang.

OK. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Likely
"something
funny" would have to happen, to have the spectrum (intensity
vs. wavelength) of a black body at T1, but the intensity of
a
black body at T2.

No, I don't think you follow the point, "something
funny" would have to happen to allow coalesced
material (galaxies or whatever) to exist at
temperatures of the order of 10^5 K.

The Sun is such a structure, George.

There are no "coalesced structures" in the Sun, David.
"Playing the film backwards" gets you to a condition
where the whole universe should have been filled with
plasma similar to the radiative zone of the Sun.

The Sun is at this temperature, and higher. It is a structure,
and it has "structures" of sorts within it (convection cells with
relatively long duration for example).

"Playing the film backwards" to end up with a plasma depends on
the model you have assumed. My assumption is that the beginning
(inside the EH) is like the end (just outside the EH), and the
CMBR is infalling light.

"Average ambient temperature" only controls what the net
heat transfer is... it doesn't "reverse gravity". If
everything
is at 10^5 K, then there is no particular "pluming effects"
that would drive matter towards a cooler place.

Right, but the temperature is high enough to dissociate
atoms and vaporise structures.

Not really. If you mean "buildings", yes. If you mean (as I
intended, and apparently wasn't clear) proto-galaxies containing
the lion's share of the mass of the Universe, "vaporise" isn't a
problem. The Sun isn't really a solid, now is it?

Having all that light present at time_zero, even randomly
directed, from all spatial points simultaneously, might
leave more questions than I can handle

I was noting you need to remove the plasma long after
that time so that the universe could be transparent.

Again, it is remotely possible (and falsifiable), that there
was no plasma,

I would like to know why you think that, it seems
impossible given the current observed density. I
understand you have an alternative waiting to
replace it but that's not what I am questioning.

Because I can see a way that it might not be necessary, to match
observation. One that does depend on the container Universe to
provide a black body radiation curve. And its Container. And
the Container for that one. And... you get the idea.

that what we call the CMBRM is simply infall from our
container Universe. It just depends on how the spectrum
looks, and when our hole began (I suspect).

I'll read it anyway (I've been out of circulation
for a few days) as both the others tell me there
is no physical change at the event horizon, just
at r=0. I'm still looking for something that
supports your view so that either I can see why
what was said misled you (if you are wrong) or
discover something new I didn't know about black
holes (if you are right).

I don't think I am talking about "physical change at the
event horizon", as far as the infall can tell us George.
As I have said, I fully expect the conservation laws to
apply *continuously*.

Then you don't get time averaging do you?

Yes, you do. There is no "physical integrator" there, no.

Those seem to be contradictory.

We can play with the definition of "physical" if you'd like
George. The physical reality that we call spacetime has no
separation between space and time. An event horizon is a place
that space has *no* finite extent "radially out of the black
hole". Therefore for the infaller, the Universe outside of the
event horizon... is not in his/her spacetime. Time separates
him/her from the container Unvierse. A point in time,
specifically... like a Big Bang (or noon yesterday).

Additionally, we (potentially inside an event horizon Universe
inhabitants) have 3D spacetime, with the only perceived intrusion
of "new" matter in our Universe, require that the container
either be 5D (with that event horizon being a hypersphere, and it
maps to other Universes at other times) or it be 3D+t (which is
what GR can indicate, with that event horizon being a 2D sphere
and outer-time provides the third spatial dimension). I
personally can only investigate the simpler 3D+t to 3D+t_0
mapping, being not as up on the mathematical arts as I
could/should be.

But just as r = r_S, t = t_0 is a coordinate that all things
must cross.

Those are just labels though, nothing more.

As is "r = 0". A dimensional requirement that our Universe
cannot impress on an infaller (beyond the EH). They are not in
our Universe.

You've already agreed that an "infinite observer" is no longer
physicallly located in the same Universe as the infaller...
once he/she crosses the event horizon.

No I didn't, what I said is that the web Baez pages you
cited said there was no external universe shown even
though it showed both inside and outside, and that there
was a continuous path for the infaller so IMO what we
have is simply a part of the _same_ universe which cannot
be observed from the outside. It is no more a separate
universe than looking through a one-way mirror.

There is *no finite distance* as the meter is defined, between
someone on the inside of an event horizon and someone out beyond
the photon sphere. So "outer r=0" is meaningless, and does not
apply to an infaller... as distance.

There is no finite distance between the infaller and any
point (basically) outside the photon sphere (remember the
definition of the meter). This means that the infaller is
separated from the Universe-at-large by time alone.

No true, the page you cited showed intervals of equal
proper time for the infaller. He reaches r=0 in finite
proper time. It is onlt the light going out that is
infinitely delayed so his demise is not seen even
though we know it has happened.

So you *do* believe in a sticky end? Does the die roll again?
(I saw the answer below.)

We will continue to disagree. We can both agree the infaller
will cross the event horizon in (outer) finite proper time.

When is the infaller's mass/energy gestalt with the BH's mass?
When is the infaller's mass/energy expected to show up in the
Hawking radiation?
I don't expect answers in my lifetime, but I'd say "immediately"
to both.

r_outer becomes t_inner. We just don't agree on *where*, I
suppose.

No we agree where, that labelling change happens at
the event horizon. Where we disagree is that I say
it is purely a labelling convention with no physical
significance. Other coordinates schemes don't have
that problem.

Study the fundamentals of those "other coordinate schemes". All
that work, convert outer r to inner t (and some consume some part
of outer time as well). Outer time is NOT part of inner time for
either Schwarzchild or Kruskal "coordinate schemes". For them,
outer time is orthogonal to inner time at the event horizon.
Anything that *ever* infalls, arrives at the same inner instant.
And I understand that you (and others) feel this is part of my
personal delusion/misunderstanding.

No comment. You disagree with the source (Andrew) regarding
what happens at the central singularity, and I disagree with
many other things he presents.

I don't disagree with anything that is on Andrew's site
at all, I think you misread me. GR on it's own cannot be
definitive about what happens beyond r=0 or even at that
point.

QUOTE
At 10-9 Schwarzschild radii: 1 millimeter from the
singularity.

The tidal force has become so strong that all images are
concentrated into a thin line about (what is left of) our
waist.

As we approach the central singularity, the ride becomes
very bumpy - the ultimate roller coaster. Small perturbations
in tidal forces, caused by the presence of us and any other
particles around, become greatly amplified in the final
approach. The perturbations grow into violently oscillating
tidal forces. Even a single infalling photon is enough to
induce such oscillations.

Besides shredding our already torn apart bits into
subatomic particles, the oscillating tides create photons
and particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum, producing
a fierce environment

END QUOTE

I said you believed we reach a "sticky end" at the
singularity, then you claimed you did not, now you claim
that you do (by subscribing to "Andrew" in toto). I guess
I'll wait till the dice stop rolling, to see what they
actually read.

OK, maybe I need to be clearer. If the BH is uncharged
and non-rotating, I expect we reach a sticky end
slightly before r=0 before quantum effects become
significant. Perhaps we get crushed to the point where
beta capture makes us into pure neutrons and then
exclusion pressure is overcome so we become the size
of a single neutron. Beyond that I suspect QM would
prevent a true singularity but we don't know.

But we *can* look, and that is what I intend to do. The
heartening news was the abnormally uniform "cool spots" in the
CMBR that was reported here just a couple of days ago.
"Structure" may be rearing its "ugly" head...

For a rotating and/or charged super-massive hole,
things might be different. There is a Cauchy horizon
which could be large so I guess something could pass
through it into who-knows-what. Whether we would be
shredded by frame dragging or whatever is another
matter entirely and well beyond my knowledge.

Basically I don't think there is anything wrong with
Andrew's stuff but it may not cover those situations
where 'other universes' are possible.

Personally I don't have a belief one way or the other
regarding other universes. The science doesn't tell us
therefore my view is "we don't know".

The science provides a model. The model can predict that the
inner Universe is like the outer Universe. Some of these models
indicate that the "interface" between Universe's is possibly the
one I attempt to describe/define/estimate. Others cook it all
down to a singularity, then somehow (using quantum mechanics
process(es) yet discovered), it all comes boiling out again as
the outer Universe's grip on local spacetime is lost/relaxed (or
something). I'll try the simpler one first, to see if it will
sink.

That is certainly something that "annoyed" me. Nothing
I said was "Newtonian" and your I could have taken
accusation the wrong way, but I'm thick-skinned on these
things anyway (some would just say "thick").

Hardly thick, George. But I see so much that we standing
on the outside of a BH apply our "common sense" to "what
must happen" to things on the inside of the BH, when it is
obvious that our flatlander, Newtonian common sense is
not applicable there. *Except* as infallers ourselves... and
then in only a small volume suitably labelled "local".

I have no Newtonian perception of this at all though.

There is *no* finite distance between you well outside a hole,
and me having just crossed the event horizon. What does your
belief/expectation of "r=0" mean to me, George? I don't have
access to your r anymore. But you are separated from me by *my*
time. You *do* have a Newtonian conception of your r extending
as my r across the event horizon.

IMO, for an infalling observer in a very small lab
such that tidal effects were negligible,

BH at the center of the Milky Way...

the experiments
he would perform in it would show standard Minkowski
spacetime.

We can detect such deviances even on Earth, George. Very small
lab indeed.

For example the MMX would give the usual
null result even as he crossed the event horizon or
within it and he was falling faster than c from the
point of view of the external observer. That cannot
really be described as Newtonian, can it?

Absolutely. "Falling at faster than c from the point of view of
the external observer". Faster than c is already Newton, because
Einstein/Minkowski provided that faster than c wasn't possible,
and Einstein/Hubble faster than c in curved space wasn't
physically meaningful. You already stated that the infaller will
never be seen to actually cross the EH, in fact will be seen to
slow down and asymptotically approach "a full stop". The
infaller has crossed a singularity, in which your external
physical measures don't apply... directly.

Physical distance *requires* TWLS travel.

OK, unless you have something more, I guess it is time for
me
to "put up or shut up". I will be gone for about the next 5
days,
and if I can afford the gasoline to get back, I'll respond
to
questions (or pointing out of further glaring errors on my
part)
next week.

I've tried to limit my response mainly to correcting
misapprehensions you appear to have about my own views.
I doubt there is much more to be said.

Then your efforts are good but wasted. I won't remember by
the
time I finish (if ever) what your position was, nor do I fully
expect
that your position at that time will be identically
represented by
"old arguments". You are not a machine, and you learn.
Hopefully, I do too.

I try. I have been away on holiday and spent some
time reading D'Inverno but I'm still struggling to
learn the notation. I have also worked about half
way through the Oz pages but I can't do the homework
yet. How about you?

I have been reinstalling the dog door obviated by my new
triply-glazed, temporarily argon-filled, patio door. The "tools
required" list is a joke. Honey-dos aren't allowing much time
for more.

Pick a thread title, so that I can update those interested in
the status of the model as I assemble it. Since I am
supposing that the CMBRM is no longer a material structure
("like a neutron star"), but the "mapping" of our container
Universe's infall to our "Big Bang"... or should I do this
offline?

I think you need to address separate aspects. First
how can you avoid having a plasma. That's physics.

No issues there. What I seek is the solution in search of the
problem I see coming. Namely surprises near/in the CMBRM.
Positing that such problems will be discovered, since all
"centrists" have historically been, we need some good surveyors.
Knowing that I am not a good surveyor, perhaps my skull on a pike
will save someone else from a similar fate. ;)

If you succeed in getting rid of that, what would
you see? If the BB surface was the horizon of a BH,
then Andrew's page is valid and you need to explain
your time averaging as opposed to discrete but
distorted images (or the whole external universe as
a single dot near where we entered).

I disagree that Andrew's page is valid. I have explained why I
believe that time is averaged.

Then you might think of what was external and how
it would integrate.

Bottom line, lots of highly specific threads instead of
one trying to be all-encompassing.

OK. I'll go with "CMBR as infalling light model" when discussing
the model setup. I'll spawn more as necessary.

Have a good weekend.

David A. Smith