On Mar 19, 11:45*am, PD wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:22*pm, wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:43*pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:25*pm, wrote:

Acceleration goes infinite in black hole gravity

Nope, not at all.

What about singularity?

No, the acceleration is not infinite when it hits the singularity. Are
you simply assuming that *everything* is infinite at singularities?

What is the limit of gravity's acceleration at singularity then?
Theoretically acceleration goes infinite.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008





Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

therefor they can not
exist. There can be no infinite physical quantities

Whew, close one, then.

even though they
are part of theory.

Nonsense. The model might have a singularity, but the model is a
model. The model is not the thing itself.

Supermasssive neutron stars are what we are seeing in space.

Could be. But there is a limit to fermi pressure. We certainly have
evidence for visible things orbiting bodies that are too massive to be
supported by fermi pressure.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

I wonder if the date will magically switch to 2009 after this year's
awards go out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 19, 10:22*pm, wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:45*am, PD wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:22*pm, wrote:

On Mar 18, 6:43*pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:25*pm, wrote:

Acceleration goes infinite in black hole gravity

Nope, not at all.

What about singularity?

No, the acceleration is not infinite when it hits the singularity. Are
you simply assuming that *everything* is infinite at singularities?

What is the limit of gravity's acceleration at singularity then?

Depends on the trajectory.

Also note that there being no limit does NOT mean that the value
AUTOMATICALLY becomes inifinite.
There is no limit to the mass of a black hole, either. This doesn't
mean that the mass of every black hole is infinite.
Why do you think the value has to be the limiting case?

Theoretically acceleration goes infinite.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008





Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

therefor they can not
exist. There can be no infinite physical quantities

Whew, close one, then.

even though they
are part of theory.

Nonsense. The model might have a singularity, but the model is a
model. The model is not the thing itself.

Supermasssive neutron stars are what we are seeing in space.

Could be. But there is a limit to fermi pressure. We certainly have
evidence for visible things orbiting bodies that are too massive to be
supported by fermi pressure.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

I wonder if the date will magically switch to 2009 after this year's
awards go out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in news:4c3f02c0-9ac9-4a08-8e91-
:

Black hole theory predicts infinite gravity

No it doesn't. The existence of the singularity was just oevrturned,
because it turns out that the mass never crosses the event horizon, but
just approaches the edge assymptotically. Thus it's more of a "black
shell," and the nasty infinity in the middle has been removed.

"Agent Smith" wrote in
message . 17.102
wrote in news:4c3f02c0-9ac9-4a08-8e91-
:

Black hole theory predicts infinite gravity

No it doesn't. The existence of the singularity was just oevrturned,
because it turns out that the mass never crosses the event horizon,
but just approaches the edge assymptotically. Thus it's more of a
"black shell," and the nasty infinity in the middle has been removed.

What a bizzarre statement.

How could there be an event horizon to begin with
if there isn't sufficient mass inside of it for
it to form? Given that fact there is no way, in
classical physics at least, to avoid having a
singularity form at the center.

If mass didn't continue through the event horizon
and on to the singularity, black holes would be
"lumpy" rather than "hairless".

"Greg Neill" wrote in news:47e66de9$0$7025
:

"Agent Smith" wrote in
message . 17.102
wrote in news:4c3f02c0-9ac9-4a08-8e91-
:

Black hole theory predicts infinite gravity

No it doesn't. The existence of the singularity was just oevrturned,
because it turns out that the mass never crosses the event horizon,
but just approaches the edge assymptotically. Thus it's more of a
"black shell," and the nasty infinity in the middle has been removed.

What a bizzarre statement.

How could there be an event horizon to begin with
if there isn't sufficient mass inside of it for
it to form? Given that fact there is no way, in
classical physics at least, to avoid having a
singularity form at the center.

If mass didn't continue through the event horizon
and on to the singularity, black holes would be
"lumpy" rather than "hairless".

Lumpy and hairless are two different things, and there's no rule saying
that the lumps can't smooth themselves out into a spherical shell,
anyhow. Besides, I do think that my theory predicts what you just said,
which is a "mechanical" structure at a **very** small scale, immediately
adjacent to the horizon. There's no observational evidence to
contradict that.

And as to what produces the event horizon if there's no singularity,
it's the mass on the other side of the shell. The question really is,
what happens to the event horizons that existed when the black hole was
smaller? Do they get pushed out or do they continue to stay in the same
place after the event horizon grows and expands over them?

Thus an event horizon may be able to cross over the mass, even though
the mass can't cross over the event horizon. I'm not sure what are the
implications of this. I think that the profile of event horizons that
existed at earlier times may be what makes up the interior of the hole.

And as to whether my comments are "bizarre," this is a black hole
Charlie. Everything about them is "bizarre" and always has been.

"John Schutkeker" wrote in message
. 17.102
"Greg Neill" wrote in news:47e66de9$0$7025
:

"Agent Smith" wrote in
message . 17.102
wrote in news:4c3f02c0-9ac9-4a08-8e91-
:

Black hole theory predicts infinite gravity

No it doesn't. The existence of the singularity was just
oevrturned, because it turns out that the mass never crosses the
event horizon, but just approaches the edge assymptotically. Thus
it's more of a "black shell," and the nasty infinity in the middle
has been removed.

What a bizzarre statement.

How could there be an event horizon to begin with
if there isn't sufficient mass inside of it for
it to form? Given that fact there is no way, in
classical physics at least, to avoid having a
singularity form at the center.

If mass didn't continue through the event horizon
and on to the singularity, black holes would be
"lumpy" rather than "hairless".

Lumpy and hairless are two different things, and there's no rule
saying that the lumps can't smooth themselves out into a spherical
shell, anyhow.

Why should mass be able to move transversally but
not normally?

Besides, I do think that my theory predicts what you
just said, which is a "mechanical" structure at a **very** small
scale, immediately adjacent to the horizon. There's no observational
evidence to contradict that.

Nor can there be, as there is no way to observe
anything below the event horizon. On the other hand,
it would be possible to observe what's going on
just outside the event horizon via the Hawking
radiation.


And as to what produces the event horizon if there's no singularity,
it's the mass on the other side of the shell. The question really is,
what happens to the event horizons that existed when the black hole
was smaller? Do they get pushed out or do they continue to stay in
the same place after the event horizon grows and expands over them?

If an event horizon forms the mathematics says that all
trajectories within it must lead to the center of mass,
thus a singularity must form. There is nothing that
can form any sort of structure that can resist collapse
within the event horizon.

An event horizon isn't a structure; it has no physical
properties other than its location being where the
escape speed is c. It's about as tangible as a
property line.


Thus an event horizon may be able to cross over the mass, even though
the mass can't cross over the event horizon. I'm not sure what are
the implications of this. I think that the profile of event horizons
that existed at earlier times may be what makes up the interior of
the hole.

Of course event horizons can cross over mass (one way),
just as mass can cross over an event horizon (one way).
Once inside, said mass can only proceed towards the
singularity.


And as to whether my comments are "bizarre," this is a black hole
Charlie. Everything about them is "bizarre" and always has been.

"Greg Neill" wrote in
:

"John Schutkeker" wrote in message
. 17.102
"Greg Neill" wrote in
news:47e66de9$0$7025 :

"Agent Smith" wrote in
message . 17.102
wrote in news:4c3f02c0-9ac9-4a08-8e91-
:

Black hole theory predicts infinite gravity

No it doesn't. The existence of the singularity was just
oevrturned, because it turns out that the mass never crosses the
event horizon, but just approaches the edge assymptotically. Thus
it's more of a "black shell," and the nasty infinity in the middle
has been removed.

What a bizzarre statement.

How could there be an event horizon to begin with
if there isn't sufficient mass inside of it for
it to form? Given that fact there is no way, in
classical physics at least, to avoid having a
singularity form at the center.

If mass didn't continue through the event horizon
and on to the singularity, black holes would be
"lumpy" rather than "hairless".

Lumpy and hairless are two different things, and there's no rule
saying that the lumps can't smooth themselves out into a spherical
shell, anyhow.

Why should mass be able to move transversally but
not normally?

Because space is stretched beyond an intolerable threshold in the normal
direction.

Besides, I do think that my theory predicts what you
just said, which is a "mechanical" structure at a **very** small
scale, immediately adjacent to the horizon. There's no observational
evidence to contradict that.

Nor can there be, as there is no way to observe
anything below the event horizon.

I'm talking about what happens above the event horizon.

On the other hand,
it would be possible to observe what's going on
just outside the event horizon via the Hawking
radiation.

To observe the lumpiness, you'd have to observe the Hawking radiation
from different angles.

And as to what produces the event horizon if there's no singularity,
it's the mass on the other side of the shell. The question really
is, what happens to the event horizons that existed when the black
hole was smaller? Do they get pushed out or do they continue to stay
in the same place after the event horizon grows and expands over
them?

If an event horizon forms the mathematics says that all
trajectories within it must lead to the center of mass,
thus a singularity must form. There is nothing that
can form any sort of structure that can resist collapse
within the event horizon.

An event horizon isn't a structure; it has no physical
properties other than its location being where the
escape speed is c. It's about as tangible as a
property line.

How does a particle cross the event horizon if it's time is dilated to
infinity? If you're sitting on the particle, time will move so slowly
that, as you look out, you will not only see the entire universe age and
die, before you cross the horizon, but everything that comes after the
universe, ad infinitum. How is the problem of this unpleasant infinity
avoided?

Thus an event horizon may be able to cross over the mass, even though
the mass can't cross over the event horizon. I'm not sure what are
the implications of this. I think that the profile of event horizons
that existed at earlier times may be what makes up the interior of
the hole.

Of course event horizons can cross over mass (one way),
just as mass can cross over an event horizon (one way).
Once inside, said mass can only proceed towards the
singularity.

We don't know anything about how dynamics works inside a black hole.
Again, time is dilated to infinity, and if the concept of time loses
it's meaning, then the concept of dynamics isn't what we expect it to
be.

And as to whether my comments are "bizarre," this is a black hole
Charlie. Everything about them is "bizarre" and always has been.