Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:AvzKe.6008$E95.4317@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:yxdKe.308849$Qo.131840@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
... have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

External objects end up sweeping an arc across the sky.
Other objects in other places do the same. Definitely
NOT specular images. And this is a non-rotating BH,
which adds yet another twist (literally) to the infalling
light. And note that in the simulation, the
external-Universe stars don't change color.

The point is that you can see them, there is nothing
at the event horizon but vacuum. It isn't a physical
barrier but just a location.

You can't "see them". They are no longer point
sources, but area sources.

Why? Those on Andrew's page are nearby and start
as areas (just as we see the Sun) and are then
distorted. Distant point sources would surely
remain as points, wouldn't they?

What we see isn't. Of course, we can't resolve that fine either.
Yet.

Andrew's page doesn't depart from the classical Schwarzchild
solution, he expects that we "travel at the speed of light", yet
we strike the singularity in finite time. Maybe I'm trying to
read more into the pages than he intends.

"Like" the CMBRM.

...
Yes. Unfortunately, if outer-r becomes timelike, the entire
history of the container Universe is written on the inner
Big Bang... at least until the contained Universe
evaporates. Anything that ever (outer-time) infalls, arrvies
at the inner "Big Bang".

I don't believe that is physical though, just
an artificial peculiarity of the coordinates
Schwarzschild used.

Kruskal still has it timelike. It is not a peculiarity, but a
requirement.

Of course, but isn't the time axis contiguous
through the horizon? It was the switch between
spatial and temporal that I thought was the
artefact.

No. The outer-space axis stops, and the inner-time axis starts.
And this might simply be an artifact of the Kruskal coordinates.
The other metric you referred to (Eddington - __________) had the
inner-time axis part outer-time and part outer-space.

Andrew Hamilton's pages
would take such effects into account.

Perhaps. Not doubting the abilities, just questioning what
a "Universe full of stars" would look like.

Go out in your back yard one night ;-)

Serously though, why would you expect to see
anything different?

I would expect to see the CMBRM, frankly. Without an intervening
plasma cloud, I would expect to see a smeared out image of the
outer-history of our container Universe.

True but the point was simply that you would
still receive photons from outside.

Still receive photons is not at issue. Are they specular?
No. Are they diffuse? Yes and no. Is the
surfaceo-of-last-emission transparent?

What surface?

The surface of the star that originally emitted the light.

Someone well outside the event horizon would see
a sky not unlike our own (perhaps brighter if
the were in the core of a galaxy).

One wonders if the container Universe has "one less" compactified
dimension than we do. But this is for another "wondering"...

Someone
infalling just inside the horizon would see the
same but squished into a smaller fraction of the
sky with the rest looking devoid of sources. You
seem to be saying the whole sky would be
illuminated but it should be more like looking
through a pinhole lens above you.

That is what Andrew says, yes. But that is not what the Kruskal
coordinates indicate to me. What you see "just inside" is
*completely disconnected* from outer-time (it is after all
orthogonal to outer-space, which we have turned into inner-time
with our "travelling at the speed of light"). What you see may
be the entire light-infall history of the outer-Univserse, from
the formation of our black hole, until it evaporates.

There is no material to emit at
the event horizon, it is a location and all
matter is passing it at the speed of light
as determined by an observer at infinity (I
think!).

Not quite. It is a location in *time*, and all matter (and
energy) propagate from there. And I understand that you
are uncomfortable with this.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that there is
a physical exchange of axes because I have read
many times that it was never real, just a problem
with the coordinates, but I can't find useful
references and I may be mistaken about which
coordinates had and resolved the problem.

I am playing with this. I am seeing how "far into the dark" it
will take me. I am neither buying nor selling stock.

The kinetic velocities obtained in the new internal space
will likely only be sufficient to conserve energy and
momentum.

Velocity relative to what? Relative to an
observer outside the horizon, it is greater
than the speed of light (I think).

Velocity relative to other massive infallees. The progenitors of
quasars, galaxies, sperm whales, and potted flowers.

No. Is the "photon historical record" of infalling light
through the event horizon isothermal?

No, it has the spectrum of whatever stars and
external objects produced it only severely
blue shifted (depending on the motion of the
infalling observer as you said).

*Integrated over time*.

Why? We only see what is on our past light cone.

Our light cone cannot see beyond the "beginning of time". The
outer-Universe does not have this constraint. It can drop light
in in its own time, and it enters our inner Universe "at the Big
Bang".

Note I am not entirely diagreeing. I wonder whether
primordial black holes could have grown rapidly in
such a high density environment that they existed
before the mix became transparent and were the
seeds of what are now galactic clusters. I think we
may lewarn a lot when we can detect Pop III SNe but
we will have to wait for at least the next generation
of telescopes to come on line.

No one currently believes the Universe started out "the size
of a grapefruit",

Put "grapefruit inflation cosmology" into Google
and you will get about 600 hits ;-) It is the
conventional view at the moment I believe.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123...lecture-7.html

"During inflation, the Universe increases in size by
a huge factor -- perhaps by as much as a factor of
10^(10^12)!!! Some models say that the size of the
current Universe increased from 10^-50 centimeters
to roughly the size of a grapefruit during inflation."

The lecture seems contradictory on the period of
inflation, saying it started at the end of the
era from 10^-43s to 10^-35s and ending at the
start of the next period. Anyway, the use of a
grapefruit to illustrate the size wasn't my idea!

I find it hard to swallow expansion at greater than c, in a
closed Universe, with light easily able to circumnavigate it. It
seems to me could only work if the Unvierse were absolutely
homogeneous.

unless they also posit "c_BB c_now". You "helped
establish" the CMBRM was many tens of million light
years thick, only ~300,000 years after the BB, based on
the (lack of) spectra. You can't get that big from a point
(essentially) in that time. Or am I misunderstanding again?

You are misunderstanding something but this
has moved on so I'll reply to a later post.

OK.

The simple answer is that GR says there was no
container and the density was far too high to
see through it anyway when you go back far
enough. The "surface of last scattering" is
a feature of the gas _in_ the universe and
a black hole has nothing equivalent.

GR *does* allow description of a container,

It does allow it for a black hole but not for the
big bang AIUI. The big bang is closer to a white
hole in GR.

Which describes the inside of an event horizon, in Kruskal
coordinates, to a "t".

but it is a description you are not comfortable with.

No it was your switching of teporal and spatial
axes that I doubt.

OK. Not really "switching", since inner-space is only
constrained to be orthogonal to inner-time, so if you *assume*
something about the relationship between outer-space and
inner-time (as Kruskal does), you still can't say anything about
the relationship between outer-space and inner-space.

The inside of the event horizon is the only spatial location
in the newly minted space from which the light could have
come, so is therefore opaque. And you are reciting the
established/accepted source of the
CMBR, that does not obviate an alternate choice of sources
*fully in compliance with GR*.

GR says the event horizon is just a place in the
vacuum so it allows light to pass inwards freely.
Light could also pass outwards execpt that any
source inside is moving away from an external
observer faster than the speed of light so it
cannot reach them, the light falls inwards even
if emitted in an outwards direction. I am saying
that the horizon isn't opaque and I don't know
why you are suggesting it would be.

Because the "inside of the event horizon" is a coordinate in
time... not space. There is no "place" in this Universe before
"the beginning". So the apparent position of the light source
is... NOT in this Universe. The light is sourced from the Big
Bang, as far as us infalling denizens are concerned.

GR doesn't require that the CMBRM be Universe filling gas,
unless gas is the source.

GR doesn't provide a source for the CMBR of any
kind, you need matter to produce it.

Doesn't have to be matter "in here". Could even be our Universe
consuming the odd Hawking radiation from our own evaporating
hole.

The source could be a container Universe, depending on the
answer to my question to Tom.

If there were a container then the source could
be the matter in the container universe in which
case the light would have falling in through the
horizon. That is quite different to saying it was
the horizon that produced the light or that the
horizon is opaque and could in some way thermalise
the spectrum of the stars in the container.

It is a lousy word game, George. You think based on Andrew's
simulations, that light enters more-or-less spectrally. You
don't think that an entire outer-Universe (of whatever age) could
be doing this, and that its entire history (positions,
temperatures, size, curvature, etc.) could arrive at the same
innner-instant. The surface-of-last-emission *isn't in this
Universe*, only the Big Bang is.

Even so, it could be a way to resolve the age of the Universe
that contains us, since only certain light profiles could
result
in what we see.

Or not.

I'm not sure what you are trying to resolve, the
age appears to be 13.7 billion years.

I've said what I am trying to achieve too many times. I'm trying
to allow discovery of coalesced objects right up to the CMBR.
I'm trying to allow for heavier atoms to exist in quantity right
up to the CMBR. It turns out I'm trying to allow us to attempt
to be able to see the Universe that spawned us.

As I have said, my "hypothesis" allows for structures
to be found right up to the CMBRM, even for heavier
elements to be present from the "get go". And since
infalling light is not fatally blue shifted for those that
are "falling towards the singularity", the CMBRM is not
necessary to have protected us from the "fires of
creation".

I don't follow, if we were falling towards a
singularity, the universe would be shrinking.

No. The outer r becomes inner t.

I don't accept that, I believe it was found to be
an artefact of the maths only. I will be happy if
you can show me to be wrong though.

Once I can go back to school, after my kids graduate, perhaps
I'll have enough brain left to do that. Don't hold your breath.

The outer Universe "expects us" to become more and more
dense. We have internal-space that is orthogonal to our
time. This space is defined by c and time. The speed of light
(as expected by the outer Universe) is an inverse function of
density. As we approach a singularity (from outer reconing),
c approaches 0 (as the outer Universe expects,

Pardon? c is invariant in GR locally. The outer
universe sees increasing time dialtion but that
doesn't change c. I'm realy not following what
you are saying here at all.

Shapiro time delay. The value of c *is* c locally. We are NOT
local to the outer Universe. It has us becoming more and more
dense, approaching a singularity at c, in some finite time. c
decreases with both increasing curvature and increasing density.

not as we would observe), and space becomes larger and
larger. Viola! Expansion. The problem is the "discontinuity"
that occurs at the event horizon, and the confusion between
inner and outer coordinates that results. But that is just a
description problem (eg: non-standard verbage is required).

Or better coordinates!

Perhaps. Perhaps work with "dual to black holes" will provide
sone additional insight. "Better" isn't always "more
comfortable".

I also don't agree with the infalling light being
necessarily fatal.

I wasn't really saying that earlier.

I wasn't sure what you meant by:

I
can't be sure what we would have seen had it not
existed, but then we wouldn't be here to see anything.

... perhaps that there would be no matter for us to be
comprised of...

Yes, that was it. What the universe would look like
if it contained no matter whatsoever is moot!

This is where I diverge with Bjoern. He believes you can
have a Universe without matter.

You can solve the equations for that condition,
but we wouldn't be in it.

But Einstein suggests that spacetime is the product of
all mass-energy in the Universe (if I understand correctly).
This means no mass/energy provides null spacetime.

It is partly philosophical, what does it mean
to calculate the trajectory of a test paticle
in a universe devoid of particles ;-)

Very true. Is it moving? How can it be a test particle, if it
has no other mass to be negligible wrt?

Given a Universe, you have mass/energy. Given
mass/energy, you have spacetime.

That seems more relevant to our situation.

.... BUT ...
Is spacetime something that can exist with mass/energy? We can
model it, just as we can model Euclidian spacetime. When you
*shred* spacetime with curvature so high that the carrier for all
distance-related features (aka. light) can no longer communciate
two-way to the gestalt of the Universe, does it simply "twist"
and set up shop again? Because an outer Universe no longer
detects the momentum of objects that fall into a black hole
(except in gestalt), does this mean the momentum is lost?

That was my point, even after crossing the
event horizon, you would still be able to
see the part of the universe you had left
hence the horizon cannot be opaque.

There is no part of the external Universe that extends into
the internal Universe. What you see, perhaps, is all the
positions and all the intensities of all the stars, and the
container Universe's CMBR, spread across 2 pi
steradians... for all time. Neglecting expansion, which
only serves to red shift the panopoly. It *is* opaque, it
is
NOT specular. You cannot see before the Big Bang, even
without a CMBRM.

But you would in what you describe, you would
be seeing "all the stars" in the container
Universe, the horizon would only be a location
in the vacuum.

Only as a plenum. The "off ramp" is all you can see,
with the CMBR as the "sound of car horns" on a
freeway to which we are but a side road.

It would have to be seeing the lights of cars
coming down the off ramp. Even from a great
distance where the individual lights cannot
be distinguished, the integrated spectrum
would be a blend of many thermal curves but
at different temperatures (types of bulbs)
and that mix wouldn't be thermal itself.

That is my question. Integrated "over all time", and the large
angles of space we can resolve it at, I wonder that it could not
appear as anything but "isothermal".

Structures can infall into large black holes and survive...
probably not gravitationally bound ones, but who knows.
Maybe the nature of the early Universe actually tells us
how steep the off ramp is (namely something about
how many of the four forces yield to the curvature of the
event horizon).

for a very large black hole, the acceleration
at the horizon is negligible. I believe a human
in a spacesuit could easily survive crossing the
horizon of a super-massive BH with nothing more
than a spacesuit.

These things are bound by c-moderated forces. Consider the Roche
limit. Do you think that "gravitationally bound" structures
could survive intact? I don't think so. No matter how large the
BH...

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:YsdLe.25309$E95.8692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:AvzKe.6008$E95.4317@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:yxdKe.308849$Qo.131840@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
... have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

External objects end up sweeping an arc across the sky.
Other objects in other places do the same. Definitely
NOT specular images. And this is a non-rotating BH,
which adds yet another twist (literally) to the infalling
light. And note that in the simulation, the
external-Universe stars don't change color.

The point is that you can see them, there is nothing
at the event horizon but vacuum. It isn't a physical
barrier but just a location.

You can't "see them". They are no longer point
sources, but area sources.

Why? Those on Andrew's page are nearby and start
as areas (just as we see the Sun) and are then
distorted. Distant point sources would surely
remain as points, wouldn't they?

What we see isn't. Of course, we can't resolve that fine either. Yet.

What we see in our sky is mostly black with a
little light from high temperature sources. The
CMBR matches a source covering 4 pi steradins
at low temperature. There is a big difference
between those even if we couldn't resolve the
individual sources.

Andrew's page doesn't depart from the classical Schwarzchild solution, he
expects that we "travel at the speed of light", yet we strike the
singularity in finite time. Maybe I'm trying to read more into the pages
than he intends.

I think he simply intends to illustrate what
GR predicts.

Kruskal still has it timelike. It is not a peculiarity, but a
requirement.

Of course, but isn't the time axis contiguous
through the horizon? It was the switch between
spatial and temporal that I thought was the
artefact.

No. The outer-space axis stops, and the inner-time axis starts. And this
might simply be an artifact of the Kruskal coordinates. The other metric
you referred to (Eddington - __________) had the inner-time axis part
outer-time and part outer-space.

I have been trying to find something on this
and this is the best I have found so far:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#holes

Note the bullet list below the Penrose diagram

"The Schwarzschild solution 'changes signature'
at the event horizon. This is incorrect---
this is a common student misconception which
arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild
chart for the external region at r = 2m."

Chris then references this post:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/line

and if you can follow that lot you will know far
more about the subject than I ever will!

Someone
infalling just inside the horizon would see the
same but squished into a smaller fraction of the
sky with the rest looking devoid of sources. You
seem to be saying the whole sky would be
illuminated but it should be more like looking
through a pinhole lens above you.

That is what Andrew says, yes. But that is not what the Kruskal
coordinates indicate to me.

Coordinates are just a way of understanding the
situation and without some sort of software to
ray-trace the infalling light to the observer,
I don't see how you can make any prediction.
Still, maybe your intuition is that far beyond
mine.

What you see "just inside" is *completely disconnected* from outer-time
(it is after all orthogonal to outer-space, which we have turned into
inner-time with our "travelling at the speed of light"). What you see may
be the entire light-infall history of the outer-Univserse, from the
formation of our black hole, until it evaporates.

See Chris Hillman's page on common fallacies.

"During inflation, the Universe increases in size by
a huge factor -- perhaps by as much as a factor of
10^(10^12)!!! Some models say that the size of the
current Universe increased from 10^-50 centimeters
to roughly the size of a grapefruit during inflation."

The lecture seems contradictory on the period of
inflation, saying it started at the end of the
era from 10^-43s to 10^-35s and ending at the
start of the next period. Anyway, the use of a
grapefruit to illustrate the size wasn't my idea!

I find it hard to swallow expansion at greater than c, in a closed
Universe, with light easily able to circumnavigate it.

Well I think a closed universe is now considered
by most to be a low probability, but that doesn't
really matter in that inflation is compatible with
GR which is what the BB model is built on.

It seems to me could only work if the Unvierse were absolutely
homogeneous.

Again I don't follow that.

The simple answer is that GR says there was no
container and the density was far too high to
see through it anyway when you go back far
enough. The "surface of last scattering" is
a feature of the gas _in_ the universe and
a black hole has nothing equivalent.

GR *does* allow description of a container,

It does allow it for a black hole but not for the
big bang AIUI. The big bang is closer to a white
hole in GR.

Which describes the inside of an event horizon, in Kruskal coordinates, to
a "t".

You really need someone familiar with GR to
comment on that and some of your following
points. I'm out of my depth but it appears
what you are saying is still derived from
the supposed coordinate change.

GR doesn't require that the CMBRM be Universe filling gas,
unless gas is the source.

GR doesn't provide a source for the CMBR of any
kind, you need matter to produce it.

Doesn't have to be matter "in here". Could even be our Universe consuming
the odd Hawking radiation from our own evaporating hole.

Now that is more like it. Hawking radiation
viewed from the inside as a source of the CMBR
is at least qualitatively sensible. However,
the temperature is only high for a very small
hole, not universe sized. Still, it is more
credible than stars in the container because
it is black body and would fill the horizon.

The source could be a container Universe, depending on the answer to my
question to Tom.

If there were a container then the source could
be the matter in the container universe in which
case the light would have falling in through the
horizon. That is quite different to saying it was
the horizon that produced the light or that the
horizon is opaque and could in some way thermalise
the spectrum of the stars in the container.

It is a lousy word game, George. You think based on Andrew's simulations,
that light enters more-or-less spectrally.

It seems clear to me from his simulation plus
numerous spacetime diagrams in various coordinates
that looking out through the horizon would be like
looking through a badly bulging sheet of glass with
the added bonus of extreme frequency shifts. There
would be tremendous distortion and it would become
a bright area in a dark sky as you fell further.

You don't think that an entire outer-Universe (of whatever age) could be
doing this, and that its entire history (positions, temperatures, size,
curvature, etc.) could arrive at the same innner-instant. The
surface-of-last-emission *isn't in this Universe*, only the Big Bang is.

No, I think that idea comes from thinking that time
in the exterior becomes space in the interior which
I have seen said to be a fallacy many times.

....
I'm trying to allow for heavier atoms to exist in quantity right up to the
CMBR. It turns out I'm trying to allow us to attempt to be able to see
the Universe that spawned us.

David, I don't think of you as a crank by any means
but perhaps I could say something that may give that
impression to elicit an explanation in the form of
your rebuttal. Please don't take it the wrong way:

It seems to me that you are trying to find a
way to remove the H/He mix as the source of
the CMBR not because you see any observational
or theoretical evidence that causes you to
question it, but only because you would like
to be able to see back to the big bang itself.

How would you disabuse me of that impression?

I'll snip the rest as it seems to be mostly
covered by what we have said above.

George

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:YsdLe.25309$E95.8692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:AvzKe.6008$E95.4317@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message
news:yxdKe.308849$Qo.131840@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in
message ...
...
... have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

External objects end up sweeping an arc across the sky.
Other objects in other places do the same. Definitely
NOT specular images. And this is a non-rotating BH,
which adds yet another twist (literally) to the infalling
light. And note that in the simulation, the
external-Universe stars don't change color.

The point is that you can see them, there is nothing
at the event horizon but vacuum. It isn't a physical
barrier but just a location.

You can't "see them". They are no longer point
sources, but area sources.

Why? Those on Andrew's page are nearby and start
as areas (just as we see the Sun) and are then
distorted. Distant point sources would surely
remain as points, wouldn't they?

What we see isn't. Of course, we can't resolve that fine
either. Yet.

What we see in our sky is mostly black with a
little light from high temperature sources. The
CMBR matches a source covering 4 pi steradins
at low temperature. There is a big difference
between those even if we couldn't resolve the
individual sources.

And if those high temperature sources were averaged over "all
time", they would be distant and hot, and close and cool, and
everything in between. And if they were further diffuse, rather
than specular, they might still not add up to a "black body
curve". Just have to see.

Andrew's page doesn't depart from the classical Schwarzchild
solution, he expects that we "travel at the speed of light",
yet
we strike the singularity in finite time. Maybe I'm trying to
read
more into the pages than he intends.

I think he simply intends to illustrate what
GR predicts.

*One* set of solutions, and not Kruskal coordinates. He made
assumptions, assumptions not evident without mining his pages. I
think I'd rather kill my hypothesis with logic (integrating over
the surface) rather than use someone else's assumptions to try
and do it. I am very uncomfortable with his assumption that we
could fall at c... for example.

Kruskal still has it timelike. It is not a peculiarity, but
a requirement.

Of course, but isn't the time axis contiguous
through the horizon? It was the switch between
spatial and temporal that I thought was the
artefact.

No. The outer-space axis stops, and the inner-time axis
starts.
And this might simply be an artifact of the Kruskal
coordinates.
The other metric you referred to (Eddington - __________) had
the inner-time axis part outer-time and part outer-space.

I have been trying to find something on this
and this is the best I have found so far:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#holes

Note the bullet list below the Penrose diagram

"The Schwarzschild solution 'changes signature'
at the event horizon. This is incorrect---
this is a common student misconception which
arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild
chart for the external region at r = 2m."

Note that his comment applies "for the external region"...

Chris then references this post:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/line

and if you can follow that lot you will know far
more about the subject than I ever will!

Some appropriate quotes:
QUOTE
Terminology: at this point we have introduced four classes of
observers in
the Schwarzschild vacuum whose physical experience we can
profitably
study:
....
3. "Novikov observers" who fall radially inwards from rest at r =
r0.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:81xLe.35947$E95.12374@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:YsdLe.25309$E95.8692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:AvzKe.6008$E95.4317@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote
in message news:yxdKe.308849$Qo.131840@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
... have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

External objects end up sweeping an arc across the sky.
Other objects in other places do the same. Definitely
NOT specular images. And this is a non-rotating BH,
which adds yet another twist (literally) to the infalling
light. And note that in the simulation, the
external-Universe stars don't change color.

The point is that you can see them, there is nothing
at the event horizon but vacuum. It isn't a physical
barrier but just a location.

You can't "see them". They are no longer point
sources, but area sources.

Why? Those on Andrew's page are nearby and start
as areas (just as we see the Sun) and are then
distorted. Distant point sources would surely
remain as points, wouldn't they?

What we see isn't. Of course, we can't resolve that fine either. Yet.

What we see in our sky is mostly black with a
little light from high temperature sources. The
CMBR matches a source covering 4 pi steradins
at low temperature. There is a big difference
between those even if we couldn't resolve the
individual sources.

And if those high temperature sources were averaged over "all time", they
would be distant and hot, and close and cool, and everything in between.

When we look at a distant star, we see it at
one particular time in the past related to its
distance. Looking out through an event horizon
would not change that.

And if they were further diffuse, rather than specular, they might still
not add up to a "black body curve". Just have to see.

Andrew's page doesn't depart from the classical Schwarzchild
solution, he expects that we "travel at the speed of light", yet
we strike the singularity in finite time. Maybe I'm trying to read
more into the pages than he intends.

I think he simply intends to illustrate what
GR predicts.

*One* set of solutions, and not Kruskal coordinates.

A change of coordinates cannot change the
appearance, it must be the same in all
though some may be easier to use than
others. It is the same as using cartesian
or polar coordinates to calculate the effect
of an inverse square law force, one or the
other might be easier but both must predict
Keplerian orbits.

He made assumptions, assumptions not evident without mining his pages.

Ah now that's different and very interesting.
Can you give me a pointer to what you found?

I think I'd rather kill my hypothesis with logic (integrating over the
surface) rather than use someone else's assumptions to try and do it. I
am very uncomfortable with his assumption that we could fall at c... for
example.

Relative to what? Relative to an observer at
infinity, that's not an assumption but derived
from the theory.

Kruskal still has it timelike. It is not a peculiarity, but a
requirement.

Of course, but isn't the time axis contiguous
through the horizon? It was the switch between
spatial and temporal that I thought was the
artefact.

No. The outer-space axis stops, and the inner-time axis starts.
And this might simply be an artifact of the Kruskal coordinates.
The other metric you referred to (Eddington - __________) had
the inner-time axis part outer-time and part outer-space.

I have been trying to find something on this
and this is the best I have found so far:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#holes

Note the bullet list below the Penrose diagram

"The Schwarzschild solution 'changes signature'
at the event horizon. This is incorrect---
this is a common student misconception which
arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild
chart for the external region at r = 2m."

Note that his comment applies "for the external region"...

No, his comment is that the existence of a change
of signature is incorrect. He explains that this
"arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity ... for the external region"

snip quoted text

The same objects, will provide multiple specular images. And this is
still outside the event horizon.

Interesting but as you say those were for an
external observer and external sources.

Chris Hillman's webpage is referenced at the bottom, but of course Chris
is "gone"...

Is he? It's several years since I followed the
group. That's a shame.

... without some sort of software to
ray-trace the infalling light to the observer,
I don't see how you can make any prediction.
Still, maybe your intuition is that far beyond
mine.

We can always make a prediction, if we are not afraid to be wrong.

They only way to be wrong is misapplying the theory
or making an error in the maths. Predictions are made
by the equations, not the person.

Hypotheses are like that. You place the key in the ignition, and hope the
wheels don't fall off before you get off the lot...

Hypotheses and postulates are another matter
entirely.

What you see "just inside" is *completely disconnected*
from outer-time (it is after all orthogonal to outer-space,
which we have turned into inner-time with our "travelling at
the speed of light"). What you see may be the entire
light-infall history of the outer-Univserse, from the formation of our
black hole, until it evaporates.

See Chris Hillman's page on common fallacies.

It doesn't forbid my interpretation.

I think it does actually, Chris is just letting
you know that there is no change of signature
predicted by the equations of GR. If you want to
discard GR and come up with an alternative then
perhaps that might but that's another matter again.

"During inflation, the Universe increases in size by
a huge factor -- perhaps by as much as a factor of
10^(10^12)!!! Some models say that the size of the
current Universe increased from 10^-50 centimeters
to roughly the size of a grapefruit during inflation."

The lecture seems contradictory on the period of
inflation, saying it started at the end of the
era from 10^-43s to 10^-35s and ending at the
start of the next period. Anyway, the use of a
grapefruit to illustrate the size wasn't my idea!

I find it hard to swallow expansion at greater than c,
in a closed Universe, with light easily able to
circumnavigate it.

Well I think a closed universe is now considered
by most to be a low probability, but that doesn't
really matter in that inflation is compatible with
GR which is what the BB model is built on.

What is raising the question of a non-closed Universe?

Without dark energy, GR gives some simple
solutions for an expanding universe:

1) Density greater than the critical value
means spatially and temporally finite so
we have a closed universe and a big crunch.
Expansion slows and reverses. A photon
created at t=0 gets exactly half way across
the universe when the crunch arrives.

2) Density equal to the critical value means
spatially and temporally infinite, no big
crunch. Expansion continues for ever but
is asymptotic to zero speed.

3) Density less than the critical value also
means spatially and temporally infinite and
expansion continues for ever but never slows
to zero.

Wright addresses this a bit he

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm

Dark energy throughs a spanner in the works so
different combinations of open/closed and a crunch
become possible.

Expansion doesn't involve expanding "into" anything,

Correct.

so how can we verify an extent into which matter is entering "new" space?

It isn't, old space is stretching.

It seems to me could only work if the Unvierse were
absolutely homogeneous.

Again I don't follow that.

It doesn't mean much, but energy (even kinetic) provides gravitational
attraction. But:
- expansion isn't kinetic motion,

Other than the dark energy contribution, you will
find many argue it is precisely that, the remnant
kinetic motion from t=0. The sum of that kinetic
energy and gravitational potential energy is zero
in many of the GR models.

and
- the "velocity" is now sub-c anyway.

Velocity of matter relative to the local co-moving
reference, yes, but matter beyond our horizon is
still moving at greater than c at present due to
the expansion of the intervening space.

The simple answer is that GR says there was no
container and the density was far too high to
see through it anyway when you go back far
enough. The "surface of last scattering" is
a feature of the gas _in_ the universe and
a black hole has nothing equivalent.

GR *does* allow description of a container,

It does allow it for a black hole but not for the
big bang AIUI. The big bang is closer to a white
hole in GR.

Which describes the inside of an event horizon,
in Kruskal coordinates, to a "t".

You really need someone familiar with GR to
comment on that and some of your following
points. I'm out of my depth but it appears
what you are saying is still derived from
the supposed coordinate change.

A "what if". Correct.

GR doesn't require that the CMBRM be Universe filling gas,
unless gas is the source.

GR doesn't provide a source for the CMBR of any
kind, you need matter to produce it.

Doesn't have to be matter "in here". Could even be our
Universe consuming the odd Hawking radiation from our
own evaporating hole.

Now that is more like it. Hawking radiation
viewed from the inside as a source of the CMBR
is at least qualitatively sensible. However,
the temperature is only high for a very small
hole, not universe sized.

But if the entire history of our event horizon is written there... from
first creation (at likely very low black body temperature) until the last
squeak of the "balloon deflating" into a very cold Universe (an extremely
hot and very small surface, with very short history).

Then you would get an almost flat spectrum.
A black body would require either one constant
temperature throughout the history or a red-shift
from it to us that exactly matched the variation
in temreature over time.

Still, it is more
credible than stars in the container because
it is black body and would fill the horizon.

See the stuff I quoted above. I still believe, without material support
(yet), that the integrated history of any surface over a long period
*could* approximate a black body.

See above.

It is a lousy word game, George. You think based on Andrew's
simulations, that light enters more-or-less spectrally.

It seems clear to me from his simulation plus
numerous spacetime diagrams in various coordinates
that looking out through the horizon would be like
looking through a badly bulging sheet of glass with
the added bonus of extreme frequency shifts. There
would be tremendous distortion and it would become
a bright area in a dark sky as you fell further.

And multiple *apparent* sources,

From the section from the FAQ you quoted, that is
the case externally. Internally I think you only
see one copy of each. Outside a ray can wind several
times round the hole before it is seen without
crossing the horizon (I think) and of course you
are familiar with the "Einstein cross".

and diffused sources, and so on.

I'm less sure of that one, I need to read Andrew's
pages again (later).

And this is without "buying into" the event horizon appearing as a source
for all the light (and other stuff) that ever infell, delivered on "day
one".

I certainly don't accept that unless you can show
it follows from the theory.

You don't think that an entire outer-Universe (of whatever age)
could be doing this, and that its entire history (positions,
temperatures, size, curvature, etc.) could arrive at the same
innner-instant. The surface-of-last-emission *isn't in this
Universe*, only the Big Bang is.

No, I think that idea comes from thinking that time
in the exterior becomes space in the interior which
I have seen said to be a fallacy many times.

*I* haven't seen it said to be a fallacy *any* times, George. Other than
by those that profess to not know GR, but offer opinions on it anyway.
And Bjoern, who definately does know GR. Not trying to slam you or anyone
else.

Chris's page is one example where he says it
is "a common student misconception". I am
sure I have seen similar statements elsewhere.

It is a valid and accepted way to model a black hole. It has
consequences. *These* consequences are testable. If Kruskal is a valid
method, and describes an internal Universe with separate spacetime, we
should be able to "look back". Depending on the nature of the CMBRM.

We are defined by our questions.

I commented on coordinates earlier.

...
I'm trying to allow for heavier atoms to exist in quantity right up to
the CMBR. It turns out I'm trying to allow us to attempt to be able to
see the Universe that spawned us.

David, I don't think of you as a crank by any means
but perhaps I could say something that may give that
impression to elicit an explanation in the form of
your rebuttal. Please don't take it the wrong way:

It seems to me that you are trying to find a
way to remove the H/He mix as the source of
the CMBR not because you see any observational
or theoretical evidence that causes you to
question it, but only because you would like
to be able to see back to the big bang itself.

How would you disabuse me of that impression?

I'll snip the rest as it seems to be mostly
covered by what we have said above.

Please do consider me a crank,

I don't but the answers you give next clear
up a lot, that was my hope.

if you can deliver the "death blow" necessary to retire this idea. "Being
nice" isn't going to do anyone any good.

I am not trying to falsify it, just understand
what motivated it in the first place.

I am trying *only* to offer an alternative to "uniformly distributed,
opaque plasma" as the source for the CMBR. *If* my hypothesis is correct,
the "hint of structure" that we are beginning to resolve in the CMBRM,
could be possibly/maybe/perhaps resolved into an image of the Universe
that contains ours.

I will admit that the "uniformly distributed, opaque plasma" bothered me,
because:
1) I didn't think that any "normal matter" could be made to do that at
3000 K; and
2) I didn't think that that matter, once cooled and somewhat coalesced,
wouldn't write its absorption lines in the CMBR light; and
3) Structures are being found close to the CMBRM, indicating that galaxy
formation is going to have to be revised to be very fast indeed.; and
4) The presence of heavy metals in any given spiral galactic disc requires
a rate of supernova occurence that is not "seen" even today, much less
close to the CMBRM.

I have been relieved of my incorrect notions 1) and 2).

That's good, it saves me some typing ;-)

Notion 4) is likely only my (ill-informed) imagination.

Well certainly the absence of metals in Pop II
stars and nebulae would be a problem under
notion 4.

Galaxies undergoing high rates of star formation
are seen and IIRC rates around 10 billion years
ago are at least an order of magnitude higher
than now. Also look up Pop III stars. With low
metallicity, lifetimes were shorter too (IIRC).
I'll try to find more later but this isn't a
problem.

Notion 3) hasn't really happened yet.

No, more mature galaxies are being found earlier
than expected but at the same time the role of
super-massive black holes is being reconsidered
and simltaneous evolution is looking more
favourable. Given the high density in the early
universe, the existence of super-massive black
holes prior to decoupling would not surprise me,
but the formation of solid objects at those
temperatures would.

I am simply playing with what still appears to be a possibility that is in
agreement with GR, and provides an "open sky" for any observations of
structures and heavy metals in any quantity in this Universe, right up to
the Big Bang.

I didn't come here (with this thread) thinking we could resolve the "face
of God" or anything. Resolving the container Universe would simply be a
benefit of not having "Universe-filling" opaque plasma between *now* and
the beginning. And I didn't think of that until, what, two responses ago.

OK, that is a side effect, but why are you trying to
do away with the plasma? The elemental abundancies
match the nucleosynthesis model very well but require
high density and teperatures around 10^9K. We see
samples of that mix in Pop II stars so losing the
low-metallicity early universe would be an immense
problem.

Other than placing my heart out on my sleeve, this is the best I can do to
"disabuse" you. You will believe me or not. You will tell me that you
believe me or not. Nothing I do will change my fate either way.

I will only tell you that I think I understand
your thoughts more clearly as a result of your
answers.

I hope you and Steve have good weekends. I get to finish my flooring.
Oh... boy.

I haven't started mine yet :-(

George

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:81xLe.35947$E95.12374@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:YsdLe.25309$E95.8692@fed1read01...

.... going to attempt some deft trimming ...

....
What we see in our sky is mostly black with a
little light from high temperature sources. The
CMBR matches a source covering 4 pi steradins
at low temperature. There is a big difference
between those even if we couldn't resolve the
individual sources.

And if those high temperature sources were averaged
over "all time", they would be distant and hot, and
close and cool, and everything in between.

When we look at a distant star, we see it at
one particular time in the past related to its
distance. Looking out through an event horizon
would not change that.

I understand your assertion. Kruskal coordinates do not
require/allow this.

....
Andrew's page doesn't depart from the classical Schwarzchild
solution, he expects that we "travel at the speed of light",
yet
we strike the singularity in finite time. Maybe I'm trying
to read
more into the pages than he intends.

I think he simply intends to illustrate what
GR predicts.

*One* set of solutions, and not Kruskal coordinates.

A change of coordinates cannot change the
appearance, it must be the same in all
though some may be easier to use than
others.

You say "it must be the same in all"? Space and time are
irretrievably bound, which is the strong suite of GR. "That
which works" out here, doesn't at/near an event horizon. It
isn't just mathematics, it is a requirement of the model. Models
can change, but unlikely they they will get fundamentally
simpler, more easy to understand. I think you are being
provincial. I accept that you do not wish to do the "leg work"
required.

It is the same as using cartesian
or polar coordinates to calculate the effect
of an inverse square law force, one or the
other might be easier but both must predict
Keplerian orbits.

Yet "time stops" at the event horizon (stationary time, which of
course is non-physical). Space must therefore stop since c and
time define space (again, stationary space). Yet spacetime is a
product of mass/energy, and a BH has that in plenty. I am
proposing that things "must be the same in all". I am simply
toying with *which* things are the same. Einstein (and Mach)
suggested that the the things I think are important/invariant,
NOT spacetime, is mass/energy. The field equations even
"fabricate" spacetime from mass and energy terms, for crying out
loud.

He made assumptions, assumptions not evident without
mining his pages.

Ah now that's different and very interesting.
Can you give me a pointer to what you found?

.... adding the link back in for posterity ...
URL:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

It isn't what I found, George. Read my sentence again. It is
that I didn't find "what assumptions the pretty pictures are
based on", in the infinte variations of how that can be expressed
in the English language. Even he
URL:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html
.... I don't see a path to the answer.

I think I'd rather kill my hypothesis with logic (integrating
over the surface) rather than use someone else's
assumptions to try and do it. I am very uncomfortable
with his assumption that we could fall at c... for example.

Relative to what? Relative to an observer at
infinity, that's not an assumption but derived
from the theory.

Really? Is that c at the infinite observer's location, or c at
the local curvature to the faller? Look, George, we "fall at c"
through time (hackles raise on the backs of necks of those whom I
have now affronted). This is why the r axis is referred to as
"timelike". Are there two time axes? I think Andrew's verbiage
is no less "loose" than mine above, in his assertion.

....
I have been trying to find something on this
and this is the best I have found so far:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#holes

Note the bullet list below the Penrose diagram

"The Schwarzschild solution 'changes signature'
at the event horizon. This is incorrect---
this is a common student misconception which
arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild
chart for the external region at r = 2m."

Note that his comment applies "for the external region"...

No, his comment is that the existence of a change
of signature is incorrect. He explains that this
"arises from misunderstanding the nature of the
coordinate singularity ... for the external region"

The entire bullet point applies to the external region. It says
something about the Scwarzchild coordinates at the event horizon.
It says they are not usable on the inside. Kruskal is, and even
Eddington has a *fundamentally different* "time axis" inside.

snip quoted text

The same objects, will provide multiple specular images.
And this is still outside the event horizon.

Interesting but as you say those were for an
external observer and external sources.

Do you think they get *more* pure, or make more "sense" on the
inside?

Chris Hillman's webpage is referenced at the bottom,
but of course Chris is "gone"...

Is he? It's several years since I followed the
group. That's a shame.

I don't know what happened. Only rumors. I miss the answers
that I would get that would take me *days* (or more) to decipher.
Bilge is frequently like that, when he is not "sweeping the
floor".

... without some sort of software to
ray-trace the infalling light to the observer,
I don't see how you can make any prediction.
Still, maybe your intuition is that far beyond
mine.

We can always make a prediction, if we are not afraid
to be wrong.

They only way to be wrong is misapplying the theory
or making an error in the maths. Predictions are made
by the equations, not the person.

I disagree. Kruskal has his name on his choice of coordinates.
He chose them because he wanted to make a prediction (or solve)
to the inside of the event horizon. Predictions are *enabled* by
models, and mathematics. Only people "give a sh*t" enough to
need predictions, or make predictions.

Hypotheses are like that. You place the key in the ignition,
and hope the wheels don't fall off before you get off the
lot...

Hypotheses and postulates are another matter
entirely.

Do I not have an hypothesis?

What you see "just inside" is *completely disconnected*
from outer-time (it is after all orthogonal to outer-space,
which we have turned into inner-time with our "travelling at
the speed of light"). What you see may be the entire
light-infall history of the outer-Univserse, from the
formation of our black hole, until it evaporates.

See Chris Hillman's page on common fallacies.

It doesn't forbid my interpretation.

I think it does actually, Chris is just letting
you know that there is no change of signature
predicted by the equations of GR. If you want to
discard GR and come up with an alternative then
perhaps that might but that's another matter again.

You have misunderstood Chris' page, I believe. All the pages I
have seen refer to the "radius" as "timelike" inside the BH,
regardless of coordinate system. Are there two times?

....
Well I think a closed universe is now considered
by most to be a low probability, but that doesn't
really matter in that inflation is compatible with
GR which is what the BB model is built on.

What is raising the question of a non-closed Universe?

Without dark energy, GR gives some simple
solutions for an expanding universe:

1) Density greater than the critical value
means spatially and temporally finite so
we have a closed universe and a big crunch.
Expansion slows and reverses. A photon
created at t=0 gets exactly half way across
the universe when the crunch arrives.

Which doesn't work too well, since we have photons arriving in
all directions from even ~300,000 y after the Big Bang. I wonder
why they feel that space would contract again in such a short
time? The FRW metric has the Universe collapse again, but after
many billions of years.

2) Density equal to the critical value means
spatially and temporally infinite, no big
crunch. Expansion continues for ever but
is asymptotic to zero speed.

Which doesn't quite appear here, because of "acceleration of
expansion"

3) Density less than the critical value also
means spatially and temporally infinite and
expansion continues for ever but never slows
to zero.

Wright addresses this a bit he

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm

Dark energy throughs a spanner in the works so
different combinations of open/closed and a crunch
become possible.

And the cosmological constant as well/in addition...

Expansion doesn't involve expanding "into" anything,

Correct.

so how can we verify an extent into which matter is entering
"new" space?

It isn't, old space is stretching.

I guess it is the fabric of the English language that is
stretching in my mind. When I hear "non-closed", I think of
"opening into another space" either "in the beginning" or "in the
middle" or "at the end".

It seems to me could only work if the Unvierse were
absolutely homogeneous.

Again I don't follow that.

It doesn't mean much, but energy (even kinetic) provides
gravitational attraction. But:
- expansion isn't kinetic motion,

Other than the dark energy contribution, you will
find many argue it is precisely that, the remnant
kinetic motion from t=0. The sum of that kinetic
energy and gravitational potential energy is zero
in many of the GR models.

However, our "expansion velocity" is much higher than our kinetic
motion wrt the Universe at large.

and
- the "velocity" is now sub-c anyway.

Velocity of matter relative to the local co-moving
reference, yes, but matter beyond our horizon is
still moving at greater than c at present due to
the expansion of the intervening space.

A "fact" we expect, and cannot ever verify. And I am not
questioning, FWIW.

....
Doesn't have to be matter "in here". Could even be our
Universe consuming the odd Hawking radiation from our
own evaporating hole.

Now that is more like it. Hawking radiation
viewed from the inside as a source of the CMBR
is at least qualitatively sensible. However,
the temperature is only high for a very small
hole, not universe sized.

But if the entire history of our event horizon is written
there... from first creation (at likely very low black body
temperature) until the last squeak of the "balloon deflating"
into a very cold Universe (an extremely hot and very small
surface, with very short history).

Then you would get an almost flat spectrum.
A black body would require either one constant
temperature throughout the history or a red-shift
from it to us that exactly matched the variation
in temreature over time.

I don't think it would be a flat spectrum, since an expanding
Universe would decrease the intensity on the surface... if the
surface were controlled/limited by the amount of matter/energy
inside (ie. Schwarzchild radius).

Still, it is more
credible than stars in the container because
it is black body and would fill the horizon.

See the stuff I quoted above. I still believe, without
material support (yet), that the integrated history of any
surface over a long period *could* approximate a black body.

See above.

Seen. I just have to get some intensity and spectral data, make
enough assumptions that a mechanical engineer can solve it
(without cracking too many books I don't already own), and
present the results. The laughter will eventually die down.

It is a lousy word game, George. You think based on
Andrew's
simulations, that light enters more-or-less spectrally.

It seems clear to me from his simulation plus
numerous spacetime diagrams in various coordinates
that looking out through the horizon would be like
looking through a badly bulging sheet of glass with
the added bonus of extreme frequency shifts. There
would be tremendous distortion and it would become
a bright area in a dark sky as you fell further.

And multiple *apparent* sources,

From the section from the FAQ you quoted, that is
the case externally. Internally I think you only
see one copy of each. Outside a ray can wind several
times round the hole before it is seen without
crossing the horizon (I think) and of course you
are familiar with the "Einstein cross".

And it can wind around and enter from mutiple places, because the
hole is ingesting matter/energy and consuming/redefining the
various rings.

and diffused sources, and so on.

I'm less sure of that one, I need to read Andrew's
pages again (later).

Take some time. We can do this once-a-week, so that I do not
burn so much of your (and Steve's, and who-ever-else's) time. I
respond quickly to show respect. But it is not like I can get to
the place I need to in a very short period of time. We can even
take this offline.

And this is without "buying into" the event horizon appearing
as a source for all the light (and other stuff) that ever
infell,
delivered on "day one".

I certainly don't accept that unless you can show
it follows from the theory.

It does:
Google with this exact search term:
timelike OR time-like "black hole" site:.edu
3720 hits.

The point is, is it worth/possible to check it? Can we use this
model to describe the early Universe, or is it a "band aid" where
none is required?

No, I think that idea comes from thinking that time
in the exterior becomes space in the interior which
I have seen said to be a fallacy many times.

*I* haven't seen it said to be a fallacy *any* times, George.
Other than by those that profess to not know GR, but offer
opinions on it anyway. And Bjoern, who definately does know
GR. Not trying to slam you or anyone else.

Chris's page is one example where he says it
is "a common student misconception". I am
sure I have seen similar statements elsewhere.

I believe you misunderstood.

It is a valid and accepted way to model a black hole. It has
consequences. *These* consequences are testable. If
Kruskal is a valid method, and describes an internal
Universe with separate spacetime, we should be able to
"look back". Depending on the nature of the CMBRM.

We are defined by our questions.

I commented on coordinates earlier.

When is the last time you asked "what if"?

...
I'm trying to allow for heavier atoms to exist in quantity
right up to the CMBR. It turns out I'm trying to allow us
to attempt to be able to see the Universe that spawned
us.

David, I don't think of you as a crank by any means
but perhaps I could say something that may give that
impression to elicit an explanation in the form of
your rebuttal. Please don't take it the wrong way:

It seems to me that you are trying to find a
way to remove the H/He mix as the source of
the CMBR not because you see any observational
or theoretical evidence that causes you to
question it, but only because you would like
to be able to see back to the big bang itself.

How would you disabuse me of that impression?

I'll snip the rest as it seems to be mostly
covered by what we have said above.

Please do consider me a crank,

I don't but the answers you give next clear
up a lot, that was my hope.

if you can deliver the "death blow" necessary to retire this
idea. "Being nice" isn't going to do anyone any good.

I am not trying to falsify it, just understand
what motivated it in the first place.

I am trying *only* to offer an alternative to "uniformly
distributed, opaque plasma" as the source for the CMBR.
*If* my hypothesis is correct, the "hint of structure" that
we are beginning to resolve in the CMBRM, could be
possibly/maybe/perhaps resolved into an image of the
Universe that contains ours.

I will admit that the "uniformly distributed, opaque plasma"
bothered me, because:
1) I didn't think that any "normal matter" could be made to
do that at 3000 K; and
2) I didn't think that that matter, once cooled and somewhat
coalesced, wouldn't write its absorption lines in the CMBR
light; and
3) Structures are being found close to the CMBRM,
indicating that galaxy formation is going to have to be
revised to be very fast indeed.; and
4) The presence of heavy metals in any given spiral galactic
disc requires a rate of supernova occurence that is not
"seen" even today, much less close to the CMBRM.

I have been relieved of my incorrect notions 1) and 2).

That's good, it saves me some typing ;-)

Notion 4) is likely only my (ill-informed) imagination.

Well certainly the absence of metals in Pop II
stars and nebulae would be a problem under
notion 4.

Galaxies undergoing high rates of star formation
are seen and IIRC rates around 10 billion years
ago are at least an order of magnitude higher
than now. Also look up Pop III stars. With low
metallicity, lifetimes were shorter too (IIRC).
I'll try to find more later but this isn't a
problem.

Not for here-now, no. My "band-aid" may not be necessary.

Notion 3) hasn't really happened yet.

No, more mature galaxies are being found earlier
than expected but at the same time the role of
super-massive black holes is being reconsidered
and simltaneous evolution is looking more
favourable. Given the high density in the early
universe, the existence of super-massive black
holes prior to decoupling would not surprise me,
but the formation of solid objects at those
temperatures would.

"At those temperatures" assumes that you can't see the container.
This is where I am trying to fabricate some "breathing room".

I am simply playing with what still appears to be a
possibility
that is in agreement with GR, and provides an "open sky" for
any observations of structures and heavy metals in any
quantity in this Universe, right up to the Big Bang.

I didn't come here (with this thread) thinking we could
resolve
the "face of God" or anything. Resolving the container
Universe would simply be a benefit of not having
"Universe-filling" opaque plasma between *now* and the
beginning. And I didn't think of that until, what, two
responses ago.

OK, that is a side effect, but why are you trying to
do away with the plasma?

If the Big Bang were simply the apparent arrival of all the
matter and energy that ever infell into an event horizon, at a
new instant in a new spacetime (created/extruded/established by
all that matter/energy), the the plasma becomes something that
may or may not exist.

My hypothesis actually cannot "do away with" the plasma, much to
my chagrin. It is possible that our horizon were small enough
that the strong and weak interaction forces would succumb, and
external structures as small as atoms get shredded into protons,
neutrons, and electrons. And it could all still have happened
just as the standard theory predicts, and *still* we be derived
from a container.

So we may be struggling with something that is just like the
aether... completely unverifiable.

The elemental abundancies
match the nucleosynthesis model very well but require
high density and teperatures around 10^9K. We see
samples of that mix in Pop II stars so losing the
low-metallicity early universe would be an immense
problem.

Our hole could have formed in an early Universe, and our hole
could have consumed its companion(s) early on too. Or we could
have shredded whatever we got first... somehow I want to believe
we are much bigger than this.

Other than placing my heart out on my sleeve, this is the
best I can do to "disabuse" you. You will believe me or not.
You will tell me that you believe me or not. Nothing I do
will change my fate either way.

I will only tell you that I think I understand
your thoughts more clearly as a result of your
answers.

I can respect that.

I hope you and Steve have good weekends. I get to finish
my flooring. Oh... boy.

I haven't started mine yet :-(

Stock up on Glucosamine-Chondroitin. Start it a week in advance.
It won't prevent pain, but it seems to take a bit of the sting
out, and I think the pain is gone a little quicker. Assuming you
don't pay someone else to do the labor. ;)

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
When we look at a distant star, we see it at
one particular time in the past related to its
distance. Looking out through an event horizon
would not change that.

I understand your assertion. Kruskal coordinates do not
require/allow this.

This is independent of coordinates. When an observer observes a light
ray at a given event and direction, that specifies a particular null
geodesic along which the light ray propagated. This geodesic path can
(in principle) be traced back to its origin, which will be a definite
place and time (presumably on the surface of the star in question). So
the event of the light's origin is fixed by its observation; everything
I have mentioned here is purely geometry, independent of coordinates.
One might use coordinates for convenience in specifying the events and
direction(s) involved, but that's merely convenience and does not affect
the underlying geometrical relationships.