Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

>>black hole. Crothers points out what mainstream says about black holes doesn't make sense: Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s | | | | || | | | || Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s Viva la Modern Physics, the monster keeps rolling | | | | On

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Robin, I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a question of my own. The conclusion that classical beams of light bend spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do. (Do

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:56:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM, wrote: > >When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to >> be as >> many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM, wrote: When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to > be as > many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark > energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:42:29 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: > >So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational >> mass, >> or that particles never enter a black hole. :) >> > >Suppose for

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Horrible spelling on my part: how about "that have led astrophysicists...". On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: > > So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational >>

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational > mass, > or that particles never enter a black hole. :) > Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very delocalized way. Would there be

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:44:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > >2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the >> gravity >> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:51:09 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, wrote: > >2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron >> "escapes" - >> don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. >> > >I think we're

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, wrote: 2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron > "escapes" - > don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. > I think we're thinking of different scenarios. In the one I'm describing, the electron and positron both

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:26:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] >To return to gist of the thought experiment: it seems to me that there's >something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron, >gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the > gravity > well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in > the > process.) > I did not appreciate this point. Let's go with your

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Robin, On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > > This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the > head of a > pin?". :) > My apologies for being argumentative.

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". :) E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event horizon, we won't detect it either way. 1) It

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:11:24 -0500: Hi, >Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works. [snip] Indeed, a direct consequence would be that Hawking radiation doesn't exist, and consequently black holes do not radiate. Note BTW that if it did exist, then some small

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest----black holes

, our existing reality sees the historic accumulation of mass (energy) and the extreme curvature of normal di Sitter space. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re:

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, wrote: It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon > from > our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe > comes to > an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) > (Which

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:02 AM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > >If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to > >things that have

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700: Hi, [snip] >If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to >things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to >talk about its contents. > It's worse than that - nothing ever

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, wrote: Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get > to see > what happens. > Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to > an > end before they get together. > That was a question

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:39:58 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time >as being normal. Only outside viewers see time slow down. > >Dave Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time as being normal. Only outside viewers see time slow down. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no >return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not >escape the black hole. In this understanding, time slows down

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:45 PM, wrote: Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon > is > approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least > nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time >

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:00:53 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Now let the electron and positron stray over the event >horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1. At t=0, the black hole now >has M + 1.022 MeV mass. At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous >mass of

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a > distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just > going > "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is >

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:26:56 -0700: Hi Eric, [snip] >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, wrote: > >.. go right ahead. :) >> > >It will take a while. :) But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat >analogy with a more apt one. One description

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, wrote: .. go right ahead. :) > It will take a while. :) But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat analogy with a more apt one. One description of gravitational attraction is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass. It

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 12:39:48 -0700: Hi Eric, [snip] >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, wrote: > >...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. >> > >The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, wrote: ...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. > The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way of understanding in this instance. It is equivalent to the gravitational influence

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:26:56 -0700: Hi, >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM, wrote: > >Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the >> universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. > >

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM, wrote: Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the > universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by gravity

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:26:18 +: Hi, [snip] >Robin— > >This is the first time I have heard that Mills (or anyone else) thinks mass >changed into energy causes the Universe’s expansion. In General Relativity >it would be like changing the

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

mo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:20:29 -0500: Hi David, [snip] >Robin, > >I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information >about the conversion that takes place. ...through a lessening of the gravitational field of the Universe? (probably

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

that make them hard for me to follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy >>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals >>> (lattices of atoms). >>

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

but that effect would be localized I think. Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons and electrons of the same energy? Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Speaking of Mills - have you guys seen this Cold Fusion Now -produced documentary "Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems Melvin Miles The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium" - the link is at https://youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4 Also, maybe you'd find this Edmund Storms documentary (also

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other >than by the interactions between the two objects before

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

particles. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dave, This is absolutely true and not challenged at all. My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

; Nigel Dyer; > mules...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest > > Dear Jürg, > > Thank you for your answer. > > On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative > mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and crea

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; mules...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

ow. >>> >>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy >>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals >>> (lattices of atoms). >>> >>> I would like to see Meulenberg

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

) (1975) 27. The following paper is also relevant IMHO: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045 Bob Cook From: Esa Ruoho<mailto:esaru...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this. There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ (and on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 ) *e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in