The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread

Buz, don't worry, you're not alone. The vast majority would believe exactly as you. That is why the vast majority are not scientists and mathematicians. You just happen to be on a board with a large range of very intelligent, very well informed individuals, who are not so intellectually restricted as the majority. You are very fortunate. However, if something as "trivial" as this causes you an unpassable stumbling block, then you have absolutely no hope at all at the really interesting weirdness in this Universe. There's no point discussing this with you as you are adamant that you are correct - so what would be the point? It's no loss for me or anyone else for you to remain in ignorance and simply appear as a blinkered fool.Anyone else fell like discusing the r=3m null orbit around the Schwarzschild black hole? Perfect for seeing the back of your own head

It's because Buz is arrogant enough to think that the Universe should be perfectly comprehendable to his own common sense If the Universe was really as dull as the limits imposed by Buz's vacuous imagination, I think I'd not bother waking up in the morning...Ok, interesting stuff... the gravitational field of a black hole is famously sufficient to prevent light escaping from a certain radius out from the centre of the black hole. We call the surface given by this radius, the event horizon, and for a simple, non-rotating, non-charged black hole, the radius is given by the following formula r = 2MG/c^2, where M is the mass of the black hole, c is the speed of light, and G is Newton's Gravitation constant (big G as we say).The values of G and c merely tell us that we are using the wrong units, so we redefine G and c to equal 1. In these "geometric" units, our equation simply becomes r=2M. Outside r=2M, light can escape the vicinity of the black hole. Inside r=2M, light is trapped and cannot escape the singularity. Light at r=2M is permanently trapped. This has the interesting consequence that the event horizon is actually travelling at the speed of light Now although light can escape the vicinity of the black hole, that does not mean it is unaffected by the black hole's presence. If a photon is moving away from the black hole, but not straight out (not perpendicular to the event horizon), then the gravitational field will cause the photon to spiral outwards around the black hole. Is it possible to send a photon around teh black hole, so that it will actually be in orbit, and will return to its starting point? Yes. 50% further out from the event horizon, we reach r=3M. A photon emitted tangentially will race around the black hole and arrive back at its starting point. f nothing is blocking its wy, it will endlessly orbit the black hole.Now the path that light takes through space dictates what is straight. So this light orbit is actually a straight line through space! Build a ring space-station around the black hole at r=3M, with a continuous corridor all the way round. Look down the corridor, and what do you see? An infinitely long corridor stretching into the distance PERFECTLY STRAIGHT !!!! And someway down the corridor is another guy lookign away from you. And equidistant beyound him, is another guy, and then another guy and another guy. And they all look identical and rather familiar!!Finally, what happens if we build the space-station at r<3M??? We look down the corridor, and what do we see?

Only for a small black hole. Pick a decent supermassive BH to be found at the centre of your lcoal galaxy, and you wouldn't feel a thing. And crossing the event horizon would be a picnic...

Nice. Clearly, some people are designed to get this sort of thing, and others are not Nope Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yes, Buz, we are all idiots even though we have been employed to teach this stuff at the world's top universities - we were employed based on how much nonsense had been programmed into us.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Oh, I have to ask this, Buz - are you claiming you can do this by eye?

The sad truth is you are simply embaressing yourself. That you are willing to stick your neck out and claim that all scientists who work in this area are deluded, and you are correct, just shows what an sad idiot you have become. Have some decorum, and find another subject to discuss.

Buz, are you saying that Einstein and the last 100 year's worth of phsyicists are wrong? Yes or no?

Fair point. And on what basis would you agree or reject it? Whether it made sense to you?

Thank you for your answer, Buz. Here are the answers to your questions. Einstein revealed these properties with General Relativity - and space has many more properties than just those that give rise to curvature. It has electromagnetic properties, it has weak force properties, it has strong force properties, it has curavture properties - these are the ones that we know of for definite. It also has dark energy properties, which I can make a good guess at, but we are not sure yet. That's a lot of properties for you to claim that space has none As with just about all aspects of fundemental physics, these properties only have mathematical descriptions. This essentially menas that each point in space is essntially a collection of numbers. Some of these numbers will relate to the E/M field at that point, the strong force at that point, the curavture at that point. Think of how each point in the atmosphere has numbers associated with it, in terms of temperature, pressure, wind direction, etc. Oh Buz, if you don't think that space has these properties, then you had better explain how they have led to the two most accurate predictions ever made about our Universe. They are substantiated beyond the demands of the most skeptical scientist. Just not beyond the demands of your casual, ill-infomed layman. I think we'll just have to learn to live with that Have you never heard of the permitivity of free space? The permeability of free space? You seem to be dismissing not just relativity but all of electromagnetic theory as well! Buz, we work in three and four dimensions, and theoretically in five dimensions, ten dimensions, eleven dimensions, and even twenty six dimensions. We sometimes use simplistic 2d pictures and analogies in an attempt to describe the physics to those who would not understand it otherwise. You cannot possibly think that these children's balloon analogies have anything to do with our actual work, can you??? Why do you regard your own sense of realism, logic and sense as trumping that of everyone who actually works in the field? Are you really trying to tell me that tens of thousands of phsycists, including me, have a great deal less sense and logic than you? Your pride is quite astounding Buz. I think Someone will have quite a bit to say about that one day... Given that General Relativity was formulated in 1915, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed in 1931 by a Romanm Catholic priest, can you explain your point again? As it stands, it has more errors than words It does not involve any 2d models, other than when we try to explain this to children and the less informed. It doesn't actually involve any quantum mechanics in its pure relativistic sense, which is what we are discussing in this thread. And we are not "resorting" to relativity - this IS relativity - one of the two most successfully tested theories ever developed.Is it possible for you to be more wrong about a subject? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yeah, wahtever Buz. You think you're the little boy, crying that the emperor has no clothes, but actually you're that piss-stained drunk at London Heathrow claiming that planes cannot fly. You think we're the ones dealing out the insults, but read the quote above. This subject is my fucking LIFE, Buz. And I have to put up with the mad bleating of an old man, who has had some 'ideas', and claiming that either I have no intelligence, or am denying the facts, despite the fact that I have spent my life, both professionally and socially, explaining this subject to students, other scientists, and the general public. Fuck you, Buz. Fuck you

Careful, the phenomenon we are discsuing is a property of the (3d)curvature-induced topology of the 3d space. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fourth dimension. In the same way, the 2-sphere is a purely two-dimensional object. We can embed it in three dimensions for visualisation purposes, where we see it as the surface of a ball and comfortably analyse its topology. But it is completely wrong to say that the 2-sphere gains its topology by curving in a third dimension. The curavture is completely intrinsic to 2-d, despite the false impression given by our artificial 3-d embedding.In the same way, the curvature we are talking about that could 'close' the Universe is completely intrinsic to 3-d, and has nothing to do with the fourth time dimension, irrespective of how much of a headache this causes in trying to bend your mind around the situation...

Yeah, 'cos everyday definitions are all that are required when dealing with space-time physics For fuck's sake, what happened to intelligence on this board...

No, you wouldn't see any figures any more because as with r>3M, the corridor is curved. However, now it curves the wrong way (i.e. if the blak hole is to your left, the corridor curves away to the right)

What do you mean by continuoysly extended? How do you 'continuously extend' a photon? Do you mean, trace out the path that photon would take?