OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)

Okay. Can't post in that thread anymore, but damnit, I'm not done, as
Kyle still seems to think this force is reasonable. To recap: KTJones
contends that gravitational effects can just as easily be explained by
postulating a repulsive force coming from a vacuum, as by an attractive
force coming from mass. He's jumped through hoops to defend this model.
Anyway, let's continue:

Kyle T. Jones wrote:
ruylopez wrote:

This doesn't solve the problem.

It's not about a force interacting with the matter in the object (Sun or
Black Hole), it's about the force other objects feel pulling them towards
the black hole, in all directions. I guess you want to imagine this force
simply warping space time, but that's not how it works - the "force" is
the observed effect from space time being warped by matter.


I don't think so, Ruy. There is no "pulling" in the current theory.
The "force" is simply warping space time. Objects like planets, stars,
etc., are moving on straight lines through curved space.

Okay, this is actually what I meant. But that is just a model. It can be
understood also as a force pouring out of mass that affects nearby masses.
Anyway, to the point:


Let's say I have three objects, in a straight line:

A ----------------- B ---------------- C

A and B are golf balls, while C is a black hole. Let's call the distance
between them X. Of course, we would find if we set this system loose that
A and B fall nearly all the way to point C, while C moves towards them
only by a negligible amount. If the "force" of the vacuum interacts much
more strongly with C, then why isn't C moving?

Those three objects are embedded in a larger system; the "repulsive"
force acting upon them is generated by the larger, majority vacuum
region that the objects exist within.

To put it back into convenient <if not correct> newtonian terms, C
blocks much more repulsive force coming in from the right of that
diagram than A and B block coming in from the left. This is why A and B
have significant movement toward C, and C moves just the tiniest amount
toward them. In this case, absorbing "repulsive" force from all
directions works just like putting out an "attractive" force in all
directions; objects that approach the black hole are hit by repulsive
force coming at them from every direction *except* toward the black
hole; the denser the object (in this case, maximum density), the more
force is blocked/absorbed, and the steeper the gravity well around that
object.

What are you talking about, this force being "blocked"? If I put object D
to the right of the black hole, it gets sucked in to, are you suggesting
that the force to the left is then being blocked?

I know what you're suggesting, so let's have a real look at it.

The problem is that you have no representation for density, vacuum is
vacuum with no variation by definition. Therefore, you are proposing an
absolutely uniform force, the magnitude of which can only depend on one
thing: the volume of space occupied by the vacuum in question.

A supermassive black hole occupies essentially no space. If you want to
change it to something more understandable we can make it a small, super
dense neutron star. But let's consider the black hole first because the
field it creates is of a larger magnitude. You're suggesting that this
vacuum force permeates space and is coming from all directions. You're
suggesting the the removal of a tiny amount of vacuum - say the amount of
space occupied by a black hole (basically zero), can explain these effects.

Do you have any freaking idea how much power you're giving this force?

You're saying that the loss of a tiny bit of space provides enough of an
imbalance in this force that it can keep an entire galaxy in orbit!
Really, think about that. If the loss of the tiny amount of space that is
now occupied by a black hole, or a neutron star, can create such a massive
imbalance in the "repulsive" force balance, you must be talking about an
absolutely gigantic force, per cubic meter. Not even light can escape the
gravitational field of a black hole. So now you're granting this force the
power to bend light into a hole based on the loss of an immeasurable
amount of vacuum.

This is what I meant in the latter part of my post. I'll get to that.



You seem to want to get around this problem by contending that there is a
lot less "vacuum" inside the black hole) or we could make it a neutron
star), than there is in the golf ball.

Oh, no, not at all. I simply contend that more massive objects absorb
more of the "repulsive" force coming at them from all directions. In
fact, I would say that mass is just that: a measure of the amount of
repulsive force an object absorbs.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Gravitational
force doesn't get "absorbed", or "blocked". It might interact with
matter, but matter absorbing it? You're going to have to explain what the
heck that means, or how it might work.

I don't think this is accurate
anyway, as real objects are not mostly vacuum, really. But even if it is..

You propose no theoretical limit on how much space time can be warped, how
much "force" is pouring out of the vacuum.

Sure I do. Create a region of space with no matter/energy (a perfect
vacuum); that region is generating the maximum "repulsive force", and
doing the most warping.

Now, create a region so densely packed with matter that a singularity
results: that's your other limit; the singularity, interestingly,
represents a region of the minimal possible warping of space-time.


But the singularity knows no mass limit, so your model is already making
no sense here. But even if it did, you have to again consider the size of
this force. You're talking about something unbelievably powerful. If
removal of a singularity's worth of vacuum can result in a dip the size of
a black hole's gravitational field, you're talking about an unbelievably
powerful force, which is what I meant here:


which suggests that the uniform
force of a vacuum is absurdly large - large enough to likely overpower all
of the other forces and make our universe inviable.

Why would it suggest that?


Because there is no other way to explain how such massive, black holeish
accelerations can be understood by a uniform, repulsive vacuum force if
only such a tiny amount of vacuum has been lost. Vacuum has no density,
it MUST be uniform.

Your only way to explain objects of different densities is to say that
objects of low density have lots of vacuum still packed within them, which
allows the external repulsive vacuum field to affect them differently.
But, since we now understand this force is extraordinarily powerful, if
indeed it did exist inside objects and atoms, I think it would likely blow
them apart. No other force in the universe would be able to stand up to
this supervacuumforce, and in fact it would be so powerful and pervasive
that I doubt even distant black holes would have any effect - the loss of
a point of vacuum half a galaxy away would be completely overpowered by
the massive vacuum force everywhere on all sides.

It's really time to give the dream up!

Plus, a black hole
occupies no "space" at all. No vacuum has been "removed" from the system,
and I do not feel, considering this, that the topography of spacetime can
possibly be determined by the vacuum.


I must not be following this last paragraph at all.

Black holes are certainly interesting boundary cases to examine. Do you
know how our current, standard physical models treat them? In other
words, is it assumed that the same physics we are used to here on Earth
are in effect inside a black hole?

Probably not, I don't know. That's not the point. The black hole is just
a convenient model to show how strong your force must be, and what serious
problems it has explaining density of objects. The points could be made
as easily considering a conventional object like a superdense neutron star.
Cheers.

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... vacuum that the black hole and golf balls are embedded in; ... a black hole is introduced to your right: ... You are saying that mass ... and thus alters the amount of force coming from the ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: The weird principle of black hole propulsion observed inside several milky way nebulae
    ... The principle of black hole propulsion can be described as the ... propelled by the local anti-symmetrical oscillating Higgs vacuum. ... supposed to act timeless between dual anti-mirror copy Particles ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: The weird principle of black hole propulsion observed inside several milky way nebulae
    ... The principle of black hole propulsion can be described as the ... propelled by the local anti-symmetrical oscillating Higgs vacuum. ... supposed to act timeless between dual anti-mirror copy Particles ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... I'm suggesting that the repulsive force arises from the vast amount of vacuum that the black hole and golf balls are embedded in; remembering that I'm not being literal when I say "repulsive" force. ... So, yes, I don't see a problem with assuming gravitons are created by vacuum rather than objects with mass. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... Black Hole), it's about the force other objects feel pulling them towards ... If the "force" of the vacuum interacts much ... This is why A and B have significant movement toward C, and C moves just the tiniest amount toward them. ... Everything is identical except the agent producing those gravitons, and the fact that in one interpretation, they warp by digging down, in the other they warp by elevating up. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)