Black holes do not exist

[billvon]

Here is the problem with your request. Can you have a calculation for something you claim does not exist

Perhaps. But he claimed that "when you start to make your calculations you will end saying black holes is just pure story tale." So presumably he is thinking that math does exist.

I think the bigger problem is that Luchito and math do not exactly get along.

 

[Michael 345]

I think the bigger problem is that Luchito and math do not exactly get along.

Agree, trolls not known for mathematical skills and fail at calculating the airspeed velocity of a unladen African Swallow

(The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is roughly 20.1 miles per hour.)

 

[Write4U]

(The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is roughly 20.1 miles per hour.)

But what is the airspeed of a fully laden swallow?

 

[river]

Michael 345 said: ↑
Here is the problem with your request. Can you have a calculation for something you claim does not exist

Perhaps. But he claimed that "when you start to make your calculations you will end saying black holes is just pure story tale." So presumably he is thinking that math does exist.

What you don't get , is that mathematics goes off on a tangent , blackholes , from Einstein's Theory . And thinks that they are simply because the mathematics says so . That's the thing .

Where in a physical based Universe , the essence of all things . Sees the mathematics as nonsense .

I think the bigger problem is that Luchito and math do not exactly get along.

No surprise really . Luchito gets it . The physical is the essence of all mathematics . Mathematics is NOT the essence , is NOT the cause of anything physically real . Mathematics can not produce anything physically real , in and of its self . This understanding should be common knowledge by now .

 

[billvon]

Where in a physical based Universe , the essence of all things . Sees the mathematics as nonsense .

Again, I am not saying anything like that. Luchito said that "when you start to make your calculations you will end saying black holes is just pure story tale." I would like to see those calculations he made.

Personally I don't think is capable of doing any such calculations, and he is once again lying through his teeth. Perhaps I am wrong. He could demonstrate that by posting those calculations.

Mathematics is NOT the essence , is NOT the cause of anything physically real . Mathematics can not produce anything physically real , in and of its self . This understanding should be common knowledge by now .

Of course. Mathematics merely represents those physical processes that it can model. It is a tool that is used to describe the physical world. Without math there would be no Internet, no modern electronics, no modern airplanes, no modern medical care, no spacecraft, no satellites. It is a tool that allows us to do all that.

 

[river]

Mathematics is NOT the essence , is NOT the cause of anything physically real . Mathematics can not produce anything physically real , in and of its self . This understanding should be common knowledge by now .

Of course. Mathematics merely represents those physical processes that it can model. It is a tool that is used to describe the physical world. Without math there would be no Internet, no modern electronics, no modern airplanes, no modern medical care, no spacecraft, no satellites. It is a tool that allows us to do all that.

Agreed !!! Great post billvon !!! Now you understand my thinking . river .

The physical ,( three dimensions, length , breadth and depth , in no particular order of importance ) by its very Nature will have mathematics inherent in it . But does not guide anything .

 

[Michael 345]

, I am not saying anything like that. Luchito said that "when you start to make your calculations you will end saying black holes is just pure story tale." I would like to see those calculations he made

https://phys.org/news/2021-12-einstein-quantum-mechanics-team-redefines.html

Small extract

Einstein's field equations describe how matter and energy shape spacetime and how in turn the structure of spacetime moves matter and energy. Solving this set of equations, however, is notoriously difficult, such as with pinning down the behavior of a charge associated with an energy-momentum tensor, the troublesome factor that describes mass and energy.

Do you think Luchito equations will match those of the team in the article?

Do you think we will ever see Luchito equations?

 

[river]

https://phys.org/news/2021-12-einstein-quantum-mechanics-team-redefines.html

Small extract

Einstein's field equations describe how matter and energy shape spacetime and how in turn the structure of spacetime moves matter and energy. Solving this set of equations, however, is notoriously difficult, such as with pinning down the behavior of a charge associated with an energy-momentum tensor, the troublesome factor that describes mass and energy.

Do you think Luchito equations will match those of the team in the article?

Do you think we will ever see Luchito equations?

To your last statement . We should have seen them by now I would think .

To your second last statement ; NO .

Neither space nor time have any real physical substance , neither space nor time can exist independent , of real physical things .

 

[river]

From Post#547 by Michael 345

Einstein's field equations describe how matter and energy shape spacetime and how in turn the structure of spacetime moves matter and energy. Solving this set of equations, however, is notoriously difficult, such as with pinning down the behavior of a charge associated with an energy-momentum tensor, the troublesome factor that describes mass and energy.

Well the difficulty is obvious . That spacetime has the capabilty to be shaped in the first place , it can't . Neither space nor time have substance on there own .

 

[Write4U]

Well the difficulty is obvious . That spacetime has the capabilty to be shaped in the first place , it can't . Neither space nor time have substance on there own .

Then where did matter come from?

 

[river]

New
↑
Well the difficulty is obvious . That spacetime has the capabilty to be shaped in the first place , it can't . Neither space nor time have substance on there own .

Then where did matter come from?

Energy . Cooled energy . To the point of the ability of energy to combine into matter . The periodic table .

 

[Write4U]

Energy . Cooled energy . To the point of the ability of energy to combine into matter . The periodic table .

And is energy a physical object? If so, where did it come from if neither space nor time have substance of their own?

Are we not getting closer to the concept of relational mathematical abstractions of "value moments"?

Moment (mathematics)
(For the physical concept, see Moment (physics)).

In mathematics, the moments of a function are quantitative measures related to the shape of the function's graph.

If the function represents mass, then the first moment is the center of the mass, and the second moment is the rotational inertia. If the function is a probability distribution, then the first moment is the expected value, the second central moment is the variance, the third standardized moment is the skewness, and the fourth standardized moment is the kurtosis. The mathematical concept is closely related to the concept of moment in physics.

For distribution of mass or probability on a bounded interval, the collection of all the moments (of all orders, from 0 to ∞) uniquely determines the distribution (Hausdorff moment problem).

The same is not true on unbounded intervals (Hamburger moment problem). In the mid-nineteenth century, Pafnuty Chebyshev became the first person to think systematically in terms of the moments of random variables.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(mathematics)

 

[river]

And is energy a physical object? If so, where did it come from if neither space nor time have substance of their own?

Are we not getting closer to the concept of relational mathematical abstractions of "value moments"?

Moment (mathematics)
(For the physical concept, see Moment (physics)).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(mathematics)

All based on the physical .

 

[river]

↑

Energy . Cooled energy . To the point of the ability of energy to combine into matter . The periodic table .

And is energy a physical object? If so, where did it come from if neither space nor time have substance of their own?

Highlighted

It is carried by a physical object .

To your last statement ; Cosmic Plasma .

Space is because of the magnetic field . The larger the magnetic field the greater the space .

 

[Write4U]

It is carried by a physical object .

That is unresponsive.

If space and time are non-physical how did the first physical object emerge? That is before the periodic table and before the subatomic particles such as the neutrino.

A neutrino is a subatomic particle that is very similar to an electron, but has no electrical charge and a very small mass, which might even be zero. Neutrinos are one of the most abundant particles in the universe. Because they have very little interaction with matter, however, they are incredibly difficult to detect. Sep 7, 1999

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-neutrino/

Neutrinos are more similar to the electron, and are a fundamental particle on their own. They have no charge, very little mass, and are only really affected by the weak nuclear force, which means that billions of them pass through us in seconds and have very little effect.

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-neutrons-and-neutrinos

Does the term "particle" make a physical existence necessary or can a particle be a quantum of something less substantial?

Massless particle

In

particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons.[1][2]Neutrinos were originally thought to be massless.

However, because neutrinos change

flavor as they travel, at least two of the types of neutrinos must have mass. The discovery of this phenomenon, known as neutrino oscillation, led to Canadian scientist Arthur B. McDonald and Japanese scientist Takaaki Kajita sharing the 2015 Nobel prize in physics.[3]

Dynamics

Massless particles are known to experience the same gravitational acceleration as other particles (which provides empirical evidence for the equivalence principle) because they do have relativistic mass, which is what acts as the gravity charge.

Thus, perpendicular components of forces acting on massless particles simply change their direction of motion, the angle change in radians being GM/rc2 with gravitational lensing, a result predicted by general relativity. The component of force parallel to the motion still affects the particle, but by changing the frequency rather than the speed.

This is because the momentum of a massless particle depends only on frequency and direction, while the momentum of low speed massive objects depends on mass, speed, and direction (see energy–momentum relation). Massless particles move in straight lines in spacetime, called geodesics, and gravitational lensing relies on spacetime curvature.

Gluon-gluon interaction is a little different: gluons exert forces on each other but, because the acceleration is parallel to the line connecting them (albeit not at simultaneous moments), the acceleration will be zero unless the gluons move in a direction perpendicular to the line connecting them, so that velocity is perpendicular to acceleration.

Gravitons

Theories which postulate that gravity is quantized introduce gravitons – massless tensor bosons (with a spin 2) which mediate gravitational interaction. There is no direct experimental evidence supporting their existence. However indirect evidence of gravitons can be inferred from gravitational waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

So where does a physical particle stop being physical and becomes a quantum of purely mathematical value?

 

[Write4U]

And perhaps to come back on topic.
Mass in special relativity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Relativistic mass)

Further information on mass: mass and mass in general relativity
The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy (also called total energy).

The term "relativistic mass" tends not to be used in particle and nuclear physics and is often avoided by writers on special relativity, in favor of referring to the body's relativistic energy.[1]

In contrast, "invariant mass" is usually preferred over rest energy. The measurable inertia and the warping of spacetime by a body in a given frame of reference is determined by its relativistic mass, not merely its invariant mass. For example, photons have zero rest mass but contribute to the inertia (and weight in a gravitational field) of any system containing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

Can a Black Hole turn into a white hole at some quantum threshold condition, releasing all bound photons at once?

 

[river]

↑

It is carried by a physical object .

That is unresponsive.

If space and time are non-physical how did the first physical object emerge? That is before the periodic table and before the subatomic particles such as the neutrino.

Highlighted

Which both are , non-physical .

There was no emergence of the physical , the physical always existed .

 

[Write4U]

There was no emergence of the physical , the physical always existed .

But you just told us that space and time are non-substantive (non-physical?)

From post# 549.

Well the difficulty is obvious . That spacetime has the capabilty to be shaped in the first place , it can't . Neither space nor time have substance on their own .

Where did this physical stuff exist apart from time and space?

See, when you start with "irreducible complexity" you immediately run into paradoxes.

 

[river]

New
↑
There was no emergence of the physical , the physical always existed .

But you just told us that space and time are non-substantive (non-physical?)

I did . Both space and time exist because of the physical .

 

[river]

Well the difficulty is obvious . That spacetime has the capabilty to be shaped in the first place , it can't . Neither space nor time have substance on their own .

Where did this physical stuff exist apart from time and space?

It doesn't . The physical stuff is the essence of space and time . Neither , both space and time can not exist on their own . And Neither can produce a physical thing . The physical stuff exists on its own . The physical is the essence of both space and time .

See, when you start with "irreducible complexity" you immediately run into paradoxes.

No paradox to me .