What's inside the event horizon

  • Thread starter ClamShell
  • Start date
  • #101
what's mine have to do with it?
What?! Nothing! I'm not trying to criticize your grammar; there are a number of people here for whom English isn't their first language. I'm wondering, your grammar completely aside, whether you're one such person. I'm trying to understand your behaviour, and it occurred to me that a fundamental series of miscommunications due to language could be at fault. I'm going to assume given your response that I was wrong, and you think I'm saying that you're posts are grammatically incorrect... I'm not... I'm saying the CONTENT sometimes makes no sense.

Lets put aside the language issue then, if I'm wrong... how about the REST of my post?

Nismaratwork said:
If not, then I have to say it seems to me you're more interested in word games than physics or cosmology. If you're genuinely interested in the physics of what you're asking, then the riddles and metaphors really don't do you or anyone else any good.

For instance, you say if it was "headed there, likely it would already be there." That's genuinely nonsensical, no two ways about it. The dissipation of radiation and the life-cycles of stars, black holes, and the "evening" out of radiation in a given space takes time. The simple answer is that it is precisely where the universe is headed, but we're not at that time yet, or anywhere near it.

If language isn't the issue, then I have no idea where you're getting this. From what I gather you're a computer or electrical engineer, so frankly you should realize that it's important to understand basics before moving on to more complex issues. You can't read a bit of wikipedia and expect to be competent in a debate about the fate of the universe, the nature of black holes as they're described by GR, and might be in a unified framework of quantum gravity.
 
  • #103
221
0
...You can't read a bit of wikipedia and expect to be competent in a debate about the fate of the universe, the nature of black holes as they're described by GR, and might be in a unified framework of quantum gravity.
Got me there...(these 3 dots mean I have paused to ponder your idea)...competent?...
Incompetent is why I'm here...wiki's(wikipedia) are all I've got. I read about metrics
and I was still unclear...a minute with Chalnoth and a glimmer appears...
(edit) it's a hiku (sp)
(you know, that Edison's bulb that appears over your head). After all, we're
BSing here...you have no idea what's over the horizon(of the black hole).
Next, I suspect, you'll be "red herring"ing my spelling errors. You know your
stuff up to just above the horizon(of the black hole)...and this gives you
the ability to predict an empty universe?...ballderdash.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
2,685
22
OK clamshell, this is ridiculous. I can make little sense of your posts. You tell us you come here for help and so far everything we have told you you have disagreed with and whenever we give you resources you just tell us you don't accept them. What more do you want? Any discussion here is based on the articles we provide you and so will be no different to you reading them.

You don't seem to want to listen to anything people say and have constantly argued anything that disagrees with your own viewpoint. A viewpoint I would like to add, that has changed constantly throughout this thread so it is now way off your original thoughts.

We're "BSing here"? That says all we need to know. You don't care what we say, you ask for us to discuss your opinions, but when we tell you they are wrong you're just going to ignore us and say nobody actually knows anything about black holes.

How do you 'red herring' spelling mistakes? Do you even know what a red herring is? Certainly nothing to do with how you're using it.

We know what we do, because it is based on current theories and what the maths says. You can deny it all you like, but this is not the forum for it. We deal with published and accepted mainstream science, not 'things that go on in your head', and no matter how much you may argue it, so far everything you have proposed is your own overly speculative personal theories which conform very little to mainstream science. The maths gives us the ability to predict an empty universe, and given how we have that on our side and all you have is your own speculation, how can you shoot people down and tell them they know nothing?

I've been nice so far and accommodated you, as have many others here, but now you really are taking the p*** out of what is supposed to be a place for learning and discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #106
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73
This thread has got way out of hand, and is now verging into the realm of personal theories. I think it best for all involved to lock this thread here.
 

Related Threads on What's inside the event horizon

Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Top