The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a black hole,
which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
Good going figuring that out, given that theyrCOre separated from us by spacelike intervals. What statistics did you use to establish randomness?
;)
The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
Right, black holes are always spitting out mass, which is why they never
get too big. ;)
On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The
universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is
accelerating outwards.
Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape a black hole.
On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The
universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is
accelerating outwards.
Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape
a black hole.
their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.
someone [...] wrote:
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
Good going figuring that out, given that theyrCOre separated from us by spacelike intervals.
The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,
which is why they never get too big. ;)
On 9/20/26 00:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The
universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is
accelerating outwards.
Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape
a black hole.
distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in
their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole.
But it prevents everything ELSE from escaping.
We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.
Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please get a real name. Please do not do that again.
Pseudoscientific nonsense.
Nonsense.
F'up2 sci.physics
[Based on your statements I am not sure what you really think, so I will
take your statements at face value and ignore the smileys.]
Phil Hobbs wrote:
someone [...] wrote:
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
Good going figuring that out, given that theyrCOre separated from us by
spacelike intervals.
/Non sequitur./
The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,
They do not. There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole
to its outside when that lies in our universe. That is what _defines_ a black hole.
which is why they never get too big. ;)
There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only
because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment
(the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to
its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational acceleration in its environment due to it decrease. IOW, the speed of objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so
does the probability of the black hole growing further.
Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please get a real name. Please do not do that again.
On 9/20/26 00:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The
universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is
accelerating outwards.
Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape >>>> a black hole.
^hole
distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in
their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.
Pseudoscientific nonsense. Instead:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes, _gravitation_ is understood as _a consequence of_ _the curvature
of_ _spacetime_, and black holes _are_ curved _spacetimes_. See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole.
Your entire idea of _gravitation_ being an object instead of an effect
is wrong from the outset. (It is already wrong in Newton's theory of gravitation.)
But it prevents everything ELSE from escaping.
Not gravitation does that, but the curvature of spacetime. All possible futures of everything inside a black hole lie inside that black hole; no spacetime geodesics lead out of it (into our universe):
My public YouTube playlist "Black holes" <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuBtZkOB_ACHTuygBDPK28ix>
We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.
Nonsense.
F'up2 sci.physics
On 21/09/2026 8:25 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design:
^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please get a real name.-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Please do not do that again.
On 9/20/26 00:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The
universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a >>>>>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is
accelerating outwards.
Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape >>>>> a black hole.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^hole
distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in
their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.
Pseudoscientific nonsense.-a Instead:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes, _gravitation_ is understood as _a consequence of_ _the curvature
of_ _spacetime_, and black holes _are_ curved _spacetimes_.-a See below.
Word salad,
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole.
Your entire idea of _gravitation_ being an object instead of an effect
is wrong from the outset.-a (It is already wrong in Newton's theory of
gravitation.)
But it prevents everything ELSE from escaping.
Not gravitation does that, but the curvature of spacetime.-a All possible
futures of everything inside a black hole lie inside that black hole; no
spacetime geodesics lead out of it (into our universe):
My public YouTube playlist "Black holes"
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuBtZkOB_ACHTuygBDPK28ix> >>
We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.
Nonsense.
F'up2 sci.physics
From somebody who has never heard of Hawking Radiation the cry of "nonsense" is best translated as "incomprehension".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
[Based on your statements I am not sure what you really think, so I will
take your statements at face value and ignore the smileys.]
Phil Hobbs wrote:
someone [...] wrote:
The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
Good going figuring that out, given that theyrCOre separated from us by
spacelike intervals.
/Non sequitur./
The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,
They do not. There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole
to its outside when that lies in our universe. That is what _defines_ a black hole.
which is why they never get too big. ;)
There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only
because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment
(the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to
its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational acceleration in its environment due to it decrease. IOW, the speed of objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so
does the probability of the black hole growing further.
F'up2 sci.physics
The Density Match: If you calculate the average density of all the
matter inside our observable universe, it perfectly matches the density required to form a black hole of that exact size.
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black holes,_gravitation_ is understood as_a consequence of_ _the curvature of__spacetime_, and black holes_are_ curved_spacetimes_. See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
On 9/20/26 15:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes,_gravitation_ is understood as_a consequence of_ _the curvature
of__spacetime_, and black holes_are_ curved_spacetimes_.-a See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
No. Gravitational waves spread through the spacetime fabric at light
speed, however curved that fabric may be.
LIGO has picked up gravitational wave passage lasting from a couple
tenths of a second to 100 seconds.
Waves are fleeting. Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it
wraps around exists. So there is no speed of gravity, it's always there.
On 23/09/2026 6:52 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/20/26 15:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes,_gravitation_ is understood as_a consequence of_ _the curvature
of__spacetime_, and black holes_are_ curved_spacetimes_.-a See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
No. Gravitational waves spread through the spacetime fabric at light
speed, however curved that fabric may be.
LIGO has picked up gravitational wave passage lasting from a couple
tenths of a second to 100 seconds.
Waves are fleeting. Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it
wraps around exists. So there is no speed of gravity, it's always there.
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of space it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
On 9/20/26 15:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes,_gravitation_ is understood as_a consequence of_ _the curvature
of__spacetime_, and black holes_are_ curved_spacetimes_. See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
No. Gravitational waves spread through the spacetime fabric at light
speed, however curved that fabric may be.
LIGO has picked up gravitational wave passage lasting from a couple
tenths of a second to 100 seconds.
Waves are fleeting.
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.
So there is no speed of gravity, it's always there.
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:No, they did NOT.
On 23/09/2026 6:52 am, Old McDonald wrote:
Waves are fleeting. Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it
wraps around exists. So there is no speed of gravity, it's always there.
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of space it
generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, you DID.
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/09/2026 6:52 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/20/26 15:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes,_gravitation_ is understood as_a consequence of_ _the curvature
of__spacetime_, and black holes_are_ curved_spacetimes_.-a See below.
Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.
No. Gravitational waves spread through the spacetime fabric at light
speed, however curved that fabric may be.
LIGO has picked up gravitational wave passage lasting from a couple
tenths of a second to 100 seconds.
Waves are fleeting. Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that
it wraps around exists. So there is no speed of gravity, it's always
there.
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of space
it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, you DID.
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All immediate and simultaneous.
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All immediate and simultaneous.
Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence.
You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH>
[The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind
of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of information at a speed faster than c. But I did not find the mentioned thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the context of GR). Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
I can add it to my playlist.]
But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
|We are led, then, to distinguish two types of influence:
|the "causal" variety, which produce actual changes in some
|physical property of the receiver, detectable by measurements
|on that subsystem alone, and an "ethereal" kind, which do not
|transmit energy or information, and for which the only
|evidence is a correlation in the data taken on the two
|separate subsystems - a correlation which by its nature cannot
|be detected by examining either list alone. Causal influences
|cannot propagate faster than light, but there is no compelling
|reason why ethereal ones should not. The influences associated
|with the collapse of the wave function are of the latter type,
|and the fact that they "travel" faster than light may be
|surprising, but it is not, after all, catastrophic.
"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" - David J. Griffiths.
Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> wrote or quoted:
Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence.
Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved.
(Therefore, gravitational waves always have only a quadru-
pole moment, never a monopole moment.)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^video
You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH> >>
[The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind
of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of
information at a speed faster than c. But I did not find the mentioned
thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the
Definitely. He (Derek Muller) has studied Physics [1], and frequentlycontext of GR). Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
I can add it to my playlist.]
Decades on the internet and in life have lead me to distrust anyone who
uses "Veritas" as their pseudonym or organization name. Hence I have
never looked at a "Veritasium" video. And the clickbait title above
didn't help the channel's credibility with me.
But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
I don't know these videos,
but I /can/ tell you than in quantum systems, some information /is/ transferred faster than light!No. The *no-communication _theorem_* explicitly _disproves_ this.
It's not possible to explain the behavior of entangled systems in
another way,
because one part needs to correlate with something that
becomes only known at an event that has a spacelike distance, i.e.,
the information cannot be transferred with light or slower media.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
|We are led, then, to distinguish two types of influence:
|the "causal" variety, which produce actual changes in some
|physical property of the receiver, detectable by measurements
|on that subsystem alone, and an "ethereal" kind, which do not
|transmit energy or information, and for which the only
|evidence is a correlation in the data taken on the two
|separate subsystems - a correlation which by its nature cannot
|be detected by examining either list alone. Causal influences
|cannot propagate faster than light, but there is no compelling
|reason why ethereal ones should not. The influences associated
|with the collapse of the wave function are of the latter type,
|and the fact that they "travel" faster than light may be
|surprising, but it is not, after all, catastrophic.
"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" - David J. Griffiths.
This can be found near the end of section 12.2 "Bell's Theorem" in
the third edition of "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (2018).
On 24/09/2026 9:36 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of space
it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, you DID.
You seem to have decided to parse the sentence to make it mean that.
My intention was to point out that mass can move, and the curvature of
the space-time around that mass moves with it.
There was no implication that the mass was moving at the speed of light, merely that the curvature of space time tracked the movement of the mass with the usual speed of light delay.
That reiteration of the original idea probably isn't idiot-proof either.
On 9/23/26 23:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24/09/2026 9:36 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:
<snip>
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of
space it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, you DID.
You seem to have decided to parse the sentence to make it mean that.
I confess. I began writing some crap, and just abandoned it. Then,
noticed that you blew it big-time.
My intention was to point out that mass can move, and the curvature of
the space-time around that mass moves with it.
There was no implication that the mass was moving at the speed of
light, merely that the curvature of space time tracked the movement of
the mass with the usual speed of light delay.
That reiteration of the original idea probably isn't idiot-proof either.
I saw no easy way for you to fix it. This is excellent, the 'tracked
with usual speed of light delay' is magic.
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists. >>> And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetimechanges, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-crossposting
to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym. Do you even want to be taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects of its existence propagate through space.
[...] And did you just call me an idiot?
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects of its existence propagate through space. As I already explained to you (by<https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuB5ONdcygjVfoPBiMv5CRqC>
video, too), effects that propagate instantly to all points of space
would violate causality. So that is _observably_ NOT what happens.
It does not happen with electromagnetism, and thus also electricity and electronics (probably to your surprise; but this is known since Hertz
1888 at the latest [1]), and it does not happen with gravitation, too
(known since Einstein 1916).
[...]> [1]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY>
On 9/24/26 19:13, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/23/26 23:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24/09/2026 9:36 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:
<snip>
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature of
space it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum.
You just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yes, you DID.
You seem to have decided to parse the sentence to make it mean that.
I confess. I began writing some crap, and just abandoned it. Then,
noticed that you blew it big-time.
My intention was to point out that mass can move, and the curvature
of the space-time around that mass moves with it.
There was no implication that the mass was moving at the speed of
light, merely that the curvature of space time tracked the movement
of the mass with the usual speed of light delay.
That reiteration of the original idea probably isn't idiot-proof either.
I saw no easy way for you to fix it. This is excellent, the 'tracked
with usual speed of light delay' is magic.
Hold on, the magic is gone. The mass is really slow. The curvature can
be slow. I don't see delay, or speed of light, anywhere.
And did you just call me an idiot?
On 9/24/26 09:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro:
^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps aroundAnd when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime >>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
exists.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >>> immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-crossposting
to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym.-a Do you even want to be
taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects of its
existence propagate through space.
I claimed that the effects of mass's *movement* propagate, and the
effects of its *existence* are... I'll say static. Stable. All done, the fabric has sags in it.
Curvature and Waves are two different things. The waves are little
ripples, which pass quickly. Do think they bring gravity with them, and leave it behind when they're gone?
Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> wrote or quoted:
Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence.
Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved.
(Therefore, gravitational waves always have only a quadru-
pole moment, never a monopole moment.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics.design,sci.astro
Followup-To: sci.physics
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >immediate and simultaneous.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a > spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
in all directions.
Fun.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...
john larkin writes"
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...Can't happen under GR. Four momentum is conserved.
On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around
exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of spacetime >>>> changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence. All >>> immediate and simultaneous.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a >
spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
in all directions.
Fun.
Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar
masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
[...]
On 25/09/2026 12:28 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 19:13, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/23/26 23:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24/09/2026 9:36 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/22/26 23:23, Bill Sloman wrote:
<snip>
That's a nonsensical assertion. Mass moves and the curvature ofYou just said that mass moves at the speed of light in a vacuum.
space it generates moves with it, at the speed of light in a vacuum. >>>>>
Yes, you DID.
You seem to have decided to parse the sentence to make it mean that.
I confess. I began writing some crap, and just abandoned it. Then,
noticed that you blew it big-time.
My intention was to point out that mass can move, and the curvature
of the space-time around that mass moves with it.
There was no implication that the mass was moving at the speed of
light, merely that the curvature of space time tracked the movement
of the mass with the usual speed of light delay.
That reiteration of the original idea probably isn't idiot-proof
either.
I saw no easy way for you to fix it. This is excellent, the 'tracked
with usual speed of light delay' is magic.
Hold on, the magic is gone. The mass is really slow. The curvature can
be slow. I don't see delay, or speed of light, anywhere.
Then your physical intuitions need work.
And did you-a just call me an idiot?
Not exactly. Expressing something in a way that is clear enough to be idiot-proof is a kind of ideal, though it can lead to remarkably verbose expressions.
You do seem to be taking the whole question remarkably seriously which suggests a nutcase rather than an idiot, but at lot the people who post
here are various kinds of nutcase so I wouldn't take the accusation all
that seriously.
Curvature is geometry, it has no mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Curvature is notionally permanent, though since mass tends to be in
orbit around something else,-a it frequently changes with time. Waves are just more rapid changes. The moon in it's orbit around the earth
produces very low frequency gravity waves, and loses orbital speed in consequence (though very little).
William Hyde wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^video
You can find it in my "General relativity" playlist:
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDn3d13ryZwpzGBXewXa9AH> >>>
[The referred video is about quantum entanglement, and the title is kind >>> of clickbait: quantum entanglement does NOT allow the transmission of
information at a speed faster than c. But I did not find the mentioned
thought experiment in a Veritasium dedicated to just it (or just in the
Definitely. He (Derek Muller) has studied Physics [1], and frequentlycontext of GR). Please let me know its the URI if you find it, so that
I can add it to my playlist.]
Decades on the internet and in life have lead me to distrust anyone who
uses "Veritas" as their pseudonym or organization name. Hence I have
never looked at a "Veritasium" video. And the clickbait title above
didn't help the channel's credibility with me.
But I suppose there could be exceptions. Would you say this is one?
given enlightening and even surprising explanations that, IMHO as a
senior Astrophysics student, were both sound and correct. As in this
video, he frequently interviews scientists and educators in the field(s)
of the topic(s) of the video, and always cites the research to back up
his statements, and the resources that he used in making them if he did
not make them himself/or his team. He also responds to criticism in his videos, which is always a good sign.
As of this year (2026) he is no longer presenting the videos of his
channel. To what extent he is still involved in their production I do
not know.
[1] He has a Bachelor of Applied Science in engineering physics from
Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a PhD in
physics education research from the University of Sydney, Australia.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller>
On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around
exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence.
All
immediate and simultaneous.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a >
spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light
in all directions.
Fun.
Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the
uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar
masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of
energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
[...]
One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
within a single event horizon.
On 26/09/2026 4:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>>>> exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >>>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into
existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a >
spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light >>>> in all directions.
Fun.
Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the
uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar
masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form of
energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
[...]
One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
within a single event horizon.
The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in Hawking radiation - does get out. When the two black holes fused quite a
lot of energy got out as gravitational waves, despite having been
enclosed by two event horizons before the fusion, and one after it.
John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
john larkin writes"
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...Can't happen under GR. Four momentum is conserved.
And since
P^\mu P_\mu = + m^2 c^2,
mass is also conserved (as I wrote here yesterday).
john larkin writes"
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existance...
Can't happen under GR.
Four momentum is conserved.
On 9/26/26 07:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 26/09/2026 4:47 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 9/25/26 19:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 26/09/2026 12:43 am, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:24:03 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>>>>> exists.
And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops
out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >>>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into
existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
If a spherical mass somehow popped out of existence, you'd get a >
spherically symmetric wave of not-gravity moving at the speed of light >>>>> in all directions.
Fun.
Mass/energy is conserved. Particle pairs do "pop up" but that's the
uncertainty principle in action. Masses anybody could notice don't.
The first black hole fusion observed by LIGO turned some three solar
masses of black hole into gravitational radiation (which is a form
of energy) and it did propagate away at the speed of light.
[...]
One would suppose that it is affected by the local geometry of
spacetime in the same way as electromagnetic radiation. Someone
should explain to us how it gets away once the merger is in
its ringdown phase, when all mass is presumably contained
within a single event horizon.
The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as
in Hawking radiation - does get out. When the two black holes fused
quite a lot of energy got out as gravitational waves, despite having
been enclosed by two event horizons before the fusion, and one after it.
The event horizon, if it exists, is thought of as the limit from
which *nothing* can get out, neither mass, nor radiation.
Evidently, about three solar masses of energy did get radiated
away. Either the source of that radiation was not actually
inside the event horizon, or there is no such thing as an event
horizon.
As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
energy, which have never been observed yet.
The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in Hawking radiation - does get out.
Either the source of that radiation was not actually inside the event
horizon
As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negative
energy,
Bill Sloman wrote:
The mass might be contained within the event horizon, but energy - as in >>Hawking radiation - does get out.Hawking radiation does not originate inside the event horizon.
As for Hawking radiation, that requires particles with negativeIt does not.
energy,
Hawking used the word "flux". He assumes that the mass of the
black hole decreases. If we assume that the mass of the black
hole is inside its horizon, then there must be some influence
from the Hawking radiation going to what's inside the horizon.
You are at the center of your observable universe. I am at the center
of mine. An observer in a galaxy a billion lightyears away is at the
center of hers. None of these horizons coincide. You can see galaxies
she can't and vice-versa. You can see each other's galaxies, though.
Mass is a property, not a substance.
John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:. . .
Mass is a property, not a substance.
|The radius at which a mass has an escape velocity equal to
|the speed of light is called the Schwarzschild radius.
"Black Holes - Imagine the Universe! - NASA" - NASA web page
On 25/09/2026 12:49 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 09:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro:
^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps aroundAnd when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
exists.
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into existence.
All
immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-crossposting
to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym.-a Do you even want to be >>> taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects of its >>> existence propagate through space.
I claimed that the effects of mass's *movement* propagate, and the
effects of its *existence* are... I'll say static. Stable. All done,
the fabric has sags in it.
Curvature and Waves are two different things. The waves are little
ripples, which pass quickly. Do think they bring gravity with them,
and leave it behind when they're gone?
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a
proton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Curvature is notionally permanent, though since mass tends to be in
orbit around something else,-a it frequently changes with time. Waves are just more rapid changes. The moon in it's orbit around the earth
produces very low frequency gravity waves, and loses orbital speed in consequence (though very little).
On 9/24/26 23:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/09/2026 12:49 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 09:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro:
^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>>>> exists.And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops out of >>>>> existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into
existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-crossposting >>>> to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym.-a Do you even want
to be
taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects of
its
existence propagate through space.
I claimed that the effects of mass's *movement* propagate, and the
effects of its *existence* are... I'll say static. Stable. All done,
the fabric has sags in it.
Curvature and Waves are two different things. The waves are little
ripples, which pass quickly. Do think they bring gravity with them,
and leave it behind when they're gone?
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a
proton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Curvature is notionally permanent, though since mass tends to be in
orbit around something else,-a it frequently changes with time. Waves
are just more rapid changes. The moon in it's orbit around the earth
produces very low frequency gravity waves, and loses orbital speed in
consequence (though very little).
Gravity doesn't travel. Waves of "gravity", traveling at the speed of
light, distort the spacetime within them, and gravity, which is already there in that spacetime, is distorted with it. I want to know, why is gravity already there?
Gravity doesn't attract mass, or anything else. Gravity repels.
Where spacetime curves, like a bubble around an object, that object, and others nearby, are repelled by the curvature toward the bubble's center, which is coincident with the objects' center of mass.
* Gravity repels.
* It's always there, as long as curvature is there.
* Curvature is there as long as mass is there.
On 28/09/2026 3:24 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 23:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/09/2026 12:49 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 09:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro: >>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>>>>> exists.And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of
spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops
out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be that >>>>>> curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into
existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-
crossposting
to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym.-a Do you even want >>>>> to be
taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects
of its
existence propagate through space.
I claimed that the effects of mass's *movement* propagate, and the
effects of its *existence* are... I'll say static. Stable. All done,
the fabric has sags in it.
Curvature and Waves are two different things. The waves are little
ripples, which pass quickly. Do think they bring gravity with them,
and leave it behind when they're gone?
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a
proton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Curvature is notionally permanent, though since mass tends to be in
orbit around something else,-a it frequently changes with time. Waves
are just more rapid changes. The moon in it's orbit around the earth
produces very low frequency gravity waves, and loses orbital speed in
consequence (though very little).
Gravity doesn't travel. Waves of "gravity", traveling at the speed of
light, distort the spacetime within them, and gravity, which is
already there in that spacetime, is distorted with it. I want to know,
why is gravity already there?
To parody your claim.
Electricity doesn't travel. Electromagentic waves, travelling at the
speed of light
distort the space time they pass through, and electric
charge which is already there in that spacetime, is distorted with it.
You want to know why gravity (or electric charge) is already there.
You want to learn what you are talking about, rather wasting time constructing meaningless sentences.
Gravity doesn't attract mass, or anything else. Gravity repels.
Gravity is what we call the force that draws adjacent masses towards one another. It is an attractive force
Where-a spacetime curves, like a bubble around an object, that object,
and others nearby, are repelled by the curvature toward the bubble's
center, which is coincident with the objects' center of mass.
And pigs might fly.
* Gravity repels.
Only if you redefine the word gravity is a remarkably unhelpful way.
* It's always there, as long as curvature is there.
* Curvature is there as long as mass is there.
And the usenet is full of trolls.
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a proton.
On 9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:24 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 23:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 25/09/2026 12:49 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/24/26 09:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Old McDonald wrote in sci.physics, sci.electronics.design, sci.astro: >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On 9/23/26 19:40, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Curvature is sustained as long as the mass that it wraps around >>>>>>>>> exists.And when it stops existing, or moves around, the curvature of >>>>>>>> spacetime
changes, but it cannot change immediately everywhere.
Well, let's think about that. Mass pops into existence, it pops >>>>>>> out of
existence. I think that a "pop" happens in an instant. It may be >>>>>>> that
curvature happens spontaneously, forcing mass to pop into
existence. All
immediate and simultaneous.
You are still not thinking clearly (and you are still amok-
crossposting
to science newsgroups under a "funny" pseudonym.-a Do you even want >>>>>> to be
taken seriously here?).
The existence of an object has nothing to do with how the effects >>>>>> of its
existence propagate through space.
I claimed that the effects of mass's *movement* propagate, and the
effects of its *existence* are... I'll say static. Stable. All
done, the fabric has sags in it.
Curvature and Waves are two different things. The waves are little
ripples, which pass quickly. Do think they bring gravity with them, >>>>> and leave it behind when they're gone?
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in
the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter
of a proton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Curvature is notionally permanent, though since mass tends to be in
orbit around something else,-a it frequently changes with time. Waves >>>> are just more rapid changes. The moon in it's orbit around the earth
produces very low frequency gravity waves, and loses orbital speed
in consequence (though very little).
Gravity doesn't travel. Waves of "gravity", traveling at the speed of
light, distort the spacetime within them, and gravity, which is
already there in that spacetime, is distorted with it. I want to
know, why is gravity already there?
To parody your claim.
Electricity doesn't travel. Electromagentic waves, travelling at the
speed of light
At the speed of light in copper. And that's the electromotive force. Not electrons, those progress along at a snail's pace.
distort the space time they pass through, and electric charge which is
already there in that spacetime, is distorted with it.
Charge already there in the metal is... not-charge (Thanks, Larkin). Neutral.
You want to know why gravity (or electric charge) is already there.
You want to learn what you are talking about, rather wasting time
constructing meaningless sentences.
I constructed a mirror image of the mechanism that everyone else
describes, and it works just as well.
Better, in fact. I wrote that the spacetime *within* waves is distorted,
as well as gravity already there in that spacetime.
I first wrote spacetime *around* waves, but that implies there's some distance for gravity to travel. Distance outside of distorted spacetime.
And at a speed. I got rid of distance. So, no speed is necessary. I simplified the mechanism.
Gravity doesn't attract mass, or anything else. Gravity repels.
Gravity is what we call the force that draws adjacent masses towards
one another. It is an attractive force
I'm not included in that "we". You are.
--Where-a spacetime curves, like a bubble around an object, that object,
and others nearby, are repelled by the curvature toward the bubble's
center, which is coincident with the objects' center of mass.
And pigs might fly.
* Gravity repels.
Only if you redefine the word gravity is a remarkably unhelpful way.
* It's always there, as long as curvature is there.
* Curvature is there as long as mass is there.
And the usenet is full of trolls.
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a
proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the effects detected by the interference pattern.
John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
You are at the center of your observable universe. I am at the center
of mine. An observer in a galaxy a billion lightyears away is at the
center of hers. None of these horizons coincide. You can see galaxies
she can't and vice-versa. You can see each other's galaxies, though.
And then, there is the Rindler horizon for constantly accelerating
observers. Photons following them from a certain distance can never
reach them while these observers accelerate.
ativity 105a: Acceleration - Hyperbolic Motion and Rindler Horizon"
by Eigenchris at 25 minutes and 30 seconds.
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in the
beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter of a
proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of a
small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there
that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any kind
of visible pattern.
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the
propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in
the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter
of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of a
small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any
perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there
that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any kind
of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between
the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in
the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>> of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of
a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any
perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there
that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any
kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between
the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>> of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of
a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any
perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there
that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any
kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between
the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is a vacuum in and of itself.
Consulting AI (again):
The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a
black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula is:|e-a2GM/c^2 (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light.|e-aBecause volume grows much faster than radius (\(V \proportional
to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less density to form than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is unimaginably
dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower than water. If
a black hole is large enough|ore4rCYsay, the size of the observable universe|ore4rCYits required density drops to nearly nothing.|e
The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density
of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on a cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c, calculated
using the Hubble constant H:|e-arho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you plug in the observed numbers for our universe, this critical density is incredibly low|ore4rCYabout 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to roughly six hydrogen
atoms per cubic meter of space.
The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe
(the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is
inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical cancellation happens.|e-aIf you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of that total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly equals
its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a universe
within a universe quite remarkable.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>> of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any
kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
Don't annoy Sloman by being right.
Or by having ideas.
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in
the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes >>>>>> in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the
diameter of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of
a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any
perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there
that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any
kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements
between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
On 9/26/26 06:30, someone wrote:
Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is
a vacuum in and of itself.
Consulting AI (again):
The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a
black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event
horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula
is:|e-a2GM/c^2 (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed
of light.|e-aBecause volume grows much faster than radius (\(V
\proportional to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less
density to form than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is
unimaginably dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower
than water. If a black hole is large enough|ore4rCYsay, the size of the
observable universe|ore4rCYits required density drops to nearly nothing.|e >>
The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density
of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on
a cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c,
calculated using the Hubble constant H:|e-arho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you
plug in the observed numbers for our universe, this critical density
is incredibly low|ore4rCYabout 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to
roughly six hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space.
The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe
(the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is
inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical
cancellation happens.|e-aIf you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of
that total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly
equals its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a
universe within a universe quite remarkable.
That was more satisfying.
I have two theories, one a load of verbiage with analytical support. Randomly nested Penrose tile universes could be in there.
Both will annoy Bill Sloman.
On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>> of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any
kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
Don't annoy Sloman by being right.
You won't.
Or by having ideas.
John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why.
He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort
only a mother could love.
On 30/09/2026 4:11 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in >>>>>>> the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny
changes in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of >>>>>>> the diameter of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the
effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement
of a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce >>>>> any perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on
there that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as >>>>> any kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements
between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
Except that they don't.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false analogies may make you feel self-confident, but learning a bit about the stuff you are posting about would work better, if you had that capacity.
On 9/30/26 00:16, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/09/2026 4:11 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in >>>>>>>> the propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny
changes in the beam propagation distance - some small fraction >>>>>>>> of the diameter of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement >>>>>> of a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going
produce any perceptible "interference pattern". There's something >>>>>> going on there that can be measured, but you won't be able to
perceive it as any kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements
between the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
Except that they don't.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false
analogies may make you feel self-confident, but learning a bit about
the stuff you are posting about would work better, if you had that
capacity.
A displament of 0.001" does produce a perceptible interference pattern.
I don't have a LIGO, I have a Starrett.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:11:35 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 30/09/2026 7:35 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:11:31 -0700, Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn>
wrote:
On 9/29/26 00:06, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/09/2026 5:14 am, Old McDonald wrote:
On 9/27/26 23:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2026 3:29 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
9/27/26 19:25, Bill Sloman needs some extra help:
You can't observe gravity, only its effects.
Gravity waves are detected by they interference they produce in the >>>>>>>>> propagation of laser beams. The system can detect tiny changes in >>>>>>>>> the beam propagation distance - some small fraction of the diameter >>>>>>>>> of a proton.
Waves of spacetime distortion, not waves of gravity, produce the >>>>>>>> effects detected by the interference pattern.
Nobody calls gravity waves "waves of gravity". And a displacement of >>>>>>> a small fraction of the diameter of a proton isn't going produce any >>>>>>> perceptible "interference pattern". There's something going on there >>>>>>> that can be measured, but you won't be able to perceive it as any >>>>>>> kind of visible pattern.
But "a displacement" is many displacements. Some waves lasted 100
seconds. The laser bounced between mirrors while displacements between >>>>>> the waves leading edge and its trailing edge added up.
So you haven't got a clue what you are talking about?
Of course I have one! I described a vernier caliper.
Don't annoy Sloman by being right.
You won't.
Or by having ideas.
John Larkin is very attached to his "ideas". It's hard to imagine why.
He doesn't have many, and they aren't all that attractive, of the sort
only a mother could love.
Ideas are fun and lead to products that sell.
We have a folder called Ideas, and it has, so far, about 60
sub-folders with specific ideas for products. Maybe 90% are dumb
ideas, so the challenge is to identify the 10% of decent ones for
further development. We have a process for that.
...
And what has LIGO got to do with a vernier caliper? Relying on false
analogies ...
A displament of 0.001" does produce a perceptible interference pattern.
The diameter of a proton is rather smaller than that.
...
I don't have a LIGO, I have a Starrett.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._S._Starrett_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
The Starrett Company won't sell you a Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory may be a measuring tool, but it is a
rather specialised one.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:09:40 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |