Re: How can gravity itself escape a black hole?

On 11/03/2024 12:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 03/11/2024 à 19:12, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

In a theory of fall gravity, the atom is the graviton.
>
Then there's a notion of the force according to
the "ultramundane supertachyonic" particles,
"gravitinos", that space is white holes everywhere
and that space exists.
>
>
The graviton as "super-unification-energy-larger-collider
-gigaelectronvolt-gives-mass", is a bit simplified in a
theory merely of gravity itself, that's where the
"large hadron" is yet a sort of super-symmetric particle,
of the atom and self-same graviton, it's own virtual partner,
in case it wasn't clear the high/medium/low milieus of
the super-symmetry in physics.
>
In a theory of fall-gravity, the graviton is the atom,
its mass is attributed to its substance, and the force
carrier is also what it is, or as with regards to it
being the force mover as it were, with fall-gravity a
sort of Fatio/LeSage quantum-spin-foam shadow-gravity
super-gravity.

>
Heu... En français, ça veut dire quoi?
>
R.H.

Le meme? La meme chose? (The same? The same thing?)
The idea that neither pull-gravity like Newton
nor push-gravity exactly like Fatio/LeSage
yet fall-gravity as a matter of orbits, and Keplerian,
makes for Newton and Fatio/LeSage and Kepler together,
then as with regards to the Riemannian metrics and tensors
of the Einsteinian general relativity, that those are
thusly defined, where of course otherwise they aren't,
that it still looks like inverse square up-close, yet,
not _too_ close, where there's "cube wall", and that
farther away it attenuates on down to linear, helping
explaing that the scales of suns and galaxies, as they're
found to be so common throughout the sky survey, then
make for reflecting on something like the fine structure
constant, as reflecting on the molar gas constant,
as reflecting on phi, the Golden Ratio.
After Newton, for a couple hundred years, the main
idea that gravity wasn't a constant violation of the
conservation of energy, was usually as with regards
to Fatio and LeSage, with Euler for example saying
it was dumb, the idea that there exists a more-or-less
constant field of gravific contra gravitic "ultramundane
corpuscles", particles, as this was before the 1800's
and there were instead fluid instead of particle theories
of everything.
So, Fatio and LeSage's ideas of push-gravity, making for
a universal gradient along fall-lines, is much similar
also to "curved space-time and everything always going
straight in the geodesy, according to whatever's observed
the gravity well calling that the metric according to
the tautochrone", having that there's no explanatory
mechanism attached to massy bodies themselves, because,
in pull-gravity that would be a constant violation of
the conservation of energy every-where.
So, fall-gravity, then, is even less classical and
more super-classical than Fatio and LeSage, or for
example "quantum spin foam" as among theories of
the very latest and greatest models of gravity according
to Quantum Mechanics, or "quantum gravity", then that
also it's inspired by notions like Dirac's positronic sea
and Einstein's white-hole sea, about everywhere.
Gravity doesn't even _exist_ in modern premier theories.
Yet, something _must_ curve and re-flatten space time,
and it's the contents of the space-time. So, the idea
is that massy bodies as _passive_, that they simply
_occlude_ otherwise a radially in-wardly symmetrical
least sort of gradient ("gravity, the weakest force, ...")
and fall together naturally and at rest thusly.
Otherwise theories like "black-holes" have usual fundamental
questions like "were you planning on paying for that?"
I.e. according to Newton's inverse-square pull-gravity law,
f = gmm/r^2, inverse-square in distance or "radius", of
the orbit, it's clear that Chandrasekhar's and Schwarzschild's
formulas given for example the conditions of formation of
the event horizon, yet, they would run out of batteries real quick.
I.e., the "constant violation of conservation of energy",
of pull-gravity, is why it doesn't even exist, and
obviously you know that and know something needs to replace it.
(Or, ..., don't, ....)
I try to choose words so they usually have about the same
word or same formation among languages of science. Of course
it's rather inflexible what words fit.
Here then it's usual the "gravific" contra the "gravitic",
then that "gravificational" is rather awkward,
while though fundamentally "gravitational" is outright embarrassing.
Of course it's perfectly classical and sensible when there's
a relatively intense field of gravity, like people on the Earth,
a brief working theory, yet clearly it's not consistent with
the usual invariants and summetries and conservation law.
Isn't it widely understood that gravity (gravifity?)
_does not even exist_ in the premier theories GR and QM?
(Of course there's no mention here at all of S R.)