Re: How can gravity itself escape a black hole?

On 11/03/2024 04:42 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/03/2024 02:28 PM, Python wrote:

Le 03/11/2024 à 21:12, Richard Hachel  a écrit :

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.

>
Rien. Nothing. It means nothing.
>
Ross is a kind of joke, I guesss.
>
>

>
Why, because they laugh at you?
>

Let us not devolve (further) into animal savagery
or what usual sorts of scape-goating or shame-rituals
accompany ad-hominen attacks of the irrelevant sort,
that all I can vouch is sincerety and study,
and my words that represent my opinions.
And no, it's not very funny.
For example, I have that light is _not_ electromagnetic,
and travels through plain space in a vacuum.
It's so that gravity as it's usually understood
is _not_ in GR and QM, and that as usually understood,
it's usually understood that pull-gravity is a constant
violation of conservation of energy and can not
possibly suck so much as it's purported to do.
Thusly a fall gravity, where objects naturally
occlude "the far field" and thus fall together,
seems to be perfectly well better, to be a mechanism
to explain the force of the field of gravity,
which of course, is always observed to point
at the _source_, not the _image_, with respect
to its orientation being immediate, as with
regards to a notion as if any propagation of
changes of its state, were _infinite_.
Then, with regards to premier theories of the
day like GR and QM, and as well the classical
and mechanics, these are considered mostly
with regards to what they actually say,
not as how the endless popularizations have
made a mess of them with regards to curved
space-time or multiple-words hypotheses,
nor for that matter even the stochastic interpretation,
at all.
Now, I may be a passing comedian, although
I don't know if I could pull off "Dubonnet" or
something like that, and sadly that's about the
extent of my knowledge of French culture,
yet when reading d'Espagnat, he seeks an
inter-subjective, realism, and that's because
he seeks an inter-objective, realism, to go along
with a half-brainless robot-physicist, who is
merely an anti-realist instrumentalist operationalist,
yet needs the needful to explain the super-classical.
Then, when I ponder Uncle Rene, Renatus,
and for example "vortex theory" and "words turn"
into classical mechanics, then for Einstein's
second formalization of mass-energy equivalency
and point out _it is only in the rotational_,
makes for that FitzGeraldian space-contraction
is real, then that light gets a new treatment as
that the spatial of GR and spacial of SR, as Einstein's,
and as what Einstein names them, and how Einstein
defines them, in his final form of the various incarnations
what results "Relativity Theory": then this way then
what's also involved is Foundations in Mathematics.
They laugh at me there, too, ....