A black hole in astrophysics often has two distinct meanings. The first is the black hole in a general relativistic sense - the extreme gravitational case with a singularity in space-time - while the second is a simpler Newtonian approach: a black hole is just a point mass. While both of these meanings are used, often interchangeably, throughout the literature, it is important to remember that no astrophysical observation has yet been made that can distinguish between the two; to date, the Newtonian point mass is all we need. In the future, with better X-ray observations and a detection of gravitational waves, this may change.
I gave two perspectives in the previous two links for consideration. That I wanted to exercise the abiltiy of analogy for a thinking already established. Sometimes I wonder if peope like Sean just want me to dissipate like a blackhole, without really ever forming ability to express myself.:)
One of those, was of the matter distinctions and the other, is of the expenditure of energy. So there are two ideas here, that are quite diverse ends, one being discrete and the other continuous, in all of it's topological considerations?
The previous example seems to be an ole view of what the blackhole would signifiy that runs towards a finality? When it would seem a most appropriate idealization that that the position would allow singularities in matters of earth definition, as stratifications(discrete functions), but of a much more potent revitalization of a collapse to rejuvenation, must be evident away from such views?
So we have these signs for us, of cosmological design and of results, of particle identification.
No comments:
Post a Comment