Re: Inside Black Holes

Hi Lawrence, thanks for a very interesting post. ​> ​ > The vacuum is filled with virtual pairs of fields. With a black hole the > gravity field causes one of these pairs to fall into the black hole and the > other to escape. This means the quantum particle or photon that escapes as > Hawking

Re: Inside Black Holes

On 1/14/2018 8:24 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:25:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ ​I think that would be true if, as in your example, the

Re: Inside Black Holes

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 1:00:48 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/14/2018 5:30 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:30:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/13/2018 2:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2018, at 01:36, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" > wrote:

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves I understand those criticisms of Searle and they may be right.  But note that arithmetic and computation are nothing like experience either and all the

Re: Inside Black Holes

On 1/14/2018 5:30 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:30:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2018 2:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/14/2018 3:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No examination of its own body will convince it otherwise, because that examination is always in terms of the *phenomena* entailed (or 'revealed') as a consequence of its formal structure, and not directly in terms of that structure

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 12 Jan 2018, at 01:36, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" > > wrote: >> >> >> On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: >>> >>>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 11 Jan 2018, at 00:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: >> On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: >>> Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are >>> neural activity and the experience of

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> On 10 Jan 2018, at 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: >> Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only are >> neural activity and the experience of perception the same but that the >> former causes

Re: Quasars

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:17 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC, they are interpreted as > immense BH's with inflowing matter of galactic size to account for their > brightness, and their redshift, applying Hubble's Law, indicates they are

Re: Inside Black Holes

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:25:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​I think that would be true if, as in your example, the observer were >>> freely falling into the Black Hole, but if I was hovering

Re: Inside Black Holes

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I think that would be true if, as in your example, the observer were >> freely falling into the Black Hole, but if I was hovering just outside the >> Event Horizon in a super powerful spaceship I could observe

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 14 January 2018 at 11:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2018, at 20:23, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman wrote: > > On 7

Re: Quasars

Quasars are galaxies with Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) that are very energetic. These galaxies end up with thundering large supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and become often elliptic galaxies with low star formation rates. The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies have SMBHs of 4 million and 50

Re: Inside Black Holes

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:30:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2018 2:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> Classically, the radiation isn't "trapped"; it goes to the singularity >> (what the QM does?

Re: Inside Black Holes

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Go to https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/ to look an numerical >> simulations of what falling into a black hole

Quasars

I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC, they are interpreted as immense BH's with inflowing matter of galactic size to account for their brightness, and their redshift, applying Hubble's Law, indicates they are far removed, closer to the BB than any galaxies within our observable