Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00187)

stevestubbs wrote:
> If space vanishes at the Schwarzschild radius, then how is it that 
> the mass of the neutron star can be inside it. How is it meaningful 
> to say that there is an "inside" if there is no space? I think I 
> know the answer, but I put this to the self-proclaimed genius Marilyn 
> vos Savant, who claims to know everything, and no response, heh, 
> heh. Anyway, tell me your take on it.
Just to preface, in college, I took astrophysics as my science 
requirement (or, as we liked to put it, "taking up space").

What you described is what happens at the "event horizon"; inside, we 
are not quite sure what happens. Or are we? The Schwarzschild radius is 
actually a measurement. Given a certain mass, you can calculate a radius 
where, if the mass is entirely within that radius, the escape velocity 
is equal to or greater than the speed of light. This is what is 
specifically termed as "Schwarzschild radius."

Now, here's the fun part: We can only roughly estimate the mass of 
interstellar matter. At the moment, scientists believe that they have an 
accuracy within a factor of 10 of the entire mass of the known Universe. 
However, it appears that 70% or so of those estimates put the 
Schwarzchild radius as greater than the radius of the known Universe. 
This supports the "steady state" model, where there is a Big Bang, the 
Universe expands out to a point where the fastest moving objects (e.g. 
the quasars, which are moving at near-light speed) get attracted back to 
the center, recreating the macro-molecule. This would tend to confirm 
what is written in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, and it would mean that we are 
currently inside a "black hole".

> Here is another which is simpler and which has long since been 
> solved, yet very few people know the answer.
>
> Epimenides of Crete became famous for the statement "All Cretans are 
> liars," which is a paradoxical statement because the person who 
> originated it (Epimenides) was a Cretan. I think a more elegant 
> statement of the same paradox is the modern form "This statement is 
> not true." Unraveling this one led to a very elegant theory 
> published by two British mathematicians some seventy or so years 
> ago. Comments?
Well, for the former, it can be easily explained by saying that the 
statement is a lie, and the truth is that some or all Cretans lie some 
of the time.

As far as the statement "This statement is not true." it can be 
explained by the fact that words are not reality, but symbols of 
reality, and symbols can be arranged in a way that removes meaning.

Bart