Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: Brad Guth on 20 Feb 2010 18:11 On Feb 20, 2:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 9:30 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 8:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 7:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 10:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:fdf74670-8b35-4cbb-87bf-0b7b6ce4e4c2(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Feb 18, 9:29 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is > > > > > > > > > > contained > > > > > > > > > > within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is.. r_s = > > > > > > > > > > 2Gm/ > > > > > > > > > > c^2. If the solar system had the density of water, it would be a > > > > > > > > > > black hole. > > > > > > > > > > > Double-A > > > > > > > > > > If the mass of an object is contained within a certain radius, > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > that make it more dense than if the mass extends outside of the > > > > > > > > > radius? > > > > > > > > > Large masses have large Schwarzschild radii. As a mass gets larger, > > > > > > > > the density required for it to fit within its S. radius gets less. > > > > > > > > > Double-A > > > > > > > > "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the > > > > > > > gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every > > > > > > > quantity of mass. It is the radius of a sphere in space, that if > > > > > > > containing a correspondingly sufficient amount of mass (and therefore, > > > > > > > reaches a certain density)..." - wikipedia > > > > > > > > Seems like density matters. What I am asking is if you have a certain > > > > > > > amount of mass within the Schwarzchild radius which causes the mass to > > > > > > > become a black hole, if that same mass occupies 10 times the space of > > > > > > > its Schwarzchild radius then it will not become a black hole. So, the > > > > > > > overall density of a certain amount of mass matters when determining > > > > > > > if it will become a black hole or not, correct? > > > > > > > It really doesn't require all that much density for something the size > > > > > > of Earth to have a surface gravity force that's greater than 300,000 > > > > > > km/sec. I think 1.7e8 g/cm3 would do the trick. > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > The original response I am responding to stated: > > > > > > "Black holes are determined by whether an object's mass is contained > > > > > within its Schwarzschild radius, not by how dense it is." > > > > > > What I am saying is the density must matter. If the same mass is not > > > > > contained within its Schwarzchild radius, if in fact that same amount > > > > > of mass is spread out over 100 times its Schwarzchild radius it will > > > > > not become a black hole because the matter which is the mass is less > > > > > dense. > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > No, density doesn't determine if an object is a black hole. Black holes can > > > > > be as dense (or denser) than neutron stars, or less dense than the earth's > > > > > atmosphere. What determines if an object is a black hole is whether its mass > > > > > is contained in its Schwarzschild radius. > > > > > If its mass is not contained in its Schwarzchild radius then it is not > > > > a black hole because it is less dense. > > > > > > (I am assuming a non-rotating > > > > > black hole, as Schwarzschild did in his original paper. The solution of GR > > > > > for rotating black holes came later). > > > > > > Given that you do not understand the mathematics of black holes, you > > > > > shouldn't really be trying to tell people who do what the equations say.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Point mass is infinitely dense or concentrated C squared energy. This > > > is a fundamental particle core.. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > An electron or a positron qualifies as a black hole. > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no anti matter. There is no opposite for the strong force or > gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch I don't agree that there is no anti matter. Call it something else if you like, such as anti force or anti spin. It there's an electron there has to be a positron (reverse spinning or introverted electron). There's also anti/reverse magnetism (diamagnetism). ~ BG
From: BURT on 20 Feb 2010 19:57
On Feb 6, 9:34 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear BURT: > > On Feb 6, 10:28 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > > > In which wave is the particle? Is it in the > > magnetic or electric wave of light? > > In which wave is the energy that liberates an electron in the > photoelectric effect? > > Both "wave" and "particle" are models on the human mind, and have > danged little to do with how Nature behaves. Why must you try and > drag Her down to your level? > > David A. Smith Both wave and particles are concepts in physics. Mitch Raemsch |