What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 16:01 On Aug 3, 7:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 9:46 AM, Mathal wrote: > > > My initial response was not from the perspective that black holes are > > achievable. My argument is that the time frame of such objects slows > > down and continues to slow down to the degree that the black hole > > never comes into existence. > > I wonder what you call that monster lurking at the center of our > Milky Way galaxy--A would-be supermassive black hole? If black holes are accompanied by jets of energy out of their poles then they can no longer be called "black holes." If anything can get out then they must be something short of a black hole; like a huge neutron star. Mitch Raemsch
From: Curious George on 3 Aug 2010 23:00 On Aug 3, 10:46 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My initial response was not from the perspective that black holes are > achievable. My argument is that the time frame of such objects slows > down and continues to slow down to the degree that the black hole > never comes into existence. What does exist is a region of space where > time is operating at an incredibly slow pace- relative to our own. How do we know this? To > give you something closer to home to see my point consider the earth. > Time is operating at a slower pace at sea level than it is on the top > of Mr Everest. The difference is slight, but measureable. Time is > always measureably slower near a sufficiently large masses than it is > further away from massive objects. May be it is the measuring instruments that are being affected? Assuming the measuring device has weight, would not its operation be affected affected by gravity (even if minutely)? In other words, may be the "needles" (in whatever form) are just heavier and therefore move slower? > Since I don't accept the reality of event horizons your fisrt > question is off the mark and would be better posed to someone who > believes they exist. > To your second point the speed of light is taken to be 300,000 km > per sec in the near perfect vacuum of space. Every point in the space/ > time continuum of the universe is a different frame. Because the > difference in perspective is neglible over small distances of space > and time a "frame" is taken to be a small region of space and time > where those differences can be taken to be unmeasureable. The second > is different at sea level and Mt Everest. They are two different > "frames". So, why is 300000 km/sec a constant then (since the "sec" is not)? Or if it is, what is it constant relative to? Thanks, C.G. > > I hope that helps. > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 23:03 On Aug 3, 8:00 pm, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 10:46 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > My initial response was not from the perspective that black holes are > > achievable. My argument is that the time frame of such objects slows > > down and continues to slow down to the degree that the black hole > > never comes into existence. What does exist is a region of space where > > time is operating at an incredibly slow pace- relative to our own. > > How do we know this? > > To > > > give you something closer to home to see my point consider the earth. > > Time is operating at a slower pace at sea level than it is on the top > > of Mr Everest. The difference is slight, but measureable. Time is > > always measureably slower near a sufficiently large masses than it is > > further away from massive objects. > > May be it is the measuring instruments that are being affected? > Assuming the measuring device has weight, would not its operation be > affected affected by gravity (even if minutely)? > > In other words, may be the "needles" (in whatever form) are just > heavier and therefore move slower? > > > Since I don't accept the reality of event horizons your fisrt > > question is off the mark and would be better posed to someone who > > believes they exist. > > To your second point the speed of light is taken to be 300,000 km > > per sec in the near perfect vacuum of space. Every point in the space/ > > time continuum of the universe is a different frame. Because the > > difference in perspective is neglible over small distances of space > > and time a "frame" is taken to be a small region of space and time > > where those differences can be taken to be unmeasureable. The second > > is different at sea level and Mt Everest. They are two different > > "frames". > > So, why is 300000 km/sec a constant then (since the "sec" is not)? > Or if it is, what is it constant relative to? > > Thanks, > > C.G. > > > > > > > I hope that helps. > > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The energy of the singularity will have infinite weight. But of course this is nonsense that proves wrong those who think we are seeing black holes. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 23:12 On 8/3/10 10:00 PM, Curious George wrote: > So, why is 300000 km/sec a constant then (since the "sec" is not)? > Or if it is, what is it constant relative to? Look up the three definitions for speed of light, meter and second. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=speed+of+light http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 23:19
On Aug 3, 8:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 10:00 PM, Curious George wrote: > > > So, why is 300000 km/sec a constant then (since the "sec" is not)? > > Or if it is, what is it constant relative to? > > Look up the three definitions for speed of light, meter and second.. > http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=speed+of+light > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html Weight limits changes in the universe. Time rate changes are limited by it. Energy and speed changes are limited by weight but considered secondary. Mitch Raemsch |