What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: More than 100 'Earth-like' planets discovered in past few weeks
Next: Quantum Gravity 404.7: Human Brain Neurons Satisfy Human Brain Neuron Repulsion/Expansion Criteria of Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 15:13 On 8/4/10 9:05 AM, Mathal wrote: > The observer does not pass through the event horizon. There is no > event horizon. If there were the observer would never get there and he > would never be aware that he never got there in his proper time. If > you understood the math you would see that that is necessarily true. You are confusing black holes with singularities, perhaps? There is lots of evidence for back holes. What's inside the event horizon is another matter. One thing for sure, Mathal, is that you need to understand the relativistic measurements are observer dependent! Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
From: BURT on 4 Aug 2010 16:15 On Aug 4, 7:23 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/3/10 10:31 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 11:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 8/3/10 10:00 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > Definition of "second" on one of the links: > > > > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > > > > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > > > > the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > 1) when it says "duration" in what "frame of reference" should this be > > > > taken? > > > > Frame where the observer is not moving with respect to the cesium > > > 133 atoms, i.e., the laboratory. And from the principle of relativity > > > the laboratory can be anywhere in the universe. > > > > > 2) "celsium 133 atom" has mass. So would not any of it changes of > > > > states/energy levels be subject to gravity? Especially around objects > > > > whose masses are of astrnomical scales? > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > C.G.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Energy has a speed metric in the distance of absolute space. Matter > > and light move with absolute motion through the unmarked space frame > > with light at the limit. > > > They also move relative to each other. The closing velocity is the > > real truth behind matter and enegy's motion in the universe. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Again, forgive my naiveness. I am just trying to understand the > "logic" or common sense of these statements. > > By the way, I was watching a show on "Discovery". I think I had heard > the presenter say that there are whole galaxies "speeding faster than > light" away from us? If that is true, how can one reconcile that with > the principles of relativity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is no evidence for space expanding faster than light. Mitch Raemsch
From: Curious George on 4 Aug 2010 17:57 On Aug 4, 4:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:23 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 8:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8/3/10 10:31 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 11:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On 8/3/10 10:00 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > Definition of "second" on one of the links: > > > > > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > > > > > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > > > > > the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > 1) when it says "duration" in what "frame of reference" should this be > > > > > taken? > > > > > Frame where the observer is not moving with respect to the cesium > > > > 133 atoms, i.e., the laboratory. And from the principle of relativity > > > > the laboratory can be anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > 2) "celsium 133 atom" has mass. So would not any of it changes of > > > > > states/energy levels be subject to gravity? Especially around objects > > > > > whose masses are of astrnomical scales? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > C.G.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Energy has a speed metric in the distance of absolute space. Matter > > > and light move with absolute motion through the unmarked space frame > > > with light at the limit. > > > > They also move relative to each other. The closing velocity is the > > > real truth behind matter and enegy's motion in the universe. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Again, forgive my naiveness. I am just trying to understand the > > "logic" or common sense of these statements. > > > By the way, I was watching a show on "Discovery". I think I had heard > > the presenter say that there are whole galaxies "speeding faster than > > light" away from us? If that is true, how can one reconcile that with > > the principles of relativity?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There is no evidence for space expanding faster than light. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
From: BURT on 4 Aug 2010 18:11 On Aug 4, 2:57 pm, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 4:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 7:23 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/3/10 10:31 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 11:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 8/3/10 10:00 PM,CuriousGeorgewrote: > > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > Definition of "second" on one of the links: > > > > > > > "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation > > > > > > corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of > > > > > > the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." > > > > > > > 1) when it says "duration" in what "frame of reference" should this be > > > > > > taken? > > > > > > Frame where the observer is not moving with respect to the cesium > > > > > 133 atoms, i.e., the laboratory. And from the principle of relativity > > > > > the laboratory can be anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > 2) "celsium 133 atom" has mass. So would not any of it changes of > > > > > > states/energy levels be subject to gravity? Especially around objects > > > > > > whose masses are of astrnomical scales? > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > C.G.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Energy has a speed metric in the distance of absolute space. Matter > > > > and light move with absolute motion through the unmarked space frame > > > > with light at the limit. > > > > > They also move relative to each other. The closing velocity is the > > > > real truth behind matter and enegy's motion in the universe. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Again, forgive my naiveness. I am just trying to understand the > > > "logic" or common sense of these statements. > > > > By the way, I was watching a show on "Discovery". I think I had heard > > > the presenter say that there are whole galaxies "speeding faster than > > > light" away from us? If that is true, how can one reconcile that with > > > the principles of relativity?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > There is no evidence for space expanding faster than light. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If its faster than light we could never observe it.
From: Mathal on 5 Aug 2010 00:11
On Aug 4, 10:50 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 10:47 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 7:15 am, Curious George <cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 1:23 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:00 pm,CuriousGeorge<cgeorg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > How do we know this? > > > > > What defines a black hole as being a black hole is it's event horizon. > > > > This is a sphere where time is thought to come to a stand-still. What > > > > occurs inside this sphere is impossible to determine as nothing that > > > > is inside ever gets out.(the radius of the sphere is called the > > > > Schwarzschild radius) > > > > If time = 0 "somewhere" and time "here" is positive and the two are > > > proportional, is not that the same as saying something like: > > > 0 = x/C = y > 0? (where C is some constant) > > > In essence that is what I am saying. Zero in your equation is > > unachievable. Black holes are unachievable. What does exist is a close > > approximation to zero but it never gets there. > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > Precisely gravity is slowing time down. A sidelight I should have used > > > > the north and south poles in my presentation as these are the only > > > > points on the earth that reain still wth respect to each other and so > > > > leave the effects of Special relativity out of consideration. In > > > > actual fact Special relativity slows clocks down more on Mt. Everest > > > > compared to sea level than gravity slows time down at sea level with > > > > respect to Mt. Everest time. So the clock on Mt. Everest would be > > > > moving slower than sea level clocks. Antarctica -south pole is > > > > sufficiently higher above sea level compared to the north pole to see > > > > just the effect of gravity on time. > > > > Why does a clock being "slowed" automatically imply that time itself > > > is slowed? > > > If the clock on my room wall is broken, does that mean time has > > > stopped in my room? > > > > Why can't it be just that the "hardware" of the clock is affected by > > > gravity? > > > It is the "hardware" of the universe that is affected by gravity > > and relative velocity. > > > > > needles? > > > > Whatever mechanisms in the clock that allows us to tell the time it is > > > indicating (In French we call the hands of clocks "needles"). > > > > What I am asking is that even in an atomic clock the mechanisms that > > > allow it to indicate time must be affected by gravity? > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > No matter which frame you measure the speed of light, no matter how > > > > much one second in one frame differs from one second in another in > > > > each and every frame light travels at the same speed-not just 300,000 > > > > km per sec in a vaccuum. Light travels at a different speed in each > > > > different medium. These speeds are constant in every frame as well. > > > > The speed of light is constant in all medium in all frames. > > > > How can "speed" have meaning without reference to time (by definition, > > > speed = distance/time)? > > > > I agree: "Light travels at a different speed in each different > > > medium." > > > But is "medium" the same as "frame of reference"? > > > 'Frame of reference' is the area in which a measurement is made. > > 'Medium' is just a word that describes the ability of an object to > > allow light to pass through it. Even a brick wall will allow low > > frequency radio waves to pass through it. > > > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I am really curious about the answers to the quaetions I have asked. > But you are just repeating/stating things and the "Science" you are > using is beginning to look like faith-based system to me. > > C.G. No. I do not rely on what 'science' tells me is true. Not all things science 'believes' are true turn out to be true. I don't repeat what I've heard. I think about, analyse and decide if it makes sense to me. I don't ever give links to sites that put forward this or that perspective. I give my perspective. That is all any truthful person can do. I am not saying that I know the TRUTH, all I can offer are conclusions I have come to and the reason's I have come to these conclusions. It is up to you to come to your own conclusions about science and everything else in life. I don't really care if anyone else agrees or disagrees with me. What interests me most are interesting points of view. Ones that have (from my perspective) some hope of being real and not just zany flights of fancy. It is interesting communicating with you. Mathal |