What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Point.i. TUnze
Next: Quartic equation
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
From: Mathal on 5 Aug 2010 00:56 On Aug 4, 12:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/4/10 9:23 AM, Curious George wrote: > > > 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? > > I'm sure there is, but it's bot part of our observable universe or > causally connected. If the presenter said whole galaxies are speeding away from us at faster than light speed there are two possibilities. Either they have always been speeding away from us at faster than light-in which case we have never been aware of them ((from a relativistic point of view) from a quantum mechanical point of view entangled particles ignore the speed of light so if there were a mechanism to allow an entangled three-some -one in the middle in the light-cone of both galaxies to share entangled information between faster than light separated galaxies we in some far fetched future may become 'aware' of the galaxy. But, I think not. that's just my opinion though. The other alternative is that we see them now but this is an image of something that happened in the past. Present speculation is that the universe is accelerating. The reason for this speculation is that with certain supernova there is a specific pattern of intensity in the blast. It has a distinct shape to the curve of the blast and scientists are relatively confident about the relative size of the star that collapses to create the supernova. From measuring the light intensity of this region of the supernova data an alternative distance has been determined for the galaxies that the supernova occured in. Everything is in accord between the Hubble constant and this model of measuring distances from near to 5 to 8 billion light years away(different sources give different estimates of this distance/time). From this point on the new measurement indicates by the drop in light intensity that the galaxy is further than the Hubble constant says that it is. This has led to the speculation that the universe started accelerating 5 to 8 billion years ago. This is probably what the Discover show was talking about but I don't have cable so I don't get Discover and I didn't see the show. The principle of relativity (SR) would not accept galaxies travelling faster than light. It is interresting. It may be the Hubble constant will just get retooled into a not so constant constant. If the data stands as it is presented a candle measurement of distance would certainly get prescedence over the Hubble constant which up until now has appeared to be a reasonable hypothesis. Mathal
From: Mathal on 5 Aug 2010 01:32 On Aug 4, 12:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Relativity measurements are not frame independant. They scale. Relativity- GR and SR allows us to translate one frame's perspective into another frames perspective. We don't 'see' what they see but we can calculate what they see and measure and experience in their frame from their point of view. Until you get that, you don't 'get' relativity-either form. Your take, and many others is that there is no 'real' realationship between frames. You think in the same universe an event is instantaneously happening in one frame and not happening in another frame just because it isn't seen at the same time. This is not what Relativity is saying-not even close. An event is observed by different frames as happening at different times from each frames perspective but the event is happening at one moment which can be defined as a space/time point. When each frame translates where and when this space/time point is , it is the same point in both calculations. I don't expect you to accept that but that is the point you keep missing. When the observer is the event -passing through the event horizon nothing changes. The outside observer can still use relativity to calculate what is happening. What I have been describing is what relativity says is happening. The event horizon is like the speed of light -the observer's frame just keeps slowing down no matter how hard he tries to achieve his goal. In both cases the observer doesn't feel time slowing down because in his frame it isn't. Mathal
From: BURT on 5 Aug 2010 01:39 On Aug 4, 9:11 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science is too young to be close to the truth. For man this is true in general about everything. I ask what will science know a million years from now? Science is about 400 years old. Modern medicine, religion and art along with the age of our worlds civilization are all very young. So now is just the beginning. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 5 Aug 2010 03:15
On Aug 4, 9:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ------------------------ if galaxies are running away from us faster than light then what is the detection tool (instead of light--) to detect it ???!!! Y.P ---------------------- |