What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Point.i. TUnze
Next: Quartic equation
From: Mathal on 4 Aug 2010 01:04 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? More like a wanna-be black hole. Mathal
From: Mathal on 4 Aug 2010 01:23 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? 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) > > 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)? 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. > > In other words, may be the "needles" (in whatever form) are just > heavier and therefore move slower? needles? > > > 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. I hope that helps Mathal > > Thanks, > > C.G. > > > > > > > I hope that helps. > > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 4 Aug 2010 01:44 On Aug 3, 10:23 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > 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) > > > 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)? > > 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. > > > > > In other words, may be the "needles" (in whatever form) are just > > heavier and therefore move slower? > > needles? > > > > 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. > > I hope that helps > > Mathal > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > C.G. > > > > I hope that helps. > > > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy falls at the speed of light at the end of time at the event horizon. Black holes violate the motion laws of Special Relativity. Mitch Raemsch
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Aug 2010 02:33 On Aug 2, 7:10 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/2/10 3:24 AM, Autymn D. C. wrote: > > > BURT is wriht here. BHs are fake:http://twitter.com/alysdexia. And > > > they couldn't be born in finite time... > > > > -Aut > > > From who's perspective? whose--from anyone's perspective. You'v yet to answer how to deal with a nonforbidden EH. By the conservation of momentum law, anything a'falling at can fall out if the interaction has finite mass and entropy. Therefore, any body or wave can leave the EH as easily as it went in. > > Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html > > Time in different frames is slower or faster than in other frames. slower or swifter freer or faster Glue is fast; rockets are swift; birds are quick; pizza is speedy; motes are fleet. > In GR terms the Schwarzchild radius of any mass is like the speed of > light is to mass in SR terms. > The closer a mass gets to being inside it's Schwatzchild radius the its -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Aug 2010 02:48
large := broad; large -> great , i.e. -> ; i.e. data is -> data are |