What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Point.i. TUnze
Next: Quartic equation
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 15:11 On 8/4/10 9:15 AM, Mathal wrote: > On Aug 4, 5:05 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/4/10 12:04 AM, Mathal wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> Black Hole Background >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence > > There are gravitationally collapsed objects in this universe. They are > not black holes yet and never will be. Theoretical physicists prefer > black holes because they are simple to work with when modeling the > universe. > Understand this what does exist is not much different than a black > hole and from here 'looks' the same and functions pretty much the > same. > Mathal 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!
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. |