What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Curious George on 3 Aug 2010 23:31 On Aug 3, 11:12 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 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? 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.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 23:43 On 8/3/10 10:31 PM, Curious George wrote: > On Aug 3, 11:12 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 > > 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.
From: BURT on 4 Aug 2010 00:09 On Aug 3, 8:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 10:31 PM, Curious George wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 11:12 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 > > > 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
From: Mathal on 4 Aug 2010 01:04 On Aug 3, 7:52 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/10 9:03 AM, Mathal wrote: > > > > > As you approach the Schwarzschild radius of a supermassive black > > hole you wouldn't notice anything different. I am certain that the > > event of you crossing the Schwarzschild radius never happens in any > > frame. > > Gosh, that would make it pretty difficult for black holes to > increase there masses. The observation on black hole masses > suggests otherwise. You are starting with the assumption that that black holes exist. You seem to be under the impression objects can pass through an event horizon. At an 'event horizon' the rate of flow of time is zero. Everything stops. This is impossible. You seem to be avoiding the impossibility of black holes by pretending you can just pass through an event horizon as if it isn't there. Just outside the event horizon of the black hole time is flowing infinitely slowly. I accept that galaxies have massive objects that are operating at incredibly slow rates of speed. They are very very very gray objects. Not black. Mathal
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 |