What happens to the weight of energy in a black hole?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 08:05 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
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Aug 2010 08:10 On 8/4/10 12:23 AM, Mathal wrote: > 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) You need a better understanding of what an event horizon is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon "In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime, most often an area surrounding a black hole, beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. Light emitted from beyond the horizon can never reach the observer, and any object that approaches the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time". The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time.
From: Mathal on 4 Aug 2010 10:05 On Aug 4, 5:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/4/10 12:23 AM, Mathal wrote: > > > 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) > > You need a better understanding of what an event horizon is. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon > > "In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime, > most often an area surrounding a black hole, beyond which events cannot > affect an outside observer. Light emitted from beyond the horizon can > never reach the observer, and any object that approaches the horizon > from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass > through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as > time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange > effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount > of proper time". > > The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and > does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper > time. 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. Mathal
From: Curious George on 4 Aug 2010 10:15 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) > > 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? > 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"? Thanks, C.G.
From: Mathal on 4 Aug 2010 10:15
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 |