 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2004Do black holes repel matter?
Open forum. I need some constructive feedback from you guys on some ideas that I have been working on over Christmas. I started with a simple scetch of a space-time diagram and probably got a bit carried away. Before posting, I checked my paper against the John Baez "crackpot index" and the score is low enough to at least get a few serious comments. The part that predicts repelling black holes may be a problem :) Download it from; http://www.beejewel.com.au/~steven Steven Sesselmann It doesn't make any sense. You haven't defined what the axes represent. You have assigned 'properties' to quadrants without any basis. There is no such thing as space-like energy in GR (there are no space-like objects at all). You misuse the word 'domain' (look it up). You misuse the word 'asymtote' (look it up). You postulate that time-like repels time-like; since all massive objects are time-like, you are postulating that matter repels matter (gravity is the opposite of that). Study physic before you try to come up with ideas. Paul Cardinale > It doesn't make any sense. > You haven't defined what the axes represent. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Paul Cardinale Paul, Hmm..you'r right, so I have removed the document from the server. Just on the subject of matter, it does of course repel at short distances... All that I was suggesting was that the curvature not only depends on the mass, but also on radius of that mass, which is not really a new idea. The proton is a very massive object, and we tend to think of ordinary matter (made from atoms) as massive objects too, but compared to the proton, ordinary matter is very much rarefied. Hypothetically if one could expand a proton from its regular radius (somehow doing this without breaking it apart) in a gradual manner to r = infinity, I suggest that the transition from mass-like to wave-like should be completely smooth. Then one realizes that stretching a proton from r to r = infinity might be a bit impossible and that at some point one might hit some kind of limit, say like the Planck limit, where the energy density is just too small to be called a wave. That is how I came up with a minimum and a maximum limit to density :) In any case its good that you commented on the document for me. Thanks... Steven Sesselmann > Open forum. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steven Sesselmann There's not enough data to give an opinion, let alone a fact. Suppose you drop a huge nuclear bomb that will detonate just before reaching the center point of a blak hole. What do you think an observer at a safe distance will see? Cordially, west >> Open forum. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >point of a blak hole. What do you think an observer at a safe distance will >see? According to GR, nobody outside the event horizon of a black hole can EVER see anything that might happen inside one under and circumstances. > >> Open forum. > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > EVER see anything that might happen inside one under and > circumstances. And what might be the cause of that? It is an infinite redshift isn't it? But now we have GR predicting light of infinite wavelength. Energyless light? PoppyCock. This prediction is GR's failure and it is the case against black holes. Gravity is limited and the principle of equivalence must be generalized by removing rate from gravity's weight. > David Evens wrote: > > According to GR, nobody outside the event horizon of a black hole can > > EVER see anything that might happen inside one under and > > circumstances. > And what might be the cause of that? > It is an infinite redshift isn't it? It isn't. Ilja >> >> Open forum. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> circumstances. >And what might be the cause of that? It's called an 'Event Horizon". It is the boundary that divides the points in spacetime from which it is possible, in principle, to start from and get arther from the singularity from those from which it is not possible to start from and get farther from the singularity. Since points inside the event horizon cannot have signals get farther away from the black hole, events at those points cannot be observed from outside the event horizon. >It is an infinite redshift isn't it? How would your halucinations causde anything? >But now we have GR predicting light of infinite wavelength. Where did you halucinate that? >Energyless light? Yeas, that would be your sort of halucination. >PoppyCock. >This prediction is GR's failure and it is the case against black >holes. What would your erronerous halucinations about GR have to do with GR predictions? >Gravity is limited and the principle of equivalence >must be generalized by removing rate from gravity's weight. You wouldn't have something physical if you tried to remove motion from physics in the manner you demand. > >> >> Open forum. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Gravity is limited and the principle of equivalence > >must be generalized by removing rate from gravity's weight. GR predicts an infinite gravitational redshift at the event horizon. The Einstein shift is infinite. Just show me where I am wrong. It predicts energyless light. That's the end of black hole physics. What are you going to do about it? I bet nothing. >> >> >> Open forum. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >event horizon. The Einstein shift is infinite. >Just show me where I am wrong. Perhaps you should show the prediction instead of making the claim. The mrediction would obviously contain the actual error that you have made. >It predicts energyless light. And you have predicted this by...? >That's the end of black hole physics. >What are you going to do about it? >I bet nothing. Yopu mean like you do in supporting your claim that there is no universe? > > Open forum. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cordially, > west West, I am not sure if you downloaded the pdf or not, as I have since removed it from the server. However if you did, you may find that you can in fact make some predictions using the diagram. What the diagram was indicating was that mass-like matter repells mass-like matter, which is just common sense. Solid matter can't permeate solid matter. However, the diagram indicated that matter is not really solid until it reaches the Schwartchild radius. If one was to accept this idea (and the GRists would not) it would place an upper limit to the mass of a solid body equal to the Schwartchild radius. Once a body reaches this limit it simly repells matter with infinite repulsion, so nothing can slip below this radius. Steven Sesselmann |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.