imatfaal Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 A nuclear explosion is the conversion of mass to energy - if the mass was not enough to form a blackhole why would the equivalent energy liberated from that mass be enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 A nuclear explosion is the conversion of mass to energy - if the mass was not enough to form a blackhole why would the equivalent energy liberated from that mass be enough I suppose, in principle, it could compress a small amount of the matter at the centre of the explosion. But my (limited) understanding of the formation of black holes by supernovae is that it is the (gravitational) collapse rather than the explosion that forms the black hole. And that wouldn't happen with a normal explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I suppose, in principle, it could compress a small amount of the matter at the centre of the explosion. Ah - yes. Analogous to the initiation through symmetric compression of a hydrogen bomb by an atomic bomb But my (limited) understanding of the formation of black holes by supernovae is that it is the (gravitational) collapse rather than the explosion that forms the black hole. And that wouldn't happen with a normal explosion. The supernova is a bounce isn't it - once the matter reaches a state that will not be further compressed the stuff still infalling bounces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I suppose, in principle, it could compress a small amount of the matter at the centre of the explosion. But my (limited) understanding of the formation of black holes by supernovae is that it is the (gravitational) collapse rather than the explosion that forms the black hole. And that wouldn't happen with a normal explosion. It is not the explosion that would directly contribute. I have assumed that in the gravitational FoR the chain reaction would be confined to global relativity rather than local. ie; in a stationary test the radial velocity of the earth confines the chain reaction locally. While falling the radial velocity of the galaxy confines the reaction. This idea has played around in the back of my head and caused a degree of confusion thus far. Now that I've identified what I was contemplating I am trying to figure out where exactly I got the idea and can only link it to the relativity of vacuum compression between two objects with differing velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Gave it some thought and I believe the micro-bh from falling nuclear detonation idea was based around foreshortening, so not much to it probably. Interested in any feedback around the subject though. For instance, would the effects of foreshortening reach a point in which a spontaneous fission reaction would occur, given a high enough velocity? . For instance, would the effects of foreshortening on an accelerating body reach a point in which a spontaneous fission reaction would occur, given a high enough velocity? Assuming the answer is negative, is the only effect of length contraction that of reducing travel time to a destination? Could this work the other way round as an alternative to warping the space in front of and behind a vehicle, would contracting the length of an object provide kinetic energy to it? Edited February 18, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 For instance, would the effects of foreshortening reach a point in which a spontaneous fission reaction would occur, given a high enough velocity? There is no change in the object's own frame of reference, so it would have no effect on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 There is no change in the object's own frame of reference, so it would have no effect on it. Is length contraction the basis of gravitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Is length contraction the basis of gravitation? No. I am at rest with respect to the floor (and the earth) - yet if I bend my legs slightly at the knees I can feel the force of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) No. I am at rest with respect to the floor (and the earth) - yet if I bend my legs slightly at the knees I can feel the force of gravity. Aaah but,,,, might the force you feel be your body attempting to contract in the absence of acceleration? Or, if your body is accelerating by working against the force of gravity your body FoR is contracting already. Is it contraction you feel as symptom of force? Would kinetic energy be classified as an elastic force? It can be absorbed physically and as charge. re: micro-bh production from freefall nuclear detonation, this would propose that the speed of the reaction is multiplied by the velocity of the mass involved. It would not produce a normal matter micro-bh, instead creating a DM micro-BH as the velocity would be absorbed as charge. Ah - yes. Analogous to the initiation through symmetric compression of a hydrogen bomb by an atomic bomb The supernova is a bounce isn't it - once the matter reaches a state that will not be further compressed the stuff still infalling bounces What I would propose is that in a gravitational FoR the particles at the centre of the chain reaction transfer their mass state to that of DM and stabilise as a micro-BH. Against this it would be assumed that DM's elusive nature would be due to it's time dilation. Would the term 'massive particle' refer to it's time dilation? Edited February 19, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Aaah but,,,, might the force you feel be your body attempting to contract in the absence of acceleration? No. It is my knees bending - not my body contracting. Your question makes little sense. Or, if your body is accelerating by working against the force of gravity your body FoR is contracting already. It is relative velocity that causes length contraction not acceleration - and it only occurs when measured from an outside frame, ie you never measure your own length contraction nor your own time dilating. Would kinetic energy be classified as an elastic force? It can be absorbed physically and as charge. No. One is an energy the other is a force. That aside KE is proportional to mass and the square of velocity - whereas elastic forces are only proportional to the displacement. Completely different. An elastic force acting over a distance can change KE - but that is pretty basic re: micro-bh production from freefall nuclear detonation, this would propose that the speed of the reaction is multiplied by the velocity of the mass involved. It would not produce a normal matter micro-bh, instead creating a DM micro-BH as the velocity would be absorbed as charge. You would judge the rapidity of a reaction in the bombs own reference frame - not an external frame. And in the bombs own frame it is stationary and only acted upon by gravity. The rest of the above quote is nonsense. What I would propose is that in a gravitational FoR the particles at the centre of the chain reaction transfer their mass state to that of DM and stabilise as a micro-BH. Against this it would be assumed that DM's elusive nature would be due to it's time dilation. Would the term 'massive particle' refer to it's time dilation? What is a gravitational frame of reference? Do you mean a non-inertial frame of reference? ie a frame of reference that is being accelerated WRTo an inertial frame. And the rest of the above is utter make-believe. If you are going to continue posting this sort of waffle the thread will get moved to Speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) No. I am at rest with respect to the floor (and the earth) - yet if I bend my legs slightly at the knees I can feel the force of gravity. What do you feel when you bend your knees? Your brain telling you that if you don't exert force you will drop? It is not the best analogy for discussing the sensation of inertia.For the purposes of defining force here it may be better to preclude references to the brains interpretation of sensations. Inertial force is simpler defined by direct physical effects that are more tangible under greater acceleration. A person accelerating from the ground in a plane is pressed into their seat and their blood begins to pool in the direction opposite to acceleration. Gravity has the same effect to a lesser degree. Is this is recognised as inertial compression or as force? If it is recognised as force what is the definition of force here? It is relative velocity that causes length contraction not acceleration - and it only occurs when measured from an outside frame, ie you never measure your own length contraction nor your own time dilating. Is inertial compression not definable as measuring your own length contraction? No. One is an energy the other is a force. That aside KE is proportional to mass and the square of velocity - whereas elastic forces are only proportional to the displacement. Completely different. An elastic force acting over a distance can change KE - but that is pretty basic An elastic force acting over a distance is about how I'd describe DM/DE interaction with normal matter. The distance would be measured in time dilation rather than space. I would assume that it is interacting with normal matter electromagnetically but only on a glaobal scale, ie; DM is not subjected to angular momentum(non-directional), retaining a superfluid state allowing it to retain a high level of charge that displaces it from normal matters time dilation so that DM's electromagnetic forces cannot act on normal matter, other than to maintain the time dilation between either. As a field that is effectivel being pushed ahead of normal matter in time it should exert only weak and strong force effects on normal matter otherwise. This would summarise my assumptions on DM and I would welcome better clarificaiton. You would judge the rapidity of a reaction in the bombs own reference frame - not an external frame. And in the bombs own frame it is stationary and only acted upon by gravity. The rest of the above quote is nonsense. The assumption I have made here is that normal matter interacts with DM through acceleration. DM providing normal matter with inertial confinement. What is a gravitational frame of reference? Do you mean a non-inertial frame of reference? ie a frame of reference that is being accelerated WRTo an inertial frame. And the rest of the above is utter make-believe. If you are going to continue posting this sort of waffle the thread will get moved to Speculations. As the nature of DM is yet to be revealed perhaps this does belong under speculations. I was attempting to ask whether a massive particle would be separated from normal matter by it's time dilation. It is a simple enough question. What defines a massive particle? Charge? Speed? Chirality? I assumed time dilation would be the primary separation between DM and normal. Edited February 20, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Is inertial compression not definable as measuring your own length contraction? No. Length contraction is a purely relativistic, coordinate effect. It has nothing to do with compression. As the nature of DM is yet to be revealed perhaps this does belong under speculations. It belongs in speculations because your posts have no basis in reality. They seem to be random strings of words with no understanding of their meaning. I was attempting to ask whether a massive particle would be separated from normal matter by it's time dilation. It is a simple enough question. And the answer is no. We interact with time dilated (i.e. moving) particles all the time. What defines a massive particle? Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Velocity passes for mass and time dilation Strange, does it not? Light particles at BB velocities might produce elements we can only infer the presence of. You have not provided any substance to your answers while I have only asked questions and referred to assumptions I have made. I do not understand your hostility? Edited February 20, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Velocity passes for mass and time dilation Strange, does it not? I don't understand what that means. "Velocity passes"? Light particles at BB velocities might produce elements we can only infer the presence of. Light particles do not produce elemments. And what does "BB velocities" mean? We can predict what elements were created in the big bang: mainly hydrogen and a small amount of helium. This is what we observe. You have not provided any substance to your answers while I have only asked questions and referred to assumptions I have made. I do not understand your hostility? Not hostile. Just pointing out that your assumptions have no basis in reality and many of your sentence are meaningless jumbles of inappropriate terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I don't understand what that means. "Velocity passes"? Light particles do not produce elemments. And what does "BB velocities" mean? We can predict what elements were created in the big bang: mainly hydrogen and a small amount of helium. This is what we observe. Not hostile. Just pointing out that your assumptions have no basis in reality and many of your sentence are meaningless jumbles of inappropriate terminology. You aren't actually pointing out anything. I didn't say photons but I did mean light mass particles .Who do you mean by we? Were you directly involved in first measurIng these things? I would predicted that it would be mostly helium and a small amount of hydrogen but I won't go into that 'speculation' for fear of confronting your limitations with communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I didn't say photons but I did mean light mass particles . Then you need to be clearer in what you say. Who do you mean by we? Were you directly involved in first measurIng these things? I mean we, the human race. (I wasn't. Although I did work on a project to measure the CMB many ears ago.) I would predicted that it would be mostly helium and a small amount of hydrogen How did you predict that? What models of nucleosynthesis did you use? Have you worked out why your result is different from the standard result (and observation)? Have you updated the way you made your rpediction based on those facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Then you need to be clearer in what you say. I mean we, the human race. (I wasn't. Although I did work on a project to measure the CMB many ears ago.) How did you predict that? What models of nucleosynthesis did you use? Have you worked out why your result is different from the standard result (and observation)? Have you updated the way you made your rpediction based on those facts? I work on clarity every day. Unfortunately I don't get the practice with physics vocabulary this subject requires. I have not regularly referred to a nucleosynthesis model of any complexity greater than that provided in the wiki planck scale BB description. I've focussed on symmetry breaking so I'm not sure what I have strung together would be called a model of nucleosynthesis. It might pass as a basic model of spatial expansion and vacuum regulation. If BB starts with exponential expansion I've assumed the pointlike nature of electron/positrons represents this symmetry breaking. Although this symmetry breaking allows 'space' for proton/anti-proton production, that space being the product of angular momentum means vacuum symmetry is not governed until helium stabilisation provides confinement of centre of momentum. Hydrogen would not have stablised expansion as it's balance of momenta refracts the original symmetries disruption from stable centre of momentum(exponential expansion) to a confinement of angular momentum. The balance of momenta present in helium provides a total internal reflection of the original symmetry. On this basis I would assume the mass of the universe at reionisation would have been largely high mass helium product with pockets of highly charged hydrogen in rapid fusion. Oxygen represents an element that contributes to the strong chemical and electromagnetic properties that the products of hydrogen fusion within the observable universe generate. I assume that DM's space would be dominated by weak and strong force properties. There may be an element that plays a similar role to oxygens relationship to hydrogen for products of primordial high mass helium but the limitations of the strong and weak force should preclude there being an element as dense as carbon to provide any definable FoR in DM's spacetime to develop separation of charge within. It may be that the primordial helium I have assumed as providing DM's mass has an isotopic weight that is not stable at normal matters velocities. This would about summarise the extent to which I have analysed standard theory and observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I work on clarity every day. Unfortunately I don't get the practice with physics vocabulary this subject requires. ! Moderator Note Well, then, you should work on it, as well as the physics itself. Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts