stevebtaylor

gravity-wave is the term intended. the physical manifestation of a wave travelling through a fluid, just like here on earth. similar to waves crashing on a beach.

gravitational-waves and gravity-waves are indeed two completely different things. yes, just like here on earth, gravity-waves travel through fluid matter. the definition is; when a gravity field is in fluctuation, a gravity-wave is produced. applying this to the chaotic fluctuation of a collapsing star, a gravity-wave is produced. this wave travels through the in-falling cloud. the question is either 1) what effect does this have on suceeding events?, or 2) explain how the gravity-wave has no effect on the formation of a neutron star.

gravitational waves or gravity waves? this reference is to the physical variety that can be seen travelling through matter.

no, not a gravity-wave from another object. when a star goes supernova its gravity field is changed and in response that produces a physical gravity-wave which travels through matter. this does not refer to gravitational wave radiation, but rather to 'the stone dropped in pond water' variety. as the stellar mass collapses, how does the gravity-wave travelling through it contribute to the formation of a neutron star?

considering that a gravity field in fluctation will produce a gravity wave, will a gravity wave contribute to the formation of a stellar mass collapsing to a neutron star? how?

to clarify, the triple-point of light refers to the state inside a blackhole. the mass of a collapsing star has been converted to energy and that energy has been spatially contracted in the dimension of travel. so what is holding it there? the light, read energy, has absorbed an incredible amount of energy and also been compressed. it should explode. so, does the energy of spatial contraction exceed this value? we dont know because spatial contraction does not have an energy formula.

to clarify, the saturation-point of light refers to the final state in the formation of a blackhole. that matter turns to energy under extreme conditions is proven by nuclear bombs. so energy is the very next step in the conversion of mass to energy. in stellar collapse to a blackhole, the energy is packed into a small space and held there. how? the energy is in there. as a blackhole it is gravitationally equivalent to the mass that produced it. and it is holding together. should not the next easiest answer be field re-arrangement?

to clarify, the gravitational-wave singularity refers to the initial conditions during the final collapse to a blackhole. by definition, a gravity field in fluctuation produces a gravity-wave. a collapsing star will then produce a physical gravity-wave travelling through matter. the matter is moving inward. the point here is our understanding of blackhole collapse. it is more of an argument against excluding or, worse, ignoring, the defined fact that a gravity-wave is an integral part of colloapsing a star to a blackhole. ...and lamenting that science has not yet incorporated this information to the current model.

actually, spacial contraction is in one dimension only, according to the lorentz-transformation equations and einsteins explanation. an accelerated meter stick shortens in the direction of travel, its width and height are unaffected. thus, there can be no folding of space. there is also no blow off into space from a star collapsing to a blackhole. the key signpost of a blackhole is high-energy radiation from the orbiting cloud of original unincorporated matter. what exists inside a blackhole could be known. the next possible state should be proposed before 'nothing' is seriously proposed.

are the following steps in the formation of a blackhole generaly accepted? 1. the final chaotic stellar collapse intitiates the event. 2. the accelerated mass is imploded and converts to energy. 3. spatial contraction is the final step in making a blackhole.

the original purpose of this proposal was to outline the basic layout of blackhole formation and then attempt to fill in the pieces. the basic layout for blackhole formation is; chaotic collapse of stellar mass begins the process. spatial contraction is the end state. in between, mass is converted to energy. the analogy is to a nuclear explosion where an implosion is used to detonate an explosion. for a blackhole to form, this explosion is further imploded. this seems to be the basic outline for blackhole formation. my question to you: is the 3-step ouline for a blackhole valid?

the original idea behind this work was to present the basic outline of blackhole formation and then to try filling in the pieces. the basic outline is : chaotic collapse of stellar mass initiates the process. spatial contraction is the last stage of blackhole formation. in between, mass is converted to energy. the analogy is to nuclear explosion, an implosion detonates an explosion. for a blackhole, spatial contraction further implodes this. this seems to be the basic outline for blackhole formation. gravity waves as initiators, energy bonding of waves and saturation points of light have been offered as possibilities to fill in the missing pieces. my question is this, is the 3 -step basic outline valid?

whew, you sure know your stuff, and thanks for staying up so late. your answers are appreciated. my apologies for getting side-tracked. the main thing bugging me is formation of blackholes. there is no formula that describes the events, as i understand them. the chaotic collapse of stellar mass will cause a physical gravity wave to travell through the matter. blackhole formation ends with spatial contraction. in between, the anology is to nuclear explosion, initiated by an implosion to cause an explosion. the black hole implodes that, too. are these correct? is it worth research and experiments?

thanks again, and what radiates from the event horizon? are not those masses eventually radiated away as high-energy energy? if the amplitude of the wave is not increased then it is indeed a loss of energy. excuse me for omitting that detail in this instance. first, is the photon still considered to carry the electro-motive force? next, permit me to use a very simplified thought experiment to ask a question. in a metal wire, there are concentric rings or fields of force surrounding it. are there concentric fields or forces around each of the electro and magnetic waves of the photon as it is in motion? is this a clearer picture? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeda definition has standing waves produce matter. two similar waves travelling in opposite directions will establish a standing wave. this is repeating what ive said in another thread. one thread will be chosen.

the triple-point of light is the supposed state of a singularity. a collapsing stars' mass is converted to energy by a relativistic event and results in a blackhole. the spatial contraction has bound the energy waves together by re-arranging the em fields. this is basically the starting point of the triple point of light, where the fields of the sinewaves of light are horizontal for both planes of the em waves, and so in absorbing an amount of energy via amplitude amplification, the fields hold the waves frozen in place. this requires only that the weak fields of individual waves relax under pressure and extend across the new object with a strong field, a blackhole singularity. now, my question is this. do those fields exist around each sinewave (electro=y, magnetic=z, time =x) that describes a photon in motion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedis that a clear question? ive benn surfing and can find nothing on this.