black hole gedanken

[Norman Albers]

Not yet knowing the answer and needing to know how to work better with this material, I propose a gedanken experiment on apporaching black holes. From a station somewhat distant, we lower slowly a small weight on a long, strong string. We are not orbiting, but maintaining our position by other means. How much string will we let out as it appproaches the event horizon? How much more there is there, radially speaking? We may call this black hole string theory.

[DanJFarnan]

String theory is flawed, in this aspect. There is so much more completity to space matter with every sperate measure of energy in this Universe.

 

Look at each sun as a parasite - thus consuming energy. The path is much shorter before Earth may greet a 'black hole'.

[danny8522003]

Spaghettification of the string and weight, but what properties does the sting have?

 

Can it stretch, take an infinite force before breaking etc...

[Norman Albers]

Let's assume the BH has negligible angular momentum.

[DanJFarnan]

string theory is not this - this is a simplification of true space matter:

 

Heated 'Space matter' attracts - think about 'Osmosis' - high attraction... now were speaking basics. OK, so the sun heats this, clearly - the molecules in space beyond human sight (we see light folks). now we have the laws of attraction and rotation of the 'eG' - egg shaped rotation down to a perfect understanding.

 

Thus beginning to see the galaxies workings, how everything works, string theory is to simplify everything. Light is energy, these energies affect the surrounding space matter and attract higher definition.

 

Take a look at Earth, it is so attracted to it's core, it finds solace in spinning against the suns attraction.

[BenTheMan]

Dan---you don't know what you're talking about.

[DanJFarnan]

If you could provide a defence in this. I would be more than happy to listen, listener. Follow up your statements 'BenTheMan'.

[foodchain]

string theory is not this - this is a simplification of true space matter:

 

Heated 'Space matter' attracts - think about 'Osmosis' - high attraction... now were speaking basics. OK, so the sun heats this, clearly - the molecules in space beyond human sight (we see light folks). now we have the laws of attraction and rotation of the 'eG' - egg shaped rotation down to a perfect understanding.

 

Thus beginning to see the galaxies workings, how everything works, string theory is to simplify everything. Light is energy, these energies affect the surrounding space matter and attract higher definition.

 

Take a look at Earth, it is so attracted to it's core, it finds solace in spinning against the suns attraction.

 

Why does heated space matter attract? I mean from one example I know that I guess with the hotter it gets typically elements pass through phases into say a gas. Is this somewhat similar to your argument? I mean things have to be pretty damn cold to get solid helium, which is a trip to look at actually, solid helium that is.

[DanJFarnan]

You have just hit the nail on the head. Helium is lighter than oxegen, this outside of our O-zone this does not count. Space matter is differerent. Helium CAN be heated by the sun in the zero-gravity area.

 

Thus having its own space matter purpose.

 

Thank you,

Dan J Farnan.

[BenTheMan]

Norm---

 

I seem to recall the tension in the string going to infinity, or some such.

[foodchain]

You have just hit the nail on the head. Helium is lighter than oxegen, this outside of our O-zone this does not count. Space matter is differerent. Helium CAN be heated by the sun in the zero-gravity area.

 

Thus having its own space matter purpose.

 

Thank you,

Dan J Farnan.

 

what is space matter? I mean I have heard of all kinds of names for I guess stuff with mass if that’s what you are talking about, but its not like the pressure factor is not in effect, or that say overall the laws of physics somehow fail to apply right? You say heated matter attracts, you say this is I guess why the sun is the sun or what not, which is great, so then are you saying that thermal energy is gravity?

[DanJFarnan]

Space matter consists of many gases which find themselves inside a sun - the 'concentrated' place, if you will. Take a look at a storm cloud, we have a comparason. Although suns implode due to much much energy having being contained in SOME CASES. it depeneds of the planets depenancy and the gases surrounding it.

 

This could not be more clear to those who see the stars from the ground.

Thank you,

Dan J Farnan

[losfomot]

Not yet knowing the answer and needing to know how to work better with this material, I propose a gedanken experiment on apporaching black holes. From a station somewhat distant, we lower slowly a small weight on a long, strong string. We are not orbiting, but maintaining our position by other means. How much string will we let out as it appproaches the event horizon? How much more there is there, radially speaking? We may call this black hole string theory.

 

If you lower the string slowly, then I believe the answer is that you can lower as much string as you want, you will never reach the event horizon.

[DanJFarnan]

"Spin factor’ : spf + ‘Egg movement’:Eg (of planets around the emitting sun) :

 

Eg = Spf + Eg

 

Our matter versus the Sun’s energy. Projection, we retract into out own heated matter (the core of the earth) thus spinning"

farnan-d@ulster.ac.uk

- Dan J Farnan.

 

the last comment before mine is fair but solves nothing.

[Spyman]

Not yet knowing the answer and needing to know how to work better with this material, I propose a gedanken experiment on apporaching black holes. From a station somewhat distant, we lower slowly a small weight on a long, strong string. We are not orbiting, but maintaining our position by other means. How much string will we let out as it appproaches the event horizon? How much more there is there, radially speaking? We may call this black hole string theory.

You might find this page interesting: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm

[Norman Albers]

Hey DanJFarnan, I think you are clueless. To other folks, cool I shall check your suggested refs. I came a surprisingly neat answer, if my handling of the concepts is correct. BenTheMan, you seem to be implying that gravitational force blows up as you approach the horizon. I am doubtful about this, but don't yet know how to write it. I have really strong SPIDERMAN STRING, and we don't have to go all the way there to learn something. Thwppp!............OK, Spyman, that's a killer reference article, thank you. According to this rather knowledgeable writeup, I should credit BenTheMan for his note on tension rising asymptotically........<time passes> OK I came up with an expression for grav. acceleration and I'd like to know if it's good. Start with the expression I gave elsewhere: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28046&page=3 relating time and distance for an infalling small body. Differentiate both sides by t, and you can write: [math]1=L'®\frac{dr}{cdt}[/math], where L® is the RHS of the first equation. Differentiate again and work out: [math] \frac{d^2r}{cdt^2}=-\frac{L''}{L'}\left( \frac{dr}{cdt}\right)^2. [/math] This has the characteristic as radius nears the horizon of the numerator being finite but the denominator having a zero........<more time passes> DAMN, I figured backwards, the denominator blows up so I cannot say the acceleration does. What is being expressed is in "far-field" coordinates, and this makes sense to me because the infall does seem forever suspended to the far string-holder. Maybe both things are true, and this is just not the expression for the force experienced by the test probe. Even Spiderman Silk cannot stand here.

[Norman Albers]

I come up with an integrable expression if I integrate, from some far point, in to r=2m, the differential for proper distance: [math] dr_p=\sqrt{-g_{11}}dr[/math]. I'm not telling my answer until someone else sticks their neck out to say if this is correct thinking.

[DanJFarnan]

I'm not here to debate, only contribute to theories you are over complicating. Stop looking for answers so deeply, your attack on my words back this up.

 

Were all scientists - Psycology and science are hand in hand no matter how many nights you spend in a locked room thinking.

 

 

Kindest Regards,

Dan J Farnan.

 

"Before discussing black holes in detail we should acknowledge that the existence of such objects has still not been definitely established. There are undoubtedly bodies in the universe whose densities and gravitational intensities are extremely great, but the empirical evidence for actual black holes, although impressive, is still largely circumstantial and could conceivably have other explanations. So, we shouldn’t be too dogmatic about the actual physical limits of gravitation. What we describe in this section are the predictions of general relativity, the details of which have not (as yet) been fully corroborated by direct observations. "

 

Translation : Before i use large words and get very complicated for my own status and gain ill share some larger words only i feel you, the Queens English know of. Ok, it's quite clear there are gravity bodies that are large and small, basic stuff wee man.

 

"It's largely circumstantial" - Another given, jesus is this man in primary school? "We shouldn't be dogmatic" - Advice, follow my lead, thus limits probing thought.

 

"predictions of general relativity" - A paradox, you can NOT predict the relative. Fool.

 

"the details of which have not (as yet) been fully corroborated by direct observations. " - I don't know about it can YOU tell me something? Human nature down to a tee spelt with the English dictionary.

 

Seeking dramatic language, only opens a man to reading.

Kind Regards,

 

Dan J Farnan.

 

*waits for inevitable angry backlash*

 

"Location: At the apex of a particular light-cone" -

 

Why use such elitist language to avoid confronting man kind? The apex of a light cone is clear to a baby when it wakes on day one.

 

... Wake up friend,

And i'm not a preacher, are you? possibly

 

"Furthermore, we should acknowledge that, even within the context of general relativity, the formal definition of a black hole may be impossible to satisfy. This is because, as discussed previously, a black hole is strictly defined as a region of spacetime that is not in the causal past of any point in the infinite future. "

 

- Translation to HUMAN language:

 

Ill say more stuff and LISTEN to my powerful thoughts that riddle you with confusion. Thus a black hole, ummm i dunno.

 

"Having said this, there is nothing to prevent us from considering an infinite open universe containing full-fledged black holes in all their transfinite glory. I use the word “transfinite” because ideal black holes involve singular boundaries at which the usual Schwarzschild coordinates for the external field of a gravitating body go to infinity - and back - as discussed in the previous section. There are actually two distinct kinds of "spacetime singularities" involved in an ideal black hole, one of which occurs at the center, r = 0"

 

Put simply : For real people, not elitists,

There could be more stuff i dunno... umm can you add to this? heres an equation for good measure. r = 0, small cakes my friend, want a slice of understanding? live your life then come back to me. I smile at you, and do not frown. Of course they involve singular boundaries, with the collapse of light and the energy becoming obsolete. Jesus. Speak clearly.

 

- Nothing is glorious about singularity, choose your words carefully. The choices you make reflect who you are while describing theories you have no beginning to understand.

 

If the ultimate spital speed is 0 then you have have more questions to ask but what can we make of 0>

[lakmilis]

Let's assume the BH has negligible angular momentum.

 

Im not sure if it was with you I was discussing it, but I am glad you say negligible angular momentum. Most people on these popular scientist sites always do these BH mind experiments with Schwarzchild holes. That is true, but they tend to think that real holes in the universe are of this type which they are not. Real black holes are kerr holes and that is essential.

 

For the possible creation of artificial holes, sure....they most likely must be schawz. holes

 

lak

 

and to the post before mine, wtf, I know NA can be a lil funny to read, cos he replies himself when he is off calculating problems, but from hiw work he posts, I *know-' he knows what he is doing as such. but for that last post by some dan bloke, MY GOD MAN, eat them pills they give you and don't throw them away!!!! This is *not* a high school forum but equally for people researching/working in these fields or close to them... if you find something elitist then just ignore it. But if you find it strange someone says you are clueless, from the little I read above, it is because you are a little hmm clueless perhaps on a topic. ask rather than state.

[Spyman]

Im not sure if it was with you I was discussing it

Hehe, I recall it was with me, which don't mean that I think real BH are Schwarzchild ones.

[Norman Albers]

I have posed a valid and good question and await answers.

[DanJFarnan]

You gave me the reply i wanted, i broke down the 'elitist' attitude you all had toward me before.

 

Kind Regards

[Norman Albers]

Losfomot I appreciate you hazarding an answer. I get a finite result integrating from afar, into and even including r=2m. This says that locally a measurement of small distance change is [math]\sqrt{-g_{11}} dr [/math], "proper distance". This is, in the Schwarzschild metric, integrated as: [math] \int_{2m}^{r_{far}} (1-2m/r)^{-1/2} dr [/math]. Also a further note to Spyman, that I think I can transform the result I described, where my expression for gravitational acceleration, [math] d^2r/dt^2[/math] went to zero. There is one order of differential in distance to be stated as proper distance, or multiplied by the square root above, and then also the denominator has two orders of time differential, which both transform to proper time with multiplication by [math]\sqrt{g_{00}}[/math]. So you gain three factors of the square root and that changes the initial expression in flat-space coordinates, which goes to zero, into an expression in proper coordinates which blows up with the square root of the zero in the denominator. This is the result in your reference. P.S. I did need integral tables to analyze the seemingly embarrassing infinity.

[DanJFarnan]

I want you to tell me about the eighth dimension, then see embarasement.

[Norman Albers]

I want you to tell me about the eighth dimension, then see embarasement.

SHUT UP.