| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2006 11:22:13 AM |
| Object: |
Question about Black Holes |
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time continuum, meaning it
is just a point in space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
If it is just a point, then does it have any mass? (I remember learning
that a black hole is caused by a collapsed star.)
This all seems to me to be a little crazy, like the question, "how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin?" How can you study something that
you don't have any experience with?
Craig
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 11:38:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time continuum, meaning it
is just a point in space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
If it is just a point, then does it have any mass? (I remember learning
that a black hole is caused by a collapsed star.)
Background
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 03:39:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time continuum, meaning it
is just a point in space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
If it is just a point, then does it have any mass? (I remember learning
that a black hole is caused by a collapsed star.)
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
This all seems to me to be a little crazy, like the question, "how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin?" How can you study something that
you don't have any experience with?
Craig
First, we have a pretty good theory of gravitation -- general
relativity -- that predicts the gravitational properties of these
objects. Second, astronomers have identified some objects that are
likely black holes: Some x-ray sources, Sagittarius B, and the bright
nuclei of active galaxies. What they are seeing, of course, is not the
black holes themselves, but radiation from matter falling in. Study of
these objects may bolster or refute general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 06:58:50 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0700, "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
Something I have never understood is: if the light can't get out, how
does the gravitational effect get out?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 08:54:42 PM |
|
|
Ben Newsam wrote:
On 21 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0700, "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
Something I have never understood is: if the light can't get out, how
does the gravitational effect get out?
Curvature of spacetime
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 07:27:55 PM |
|
|
In article <rgq2c2170ognud8ube7hfl895d68ehc0j5@4ax.com>, Ben Newsam
<ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
On 21 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0700, "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
Something I have never understood is: if the light can't get out, how
does the gravitational effect get out?
THink of gravity as a curvature of space.
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 06:00:48 AM |
|
|
Hi Puddle_Duck ( and Ben_Newsam ), You told Jim_Black:
Think of gravity as a curvature of space.
In General_Relativity, the geometry of spacetime ( not just space )
and relativistic mass are determined by density and pressure.
A pseudo-singularity, such as the one at the start of the Big Bang
( before our now-visible universe was Planck density )
or at the center of an _Ideal_ black hole has these features:
* the SI second ( i.e. X oscillations of SI's cesium maser )
takes an eternity ( earth time ), so no time passes.
* the SI meter is infinitely wide ( by earth's standards ),
so no volume exists.
* the SI kilogram is infinitely weak ( by earth's standards ) because
the radiation pressure ( which defines it ) is infinitely dissipated;
so infinite Mass_Energy exists ( an obvious absurdity ).
So pseudo-singularities are _Static_ and infinitely dense,
both to us ( viewing from earth ) _And_ at the pseudo-singularity.
Cosmically, the geometry of spacetime ( 4D ) is ever-flat ( euclidian )
with no center of gravity; but, just as you can define the SI kilogram
using X oscillations of a maser,
( or atom laser, by conversion from its pressure ),
pressure is a 5th _Spatial_ dimension, demarcatable ( by conversions )
in SI meters, SI seconds, pascals, Kelvin, and/or entropy.
The units of entropy are Joules per Kelvin, but only the Kelvin changes;
so the entropy goes up as the temperature of the universe drops.
Think of entropy as a measure of how dissipated ( consumed ) something is.
( The sixth spatial dimension is probably Coulombs )
So... forget the silly sci-fi known as M-theory...
by conversions, there are at least 5 _Spatial_ dimensions...
Zooming out, a photon observed today from the birth of the CMB
underwent X oscillations... which, by conversions
( c * t, Pressure_Cosmos = - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2 ),
represents a length, a duration, and a pressure field ( i.e. a mass ):
Pressure_Time_Space: Five _Spatial_ dimensions.
Zooming in, the SI meter, second and kilogram
can each be defined as oscillation counts.
Sans zooming, my directional ( WiFi ) antenna ( for example )
has an infinite number of orientations at any given X,Y,Z,T;
so, there's no limit to the number of unique films ( i.e. time slices )
that can be recorded at a given X,Y,Z.
Each orientation is a point in a pseudo-random pressure field.
Like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
time is psuedo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because all randomness is pseudorandom.
Spacetime in our observable universe has always accrued exponentially.
It accrued faster when the universe was denser;
so I suspect dark energy is a property of mass-energy;
i.e. it's just spontaneous dissipation... entropy.
If it weren't so, then tons of dark energy is being spontaneously created
in violation of the first law of thermodynamics... a big no-no in my book.
( I posit that gravity is merely left-overs from the ever-denser past )
Thus black holes might be full of negative/dark energy;
i.e. a time-dilated Supernova/White_Hole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 12:53:45 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_22_smWQ@Cotse.NET...
<Snip nonsense demonstrating a lack of understanding>
pressure is a 5th _Spatial_ dimension, demarcatable ( by conversions )
No, there are three spatial dimensions. This is backed by experiment and
theory.
You have nothing to support your ideas.
<Snip nonsense demonstrating a lack of understanding>
( The sixth spatial dimension is probably Coulombs )
Oh great. He we go....
<Snip nonsense demonstrating a lack of understanding>
Jeff, when you have the SLIGHTEST idea what a spatial dimension is or why
we[tinw] think there are three, then we can talk.
Until then, you are just an idiot who wallows in ignorance. Are you room
mates with Dennis B?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 01:48:50 PM |
|
|
In article <-fWdnQaCl9mw-1_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
( The sixth spatial dimension is probably Coulombs )
Oh great. He we go....
Charge! Not just a dimension (!), but the way with which Jeff
approaches insanity too ;-)
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 04:26:06 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:220720061948504026%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
In article <-fWdnQaCl9mw-1_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
( The sixth spatial dimension is probably Coulombs )
Oh great. He we go....
Charge! Not just a dimension (!), but the way with which Jeff
approaches insanity too ;-)
He certainly has no brakes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 07:19:44 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_22_smWQ@Cotse.NET>, JeffĶRelf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Puddle_Duck ( and Ben_Newsam ), You told Jim_Black:
Think of gravity as a curvature of space.
In General_Relativity, the geometry of spacetime ( not just space )
and relativistic mass are determined by density and pressure.
Shut up Jane. No one needs your infantile rantings on GR
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 06:50:57 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jul 2006 11:00:48 GMT, Jeff
Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Puddle_Duck ( and Ben_Newsam ), You told Jim_Black:
<...>
Blimey. Nah, sorry, none of that made any sense to me at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction. |
22 Jul 2006 12:51:28 PM |
|
|
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v744c2lp548g70v8pffatefuv2mvkessqg@4ax.com...
On 22 Jul 2006 11:00:48 GMT, Jeff.Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Puddle_Duck ( and Ben_Newsam ), You told Jim_Black:
<...>
Blimey. Nah, sorry, none of that made any sense to me at all.
Its ok, it was pure relfian gibberish. Jeff has no idea what he is talking
about, but has the pathological urge to keep talking.
I think once, sometime in 1997 he got something almost correct, but it has
been down hill since then.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: No 100 thousand dollar prize for Ben_Newsam. |
22 Jul 2006 09:40:05 AM |
|
|
Hi Ben_Newsam,
Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction.
You told me: Blimey. Nah, sorry, none of that made any sense to me at all.
Well then, I guess you won't be getting the 100 thousand dollar prize.
( I'm joking, ha ha )
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: No 100 thousand dollar prize for Ben_Newsam. |
22 Jul 2006 12:54:08 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_22_kzcF@Cotse.NET...
Hi Ben_Newsam,
Re: GR's relativistic mass, time dilation and length contraction.
You told me: Blimey. Nah, sorry, none of that made any sense to me at
all.
Well then, I guess you won't be getting the 100 thousand dollar prize.
( I'm joking, ha ha )
We will add comedy to the things you are crap at.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 07:29:58 PM |
|
|
In article <rgq2c2170ognud8ube7hfl895d68ehc0j5@4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
On 21 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0700, "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
Something I have never understood is: if the light can't get out, how
does the gravitational effect get out?
It doesn't "get out", it is out.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 08:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:29:58 GMT, wrote:
In article <rgq2c2170ognud8ube7hfl895d68ehc0j5@4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
On 21 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0700, "Jim Black" <tramspap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Without a theory of quantum gravity, no one really knows the final fate
of matter inside of a black hole. But since information about what
happened inside the event horizon would have to travel faster than
light to affect anyone on the outside, the observable gravitational
properties of a black hole don't depend on these unknown details.
Something I have never understood is: if the light can't get out, how
does the gravitational effect get out?
It doesn't "get out", it is out.
Hmmmm, OK.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
22 Jul 2006 03:29:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time continuum, meaning it
is just a point in space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
"Singularity" does not necessarily imply a single point.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html
The function
F(x,y,z,t) = 1/(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -c^2*t^2)
has as a 'singularity' a sphere of radius c*t.
<snip>
This all seems to me to be a little crazy, like the question, "how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin?" How can you study something that
you don't have any experience with?
Mathematically.
BTW, the best answer I have seen to the dancing angels question is "All
of them."
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 01:17:15 PM |
|
|
A black hole does have mass. Classically it would be compressed down to
a point that is the singularity. It is also characterized by the event
horizon, the point at which if a particle crosses it cannot escape.
There may be ways to get rid of the singularity in quantum gravity.
David McMahon
http://www.quantumphysicshelp.com/relativity.htm
http://www.quantumphysicshelp.com/index.htm
cafeinst@msn.com wrote:
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time continuum, meaning it
is just a point in space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
If it is just a point, then does it have any mass? (I remember learning
that a black hole is caused by a collapsed star.)
This all seems to me to be a little crazy, like the question, "how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin?" How can you study something that
you don't have any experience with?
Craig
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 01:42:05 PM |
|
|
This universe is mostly black: 95% is black.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 02:53:34 PM |
|
|
"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153507325.237334.185160@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
This universe is mostly black: 95% is black.
Is black a colour?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 04:47:57 PM |
|
|
In article <Pp-dnZbjhMGerFzZRVny1Q@pipex.net>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1153507325.237334.185160@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
This universe is mostly black: 95% is black.
Is black a colour?
None more black. The universe goes up to 11, you know.... '-)
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 02:43:39 PM |
|
|
uri wrote:
This universe is mostly black: 95% is black.
Actually, it's beige.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about Black Holes |
21 Jul 2006 10:18:20 PM |
|
|
Dear cafeinst:
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1153498933.431140.182740@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Is a black hole a singularity in the space-time
continuum, meaning it is just a point in
space-time? Or does it have "volume"?
A black hole is bounded in our Universe by an event horizon. We
can assign a volume to the event horizon, but it is not something
physical. What we can measure about a BH are things like
Einstein rings, and gravitational time dilation of closer orbits.
We can measure its mass, and observe that it has no visible
surface.
If it is just a point, then does it have any mass?
(I remember learning that a black hole is caused
by a collapsed star.)
Some of them may have been primordial, meaning they were never
stars. Yes, its mass is what makes it remain a BH.
This all seems to me to be a little crazy, like the
question, "how many angels can fit on the head
of a pin?"
That particular question was intended to "sort out" your
religious denomination. The "chicken and egg" question was
intended to reveal whether you were a creationist or an
evolutionist.
How can you study something that
you don't have any experience with?
We have observed objects that are as massive or more massive than
identified neutron stars, but have no surface interactions.
Things smash together outside it, and tehn disappear entirely
from view. Neutron stars have very energetic surface
interactions that we can observe.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
