My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Thanks Tree12Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
November 13th, 2014, 05:30 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 732

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_B_S View Post
Thanks for your post!

This logic is not disproofable:

When a Black Hole spins with light speed.

What is "in" the Black Hole?

Answer only Energy = light with momentum! => E_u=pC the Big Bang
It's not proven either. Do you know for sure that a black hole only contains light? Do you have evidence for it? Black holes have an observational parameter "black hole mass", because celestial objects such as accretion disks can be observed orbiting a black hole. If a black hole is only made of light, which is massless, what is responsible for this observed property?

Quote:
This is what E²=p²C²+m²C²C² is telling us.
That formula $\displaystyle E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2$just tells you the relationship between the energy carried by a particle travelling at the speed of light, its momentum and its mass. Nothing more.

Quote:
You need good New papers on Black Hole Universe theory?

Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv

Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv
Now you're talking! I don't know enough about general relativity or metrics to be able to go through the paper and follow his theories, so I cannot give you an opinion on his work, but the paper is of higher quality than the first one you linked. He also has papers published in Phys Rev D, which is a reputable journal with peer review.

Quote:
black files := matter => red files := light

The onion of a Black Hole (Star) := parts different wavelenghts of light

inner blue => outer red
I would take this with a huge pinch of salt because there is no evidence for black hole internal structure. Like I said before, anyone who claims that they know what is in the interior of a black hole for sure is wrong. However, there is no harm with experimenting with mathematical models and seeing where it leads.

I have a textbook on general relativity, so I should read it and follow the mathematics in it. Then I can debate this stuff in more detail.
Benit13 is offline  
 
November 13th, 2014, 05:38 AM   #32
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
choosing the correct coordinates gives a metric for the non-rotating black hole:
$\displaystyle d \tau ^2 = \left ( \frac{32 G^3M^3}{r T^2} \right ) Exp \left [ \frac{-r}{2GM} \right ] (dt'^2 - dr'^2 ) - r^2 d \theta ^2 - r^2 sin^2 (\theta) d \phi ^2$

The coordinate system being used here is kind of wacky, but there is no longer a singularity at r = 2GM! So the event horizon really isn't a singularity at all.

That doesn't mean that we can simply ignore our usual coordinate system, which does have an apparent singularity.
"Apparent singularity" meaning that it might not go to $\infty$, but it otherwise behaves like you'd expect a black hole to act? I think that's the essence of the new Hawking 'black holes might not exist' thing (which, naturally, is overblown).
CRGreathouse is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 05:53 AM   #33
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benit13 View Post
I have a textbook on general relativity, so I should read it and follow the mathematics in it. Then I can debate this stuff in more detail.
Good luck. I found it extremely challenging.
Thanks from Benit13
CRGreathouse is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 12:17 PM   #34
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 929

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
"Apparent singularity" meaning that it might not go to $\infty$, but it otherwise behaves like you'd expect a black hole to act? I think that's the essence of the new Hawking 'black holes might not exist' thing (which, naturally, is overblown).
Yes to all. The event horizon "singularity" in this case is due to the escape speed only. Popular Science has treated this like some kind of barrier. Mind you for the standard coordinate system that any mortal would use has such a singularity. The point of the wacky coordinate system is that there is no singularity there. (ie the metric components g(ij) are all non-zero real values.) You still can't get out of the black hole once you are inside, but the metric is actually well behaved at all values of r, except for r = 0.

-Dan
Thanks from CRGreathouse

Last edited by topsquark; November 13th, 2014 at 12:25 PM.
topsquark is offline  
November 13th, 2014, 12:51 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
What is the purpose of this statement? I have not insulted you; I have merely said you are ignorant. Ignorance is not a sin, nor is it an insult as you clearly don't know as much about the topic as you think you do. A statement isn't an insult when it is accurate. You have shown very little evidence that you know the material or what it implies.

I am not going to engage in an argument on the open Forum. But if you want to start a new thread where we can debate things and you can show me where I'm "stupid" I'm game.

-Dan
I only wanted to say its the math => not you !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

Thanks from topsquark

Last edited by M_B_S; November 13th, 2014 at 01:02 PM.
M_B_S is offline  
December 21st, 2014, 12:22 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Germany

Posts: 179
Thanks: 1

Math Focus: Number Theory
Stars moving with light speed ?!

The Fastest Stars in the Universe May Approach Light Speed | WIRED



The Fastest Stars in the Universe May Approach Light Speed
BY MARCUS WOO 12.11.14 | 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

After doing some calculations, Harvard University astrophysicists Avi Loeb and James Guillochon realized that yes, stars could go faster. Much faster. According to their analysis, which they describe in two papers recently posted online, stars can approach light speed. The results are theoretical, so no one will know definitively if this happens until astronomers detect such stellar speedsters—which, Loeb says, will be possible using next-generation telescopes.

********************

A star with mass could travel with light speed?!

Yes it could because the star is part of our Black Hole Universe spinning with light speed (outer ring)

The "Denkmodel" is a rotating carousel and the star on an inner ring is running faster then the rotating carousel (Universe)

M_B_S
M_B_S is offline  
January 5th, 2015, 01:44 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 732

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Anything can travel near to the speed of light if it is given enough kinetic energy
Thanks from topsquark
Benit13 is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Tags
black, hole, light, living, speed, spinning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fractal dimension of snowflake falling into black hole BenFRayfield Physics 1 February 17th, 2014 11:13 AM
Whats inside a black hole? BenFRayfield Physics 0 September 21st, 2013 05:25 PM
Doc Browns Dilemna- My Delorean won't reach light speed HenryMolaison Physics 6 June 24th, 2013 04:36 PM
Frames of reference and the speed of light proglote Physics 23 August 26th, 2011 06:01 AM
How does the inverse square law of light effect light intens moore778899 Elementary Math 0 January 16th, 2011 07:20 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.