Just a dumb question from someone who can't get his head around relativity. If matter falling into a black hole is accelerated to the speed of light and, from the perspective of anyone outside the black hole, time stops at the event horizon, then how can black holes move through space time? To go from point a to point b requires the passage of time, but time has stopped. Wouldn't any movement by the singularity leave all the matter at the event horizon behind? Likewise, how can a black hole eventually disappear or "evaporate" as they say? From the perspective of anything outside the black hole, even after an infinite length of time, not even one second has expired for all of the matter falling into the hole. So how many infinities of time have to pass for the black hole to evaporate? As you can see, I find it very confusing.
Those are basically things that confused me as well. However, this time I actually looked for an answer. http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/GR.html
QUOTE (Grymph+May 27 2008, 11:56 AM)
Just a dumb question from someone who can't get his head around relativity. If matter falling into a black hole is accelerated to the speed of light and, from the perspective of anyone outside the black hole, time stops at the event horizon, then how can black holes move through space time? To go from point a to point b requires the passage of time, but time has stopped. Wouldn't any movement by the singularity leave all the matter at the event horizon behind? Likewise, how can a black hole eventually disappear or "evaporate" as they say? From the perspective of anything outside the black hole, even after an infinite length of time, not even one second has expired for all of the matter falling into the hole. So how many infinities of time have to pass for the black hole to evaporate? As you can see, I find it very confusing.
Confusing is from perspective of current science and not from my perspective. Black hole absorbing only free particles. From any black hole is possible to escape if you escaping with arbitrary large speed.
Edit: I mean, If you escaping with speed arbitrary close to speed of light.
Confusing is from perspective of current science and not from my perspective. Black hole absorbing only free particles. From any black hole is possible to escape if you escaping with arbitrary large speed.
Edit: I mean, If you escaping with speed arbitrary close to speed of light.
QUOTE (DavidD+May 27 2008, 12:35 PM)
Confusing is from perspective of current science and not from my perspective. Black hole absorbing only free particles. From any black hole is possible to escape if you escaping with arbitrary large speed.
Edit: I mean, If you escaping with speed arbitrary close to speed of light.
If only we had your insight, because, as you say, science is confused.
Edit: I mean, If you escaping with speed arbitrary close to speed of light.
If only we had your insight, because, as you say, science is confused.
For me it's looks silly with virtual particles, which after some time becoming radiation...
Light faling into black hole with speed of light. Particles faling into black hole with speed very close to c, but <c. The bigger mass of the particle with slower speed (but still very close to speed of light c). So if particle is very close to black hole then he faling into black hole with speed very close to speed of light. But in never faling with speed of light. Becouse black hole gravitation is not infinity.
Light faling into black hole with speed of light. Particles faling into black hole with speed very close to c, but <c. The bigger mass of the particle with slower speed (but still very close to speed of light c). So if particle is very close to black hole then he faling into black hole with speed very close to speed of light. But in never faling with speed of light. Becouse black hole gravitation is not infinity.
QUOTE (DavidD+May 27 2008, 12:52 PM)
For me it's looks silly with virtual particles, which after some time becoming radiation...
Light faling into black hole with speed of light. Particles faling into black hole with speed very close to c, but <c. The bigger mass of the particle with slower speed (but still very close to speed of light c). So if particle is very close to black hole then he faling into black hole with speed very close to speed of light. But in never faling with speed of light. Becouse black hole gravitation is not infinity.
Intriguing
What if I was taking my indestructible cat out for a space walk, cruelly struck his head beyond the event horizon and then yanked on his tail. Could Mitten's face have escaped the black hole at a speed much much less than that of light?
Not that Mittens feels any pain however, he's indestructible and I give him cat treats.
Light faling into black hole with speed of light. Particles faling into black hole with speed very close to c, but <c. The bigger mass of the particle with slower speed (but still very close to speed of light c). So if particle is very close to black hole then he faling into black hole with speed very close to speed of light. But in never faling with speed of light. Becouse black hole gravitation is not infinity.
Intriguing
What if I was taking my indestructible cat out for a space walk, cruelly struck his head beyond the event horizon and then yanked on his tail. Could Mitten's face have escaped the black hole at a speed much much less than that of light?
Not that Mittens feels any pain however, he's indestructible and I give him cat treats.
I don't understand how it is possible to calculate escape velocity from earth etc, sun, star or black hole? I think with arbitrary close to speed of light velocity it is possible to escapse from gravitation. Or then you must agree, that black holes can't exist, becouse particles can't move with speed of light. Or anyway. Okey, particles can't escape from black hole, but they falling to black hole with speed very close to c, but not equal to c.
Beer,
Does that website answer my question? I don't see it. Or were you just telling me to do my own research and not bother you with dumb questions?
David,
From my understanding, none of the matter ever reaches light speed, but it comes so arbitrarily close that it would take an infinite amount of time to tell the difference. Matter does not stop at the event horizon, it stops (from an outsider's perspective) when it approaches light speed. When the black hole first formed, there was matter already closer to the center than the forming event horizon. That matter, too, was accelerated toward the center and reaches relativistic speeds much closer to the singularity. The only distinctiveness about the event horizon is that no matter that started outside the black hole will ever be seen getting past it; and if I was at the event horizon with a flashlight, the light would travel outward at it's normal c speed, but it would lose energy as it goes, reaching 0 energy before it ever completely escapes the gravitational field.
Do I at least understand that much correctly?
From the just posted website, I apparently am wrong. A photon hovers at the event horizon. Who knew?
Does that website answer my question? I don't see it. Or were you just telling me to do my own research and not bother you with dumb questions?
David,
From my understanding, none of the matter ever reaches light speed, but it comes so arbitrarily close that it would take an infinite amount of time to tell the difference. Matter does not stop at the event horizon, it stops (from an outsider's perspective) when it approaches light speed. When the black hole first formed, there was matter already closer to the center than the forming event horizon. That matter, too, was accelerated toward the center and reaches relativistic speeds much closer to the singularity. The only distinctiveness about the event horizon is that no matter that started outside the black hole will ever be seen getting past it; and if I was at the event horizon with a flashlight, the light would travel outward at it's normal c speed, but it would lose energy as it goes, reaching 0 energy before it ever completely escapes the gravitational field.
Do I at least understand that much correctly?
From the just posted website, I apparently am wrong. A photon hovers at the event horizon. Who knew?
Sorry.
I think I said I'm in the same boat as you. Then I got preoccupied with someone else. I ask dumb questions all the time myself.
I think I said I'm in the same boat as you. Then I got preoccupied with someone else. I ask dumb questions all the time myself.
QUOTE (Grymph+May 27 2008, 02:52 PM)
Beer,
Does that website answer my question? I don't see it. Or were you just telling me to do my own research and not bother you with dumb questions?
David,
From my understanding, none of the matter ever reaches light speed, but it comes so arbitrarily close that it would take an infinite amount of time to tell the difference. Matter does not stop at the event horizon, it stops (from an outsider's perspective) when it approaches light speed. When the black hole first formed, there was matter already closer to the center than the forming event horizon. That matter, too, was accelerated toward the center and reaches relativistic speeds much closer to the singularity. The only distinctiveness about the event horizon is that no matter that started outside the black hole will ever be seen getting past it; and if I was at the event horizon with a flashlight, the light would travel outward at it's normal c speed, but it would lose energy as it goes, reaching 0 energy before it ever completely escapes the gravitational field.
Do I at least understand that much correctly?
From the just posted website, I apparently am wrong. A photon hovers at the event horizon. Who knew?
Hi Grymph,
You are closer to understanding more than you think. Time only stops at the event horizon for the observer, so there's no issue with the BH itself. Even a human approaching the event horizon sees his time as normal.
As for photons 'hovering' at the event horizon, think of it this way: If we sent a rocket up with just less than escape velocity from earth, it would become a 'captured' orbit. The Schwarzchild radius is calculated for where light can just barely not reach escape velocity, so it, also, becomes a captured orbit.
Make sense?
Peace,
Ron
Does that website answer my question? I don't see it. Or were you just telling me to do my own research and not bother you with dumb questions?
David,
From my understanding, none of the matter ever reaches light speed, but it comes so arbitrarily close that it would take an infinite amount of time to tell the difference. Matter does not stop at the event horizon, it stops (from an outsider's perspective) when it approaches light speed. When the black hole first formed, there was matter already closer to the center than the forming event horizon. That matter, too, was accelerated toward the center and reaches relativistic speeds much closer to the singularity. The only distinctiveness about the event horizon is that no matter that started outside the black hole will ever be seen getting past it; and if I was at the event horizon with a flashlight, the light would travel outward at it's normal c speed, but it would lose energy as it goes, reaching 0 energy before it ever completely escapes the gravitational field.
Do I at least understand that much correctly?
From the just posted website, I apparently am wrong. A photon hovers at the event horizon. Who knew?
Hi Grymph,
You are closer to understanding more than you think. Time only stops at the event horizon for the observer, so there's no issue with the BH itself. Even a human approaching the event horizon sees his time as normal.
As for photons 'hovering' at the event horizon, think of it this way: If we sent a rocket up with just less than escape velocity from earth, it would become a 'captured' orbit. The Schwarzchild radius is calculated for where light can just barely not reach escape velocity, so it, also, becomes a captured orbit.
Make sense?
Peace,
Ron
I'm still wondering, can two black holes collide? From an outsider, can a black hole as a whole move through space-time in standard time even while all the matter that makes it up is moving at relativistic time-dilated time?
And the rocket analogy doesn't help me much because there's no analogy for the acceleration. Fire a gun straight up and the bullet gradually slows down, stops, and is pulled back at an accelerating speed. If you exceed escape velocity, it will leave orbit, but at a much slower speed than when it left the gun. Fire a rocket straight up, and if acceleration exceeds gravity, you can predict its speed by subtracting gravity's acceleration from the rocket's acceleration; with no gravity it will accelerate fastest of all. Point a light straight up, and what do you subtract? M/S^2 minus M/S? Light has no acceleration rate to calculate what it's new speed should be. A term like "escape velocity" doesn't seem to have its normal meaning in this context. So what M/S^2 exactly balances out light's M/S to allow it to hover?
And the rocket analogy doesn't help me much because there's no analogy for the acceleration. Fire a gun straight up and the bullet gradually slows down, stops, and is pulled back at an accelerating speed. If you exceed escape velocity, it will leave orbit, but at a much slower speed than when it left the gun. Fire a rocket straight up, and if acceleration exceeds gravity, you can predict its speed by subtracting gravity's acceleration from the rocket's acceleration; with no gravity it will accelerate fastest of all. Point a light straight up, and what do you subtract? M/S^2 minus M/S? Light has no acceleration rate to calculate what it's new speed should be. A term like "escape velocity" doesn't seem to have its normal meaning in this context. So what M/S^2 exactly balances out light's M/S to allow it to hover?
er I've heard galaxies can collide over millions of years. But the chances of stars themselves colliding is next to 0. However, if the galaxies were to have a super massive black holes in there centers, they could probably find each other quite easier. As to what would happen at that point, I'm guessing they only get bigger.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/merg...ole_021119.html
A pair of gargantuan black holes have been found to inhabit the same galaxy and will eventually merge with a violence that will slingshot stars out of the galaxys center and unleash a torrent of radiation and gravitational energy.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/merg...ole_021119.html
A pair of gargantuan black holes have been found to inhabit the same galaxy and will eventually merge with a violence that will slingshot stars out of the galaxys center and unleash a torrent of radiation and gravitational energy.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+ May 27 2008, 10:12 PM)
Those are basically things that confused me as well. However, this time I actually looked for an answer. http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/GR.html
Hi to all participants and Readers,
First of all:- All Forces and or Potential Energy implied as mass:- Exists solely via two or more opposing velocities experiencing one another, these velocities that experience each other is what is responsible for a region of the Universe to consist with an increase in density, A Gas opposed to Near vacuum or Liquid opposed to Gas, Or Solid opposed to a Liquid, or the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of density and or Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy, it also should be noted such apposing and or approaching velocities experienced IS Gravity.
So~ If we carefully consider two opposing velocities or a Potential via theory, we should note all Potentials and or Forces therefore must be considered repulsive, simply via the fact that a force can only be possible or detected via an experienced inertia, and inertia is only possible via two differing potentials being presented unto each other..
PUT SIMPLY ALL FORCES ARE REPULSIVE, including gravity!
Just consider the downward push is the result of our Earths Potential " noting all mass is possible via opposing velocities and or considered as a compression point" VS the rest of the whole Universes Potential.. Meaning the compression we are experiencing are velocities from above us! Gravity is not some magical pulling, attraction and or beckoning!..
BTW the below Image used in the above linked article is in gross error, as the artist has simply followed previous artists impression rather than referring to the data provided...
User posted image: User posted image
If one doesn't understand what I am getting at then I would suggest one should complete the image by placing the rest of the Planes of grid-ding in implying Relativity with gravity using the same rules the image suggest opposed to...
The correct model which should have the compression point at the core, it should be noted once the image is with the proper grid-ding, only then both general and Special relativity comply properly to gravitational force..
Another model one could refer to is, one could imagine the image was attempting to depict a Massive Blue-Shifting of Electromagnetic waves and or what laymen would advocate as a Black-Hole?
Err~ Have Fun,
and Cheers to all,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi to all participants and Readers,
First of all:- All Forces and or Potential Energy implied as mass:- Exists solely via two or more opposing velocities experiencing one another, these velocities that experience each other is what is responsible for a region of the Universe to consist with an increase in density, A Gas opposed to Near vacuum or Liquid opposed to Gas, Or Solid opposed to a Liquid, or the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of density and or Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy, it also should be noted such apposing and or approaching velocities experienced IS Gravity.
So~ If we carefully consider two opposing velocities or a Potential via theory, we should note all Potentials and or Forces therefore must be considered repulsive, simply via the fact that a force can only be possible or detected via an experienced inertia, and inertia is only possible via two differing potentials being presented unto each other..
PUT SIMPLY ALL FORCES ARE REPULSIVE, including gravity!
Just consider the downward push is the result of our Earths Potential " noting all mass is possible via opposing velocities and or considered as a compression point" VS the rest of the whole Universes Potential.. Meaning the compression we are experiencing are velocities from above us! Gravity is not some magical pulling, attraction and or beckoning!..
BTW the below Image used in the above linked article is in gross error, as the artist has simply followed previous artists impression rather than referring to the data provided...
User posted image: User posted image
If one doesn't understand what I am getting at then I would suggest one should complete the image by placing the rest of the Planes of grid-ding in implying Relativity with gravity using the same rules the image suggest opposed to...
The correct model which should have the compression point at the core, it should be noted once the image is with the proper grid-ding, only then both general and Special relativity comply properly to gravitational force..
Another model one could refer to is, one could imagine the image was attempting to depict a Massive Blue-Shifting of Electromagnetic waves and or what laymen would advocate as a Black-Hole?
Err~ Have Fun,
and Cheers to all,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Grymph+ May 28 2008, 04:33 AM)
I'm still wondering, can two black holes collide?
And the rocket analogy doesn't help me much because there's no analogy for the acceleration. Fire a gun straight up and the bullet gradually slows down, stops, and is pulled back at an accelerating speed. If you exceed escape velocity, it will leave orbit, but at a much slower speed than when it left the gun. Fire a rocket straight up, and if acceleration exceeds gravity, you can predict its speed by subtracting gravity's acceleration from the rocket's acceleration; with no gravity it will accelerate fastest of all. Point a light straight up, and what do you subtract? M/S^2 minus M/S? Light has no acceleration rate to calculate what it's new speed should be. A term like "escape velocity" doesn't seem to have its normal meaning in this context. So what M/S^2 exactly balances out light's M/S to allow it to hover?
YES
It should be noted time is dependent on maximum velocity and if we consider the measured Red-shifting in one direction and in the Opposite we have our measured Blue-Shifting then obviously our mass and Time is also experiencing Blue-Shifting {research Blue-Shift} {research Relativity} this means as our mass is pushed into the core of our galaxy our velocities or Kinetic energy is converted to Potential Energy {research Force and Motion & importantly Potential & Kinetic Energy} Anyway as our local velocities are slowed as in maximum local velocity is now slower compared to the rest of the Red-Shifting {research Red Shift} universe our local time remains relative to local distances {research accelerating expansion of the Universe} the result is as per already implied we should perceive the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate via Red-Shift, when the facts are the expansion beyond is in reciprocal to our compression so in reality as our time is slowed and our distances are shorter.. The other portion of the Universe is in reciprocal..
So does this mean we in danger of being crushed by the implied Black-Hole? well no it doesn't, after all for all we know or don't know, there may have been observers that watched our portion of the galaxy being swallowed up beyond the observers perceived event horizon.. be mindful our local areas electromagnetic waves are simply overly Blue-Shifted..
If I have confused one even more so, then I would suggest one considers to research all {the suggested subjects in these brackets}
Importantly keep in mind Black-Holes are simply a compression point much like any mass or region of the Universe as an increase in density to it.. rather than some mysterious sucking and or pulling object.. just keep in mind basic physical laws..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
And the rocket analogy doesn't help me much because there's no analogy for the acceleration. Fire a gun straight up and the bullet gradually slows down, stops, and is pulled back at an accelerating speed. If you exceed escape velocity, it will leave orbit, but at a much slower speed than when it left the gun. Fire a rocket straight up, and if acceleration exceeds gravity, you can predict its speed by subtracting gravity's acceleration from the rocket's acceleration; with no gravity it will accelerate fastest of all. Point a light straight up, and what do you subtract? M/S^2 minus M/S? Light has no acceleration rate to calculate what it's new speed should be. A term like "escape velocity" doesn't seem to have its normal meaning in this context. So what M/S^2 exactly balances out light's M/S to allow it to hover?
YES
QUOTE
From an outsider, can a black hole as a whole move through space-time in standard time even while all the matter that makes it up is moving at relativistic time-dilated time?
YESIt should be noted time is dependent on maximum velocity and if we consider the measured Red-shifting in one direction and in the Opposite we have our measured Blue-Shifting then obviously our mass and Time is also experiencing Blue-Shifting {research Blue-Shift} {research Relativity} this means as our mass is pushed into the core of our galaxy our velocities or Kinetic energy is converted to Potential Energy {research Force and Motion & importantly Potential & Kinetic Energy} Anyway as our local velocities are slowed as in maximum local velocity is now slower compared to the rest of the Red-Shifting {research Red Shift} universe our local time remains relative to local distances {research accelerating expansion of the Universe} the result is as per already implied we should perceive the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate via Red-Shift, when the facts are the expansion beyond is in reciprocal to our compression so in reality as our time is slowed and our distances are shorter.. The other portion of the Universe is in reciprocal..
So does this mean we in danger of being crushed by the implied Black-Hole? well no it doesn't, after all for all we know or don't know, there may have been observers that watched our portion of the galaxy being swallowed up beyond the observers perceived event horizon.. be mindful our local areas electromagnetic waves are simply overly Blue-Shifted..
If I have confused one even more so, then I would suggest one considers to research all {the suggested subjects in these brackets}
Importantly keep in mind Black-Holes are simply a compression point much like any mass or region of the Universe as an increase in density to it.. rather than some mysterious sucking and or pulling object.. just keep in mind basic physical laws..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Intriguing.
So if I threw a cat treat into a black hole and my faithful companion Mittens goes pouncing after it. What you are saying is that Mittens is now riding the blue shift inside the event horizon and actually getting closer to me by way gravities repulsion. In fact when Mittens was jumping in the black hole he was actually coming closer and in fact I threw the cat treat at myself instead of the black hole?
I hope this doesn't complicate his favorite pass time, he likes to whiz around on a geodesic and "meow" at the sun.
So if I threw a cat treat into a black hole and my faithful companion Mittens goes pouncing after it. What you are saying is that Mittens is now riding the blue shift inside the event horizon and actually getting closer to me by way gravities repulsion. In fact when Mittens was jumping in the black hole he was actually coming closer and in fact I threw the cat treat at myself instead of the black hole?
I hope this doesn't complicate his favorite pass time, he likes to whiz around on a geodesic and "meow" at the sun.
Mittens is one complicated feline. Chasing laser pointers just isn't good enough, eh?
Grymph,
Acceleration is just a means to get to escape velocity. Light does not need to accelerate. If a rocket falls short of escape velocity, it may fall straight back to earth, but if it has gotten close enough, it would more likely get captured in orbit. (As a rocket goes towards the outer atmosphere, the spinning of the earth causes a parabolic trajectory , which is preferable for escape, so if it falls short, it will miss the Earth on its fall back, overshoot, and repeat. Hence orbit.
Follow?
Mittens, don't try this at home.
Peace,
Ron
Laidback,
Please don't confuse honest questions with absurd 'theories'. Your gonna mix this guy all up. At least state, unequivically, that this is your unsanctioned brain farts before answering.
Thanks,
Ron
Grymph,
Acceleration is just a means to get to escape velocity. Light does not need to accelerate. If a rocket falls short of escape velocity, it may fall straight back to earth, but if it has gotten close enough, it would more likely get captured in orbit. (As a rocket goes towards the outer atmosphere, the spinning of the earth causes a parabolic trajectory , which is preferable for escape, so if it falls short, it will miss the Earth on its fall back, overshoot, and repeat. Hence orbit.
Follow?
Mittens, don't try this at home.
Peace,
Ron
Laidback,
Please don't confuse honest questions with absurd 'theories'. Your gonna mix this guy all up. At least state, unequivically, that this is your unsanctioned brain farts before answering.
Thanks,
Ron
Spinning complicates things. Because of it, the term escape velocity normally refers to how fast an object must be travelling perpendicular to the center, in orbit, such that the acceleration of gravity can no longer bend it's trajectory into a circular orbit. But if we're talking about going straight up, from a stationary planet, or shining a light straight up, it's different. If I throw a ball straight up with a certain speed, it will decelerate and fall back down. If I do the same thing at the top of a tall tower, where the gravity is less, it will go farther before reaching 0 velocity. If I throw it fast enough it will keep going forever. But the higher I am, the less velocity I need to achieve that. If the ball was light enough, approaching weightless, it would take an infinite amount of negative acceleration to prevent it from rising at all. A rocket would be identical, except that the upward thrust is continual instead of just original thrust plus inertia.
So straight up escape velocity is all about acceleration. Light, on the other hand is not going to gradually lose momentum. Nor does it have a rocket's acceleration. Light doesn't have an acceleration, just a speed. We're talking about hovering, not orbiting. Is there any official figure on what the force of gravity must be to make light hover?
But this is all beside my main question of whether matter that is essentially frozen in time can move in standard time from an outside persepective.
So straight up escape velocity is all about acceleration. Light, on the other hand is not going to gradually lose momentum. Nor does it have a rocket's acceleration. Light doesn't have an acceleration, just a speed. We're talking about hovering, not orbiting. Is there any official figure on what the force of gravity must be to make light hover?
But this is all beside my main question of whether matter that is essentially frozen in time can move in standard time from an outside persepective.
Hi again, G,
Maybe the rocket isn't the best example. Inside a BH (ie: past the event horizon), we don't know what happens. Just outside the event horizon, gravity is not strong enough to pull light in, but it certainly won't let it get away, hence the hovering or orbiting photons.
Original question, time only seems to stop for the observer. the black hole has it's own local time, and it will act as such. Also, remember the inverse square falls off very quickly, giving observers a fairly normal big picture.
Peace,
Ron
Maybe the rocket isn't the best example. Inside a BH (ie: past the event horizon), we don't know what happens. Just outside the event horizon, gravity is not strong enough to pull light in, but it certainly won't let it get away, hence the hovering or orbiting photons.
Original question, time only seems to stop for the observer. the black hole has it's own local time, and it will act as such. Also, remember the inverse square falls off very quickly, giving observers a fairly normal big picture.
Peace,
Ron
Indeed, light in the vicinity of such strong gravitational fields exhibits quite bizarre behavior.
The extreme case is a black hole where photons from within a certain radius lose all their energy and become invisible.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/bl.../blackhole.html
That's something I've not heard about before an thought it was interesting. My own ignorance is a fascination to me
The extreme case is a black hole where photons from within a certain radius lose all their energy and become invisible.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/bl.../blackhole.html
That's something I've not heard about before an thought it was interesting. My own ignorance is a fascination to me
QUOTE (Ron+May 28 2008, 09:17 PM)
Laidback,
Please don't confuse honest questions with absurd 'theories'. Your gonna mix this guy all up. At least state, unequivocally, that this is your unsanctioned brain farts before answering.
Thanks,
Ron
Hi there Ron,
Absurd theories?
Look Ron, I can understand your defense, as I have conversed with the best of physicists with much the same view, well that is - Until I get them to think and do the maths for themselves!
First:- Lets address Gravity, or perhaps we should get the concepts of Motion and Force right first?
So that when we consider the Rules and Laws on Potential Energy and Kinetic energy the basics for Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy is well established..
So lets attack, and I mean lets really get stuck into what you find is the most absurd Err~? or as you insist "Brain farts"
I will have to remember that one Ron.. I like it!
Anyway~
First lets consider how Motion of anything is possible, then lets consider how a Potential and or implied force may be created and or increased..
Are you up to this Ron?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Please don't confuse honest questions with absurd 'theories'. Your gonna mix this guy all up. At least state, unequivocally, that this is your unsanctioned brain farts before answering.
Thanks,
Ron
Hi there Ron,
Absurd theories?
Look Ron, I can understand your defense, as I have conversed with the best of physicists with much the same view, well that is - Until I get them to think and do the maths for themselves!
First:- Lets address Gravity, or perhaps we should get the concepts of Motion and Force right first?
So that when we consider the Rules and Laws on Potential Energy and Kinetic energy the basics for Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy is well established..
So lets attack, and I mean lets really get stuck into what you find is the most absurd Err~? or as you insist "Brain farts"
I will have to remember that one Ron.. I like it! Anyway~
First lets consider how Motion of anything is possible, then lets consider how a Potential and or implied force may be created and or increased..
Are you up to this Ron?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
You didn't address my understanding of your theories through uh... -theoretical- observations with my cat.
Please do.
Thanks.
Please do.
Thanks.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 29 2008, 10:05 AM)
You didn't address my understanding of your theories through uh... -theoretical- observations with my cat.
Please do.
Thanks.
If your Posts are directed to me
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware your post was directed to me, as there was no reference made to my user name or at least some quoted text of mine..
Err~ I will go back and respond as best as I can..
Err~in my next post..
Err~cheers,
Peter J Schoen.
Please do.
Thanks.
If your Posts are directed to me
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware your post was directed to me, as there was no reference made to my user name or at least some quoted text of mine..
Err~ I will go back and respond as best as I can..
Err~in my next post..
Err~cheers,
Peter J Schoen.
Hi Laidback,
Thanks for taking my less than courteous response so well. I sometimes carry other thread feelings to not so deserved targets.
I feel comfortable discussing your ideas, but in a dedicated thread. I don't like to confuse thread starters.
I'll take your last post and start from there.
Beer,
You've got a cat that rivals Schrodinger's! Mittens is 'one cool cat'.
Peace,
Ron
Thanks for taking my less than courteous response so well. I sometimes carry other thread feelings to not so deserved targets.
I feel comfortable discussing your ideas, but in a dedicated thread. I don't like to confuse thread starters.
I'll take your last post and start from there.
Beer,
You've got a cat that rivals Schrodinger's! Mittens is 'one cool cat'.
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+May 28 2008, 11:31 AM)
Intriguing.
So if I threw a cat treat into a black hole and my faithful companion Mittens goes pouncing after it. What you are saying is that Mittens is now riding the blue shift inside the event horizon and actually getting closer to me by way gravities repulsion.
The key here is local Space-Time has to abide to Relativity Rules..
So as you thrust a treat towards the core of our galaxy all local velocities remain to what is relatively possible, put simply all mass and the available kinetic Energy needs to be considered for the actions.. it should be noted a human is made of x amount of molecules and each and every molecule is made up of x amount of Particles, and for every Particle we have an x amount of opposing velocities for its makeup, each and every velocity should in itself be considered a Potential with momentum to it as per PE/KE=V
The treat simply can not be thrown into a Black-Hole or your kitten doesn't jump in to a black hole, in all reality all velocities remain relative..
so when you are with the mindset that you have thrown a treat into some hole is not how one should imagine it..
The idea you should have is if you throw a treat towards a Black Hole you are actually describing to someone that you threw a treat to the ground!
Simply because the earths core is the closest Black-Hole with a relative influence to our mass.. but as you should note all previous mass that has entered the Black-Hole and or Blue-shifted before your mass actually prevents you from reaching the earths singularity.
Try and consider the deeper you go in our oceans the greater the pressure, I would also recommend one also takes note of the differences of our atmosphere from above it to it at sea level, and how we can use this to prove the earths mass behaves much like a Black Hole and or as a compression point.
hmm I dunno if I have made this clear enough, so in order not to confuse any further I will leave it at that..
Just be mindful that all forces are repulsive and all motion is only possible via repulsion in the first place, so when one refers to a Particle one needs to be aware that from all directions opposing velocities is what makes the particle possible and in all reality it itself is a Black-Hole in it own right!
Err one could research on the LHC and how we are going to create Black-Holes in our pursuit in understanding Particles and Mass..
Importantly it should be noted one atom is fully surrounded by other atoms, and this is the same no matter where in the Universe.. yes even a near vacuum has atoms squeezed between its neighboring atoms via the rest of the Universes net Potential Vs the referred Atoms Net potential and or its kinetic energy as in its opposing velocities that imply it's presence to our detectors..
Should we consider just two opposing velocities meeting and to where they meet the velocities are cancelled out, and importantly this is the most basic of a Black-Hole, and if we consider a velocity is a Potential with momentum to it what we get is a closed system with a compression point which is simply implied as a Potential!
Now:- to clear up that last statement.. Following is a simply diagram depicting two moments as to how density is created and or increased to imply compression and or the most basic of a Black-Hole..
Note we initially start of with a system that has two sub-systems, where each has a potential of one as it is found for a "Near Vacuum", with approximately one second of kinetic energy available to it, it should be noted at this point that all potentials are possible via opposing velocities, anyway the whole model and or our systems dimensions should be noted to be one potential high and two seconds wide.. or if you are advanced enough each sub-system equates to MC^2 or "E".
"-" Lets say within the quotes we have a single sub-system
"--" And here is our initial system with its two subsystems in its preceding moment.
"=" And here is the result via an increase in density and or the exchange of kinetic energy to potential energy or the cancellation of opposing velocities.. we could say each subsystem has moved into the other subsystem and or they have merged as one.
We will note our whole system has been compressed and now has only a one second burst of Kinetic energy left to it, and in keeping to rules that mass is always with momentum to it, we also should note the Potential has increased, and if our two sub-systems were each a wave "electromagnetic wave" and or a quanta of a rise and fall of potential implied as a photon, we could still imply Blue-Shifting to our model, to which may not be immediately apparent to most here, and or to those that are new to electromagnetic waves and or concepts of Potential and Kinetic Energy, perhaps only some may understand it better via treating each sub-system as a photon merging with another? I don't know what each ones level of expertise is so lets leave it at that..
One more note, is our above model now should provide a good inference to why a force is indeed a Potential, Particle and or in the above case a hydrogen's Proton, what with its outward inertia implied as a Positive charge via Electromotive theory, and further more, I am hoping most should be able to imagine how all forces can only ever be repulsive and or opposing, because in all reality a hydrogen proton must be surrounded by other Atoms where each is with the same outward inertia and or charge to it, so that in amidst of them we can imply to neutrons and electrons!
Here are some simple models that may point out a little clearer what I mean to imply..
Mind you the symbols refer to a single plane where allowed trajectories are only to the left or right
() this is our compression point and or cancelled out opposing velocities or a neutron.
<()> this is a Proton where the two outward arrows imply its out ward positive charge, velocities and or the "Kinetic energy"
And here we have two Protons with our theoretical Electron amidst them.
<()>()<()> note how the electron area complies and satisfies the opposite charge rule, its kinetic energy is inward and or compressive, also note how its implied experienced gravitational force is only possible via two or more opposing velocities!
It should be noted throughout the universe the above just continues on and in all directions and dimensions!..
It also should be noted if we use the following symbols we could also be referring to an atom with various protons neutrons and "electron valences" to it <()>()<()>()<()> as opposed to three separate Atoms with their respective protons, of course to know precisely what we are dealing with is the exact quantities..
Anyway the point is if another velocity or a rise and fall of potential was to be propagated through a near vacuum " or Our Whole system and or model" which is currently implied to be in a gaseous state, the speed of light and or the electromagnetic wave would have to adhere to the speed of light but via through a gas for our model, which we should note consists of a little more opposing velocities {see satellite communications theory} than a subsystem with a mere near vacuum to it, so had our model and or sub-system been with more Potential Energy and lets say was a solid where there obviously would have to be a whole lot more opposing velocities due to the intensity of compression and or density, the speed of light would have to be near to the speed that of an electron and or an electromagnetic wave in a solid.. so in effect the rise and fall would be detected to have been Blue-shifted as it is propagated through all those extra velocities..
Anyway if we consider the above simple models the reasons should be clear that the more opposing velocities then the longer and or in reality the greater the distance a given velocity would have to negate in reality as each and every opposing velocity would need to be traversed and should each be considered as a Potential with momentum to it.. so yeah that's as simple as I can explain relativity and gravity..
Look, I have to admit, there is much data to consider when one deals with relativity and or Space-Time in conjunction with mass, and for all I know I may have confused most here even more so! and if I have then I would be inclined to ask more specific questions..
Another concern is I don't know what data everyone holds, and the above ramblings may seem it has nothing to do with Black-Holes, but let me assure you it does.. and what I have touched upon is no where near the whole picture!
Err having said this I am sure many more questions are needed, because on proof reading what I have written thus far, It seems like it is all over the place! <sigh>
To which I must apologise for.. as there is no simple and easy way to getting to grips of all the information one needs..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
So if I threw a cat treat into a black hole and my faithful companion Mittens goes pouncing after it. What you are saying is that Mittens is now riding the blue shift inside the event horizon and actually getting closer to me by way gravities repulsion.
The key here is local Space-Time has to abide to Relativity Rules..
So as you thrust a treat towards the core of our galaxy all local velocities remain to what is relatively possible, put simply all mass and the available kinetic Energy needs to be considered for the actions.. it should be noted a human is made of x amount of molecules and each and every molecule is made up of x amount of Particles, and for every Particle we have an x amount of opposing velocities for its makeup, each and every velocity should in itself be considered a Potential with momentum to it as per PE/KE=V
QUOTE
In fact when Mittens was jumping in the black hole he was actually coming closer and in fact I threw the cat treat at myself instead of the black hole?
The treat simply can not be thrown into a Black-Hole or your kitten doesn't jump in to a black hole, in all reality all velocities remain relative..
so when you are with the mindset that you have thrown a treat into some hole is not how one should imagine it..
The idea you should have is if you throw a treat towards a Black Hole you are actually describing to someone that you threw a treat to the ground!
Simply because the earths core is the closest Black-Hole with a relative influence to our mass.. but as you should note all previous mass that has entered the Black-Hole and or Blue-shifted before your mass actually prevents you from reaching the earths singularity.
Try and consider the deeper you go in our oceans the greater the pressure, I would also recommend one also takes note of the differences of our atmosphere from above it to it at sea level, and how we can use this to prove the earths mass behaves much like a Black Hole and or as a compression point.
hmm I dunno if I have made this clear enough, so in order not to confuse any further I will leave it at that..
Just be mindful that all forces are repulsive and all motion is only possible via repulsion in the first place, so when one refers to a Particle one needs to be aware that from all directions opposing velocities is what makes the particle possible and in all reality it itself is a Black-Hole in it own right!
Err one could research on the LHC and how we are going to create Black-Holes in our pursuit in understanding Particles and Mass..
Importantly it should be noted one atom is fully surrounded by other atoms, and this is the same no matter where in the Universe.. yes even a near vacuum has atoms squeezed between its neighboring atoms via the rest of the Universes net Potential Vs the referred Atoms Net potential and or its kinetic energy as in its opposing velocities that imply it's presence to our detectors..
Should we consider just two opposing velocities meeting and to where they meet the velocities are cancelled out, and importantly this is the most basic of a Black-Hole, and if we consider a velocity is a Potential with momentum to it what we get is a closed system with a compression point which is simply implied as a Potential!
Now:- to clear up that last statement.. Following is a simply diagram depicting two moments as to how density is created and or increased to imply compression and or the most basic of a Black-Hole..
Note we initially start of with a system that has two sub-systems, where each has a potential of one as it is found for a "Near Vacuum", with approximately one second of kinetic energy available to it, it should be noted at this point that all potentials are possible via opposing velocities, anyway the whole model and or our systems dimensions should be noted to be one potential high and two seconds wide.. or if you are advanced enough each sub-system equates to MC^2 or "E".
"-" Lets say within the quotes we have a single sub-system
"--" And here is our initial system with its two subsystems in its preceding moment.
"=" And here is the result via an increase in density and or the exchange of kinetic energy to potential energy or the cancellation of opposing velocities.. we could say each subsystem has moved into the other subsystem and or they have merged as one.
We will note our whole system has been compressed and now has only a one second burst of Kinetic energy left to it, and in keeping to rules that mass is always with momentum to it, we also should note the Potential has increased, and if our two sub-systems were each a wave "electromagnetic wave" and or a quanta of a rise and fall of potential implied as a photon, we could still imply Blue-Shifting to our model, to which may not be immediately apparent to most here, and or to those that are new to electromagnetic waves and or concepts of Potential and Kinetic Energy, perhaps only some may understand it better via treating each sub-system as a photon merging with another? I don't know what each ones level of expertise is so lets leave it at that..
One more note, is our above model now should provide a good inference to why a force is indeed a Potential, Particle and or in the above case a hydrogen's Proton, what with its outward inertia implied as a Positive charge via Electromotive theory, and further more, I am hoping most should be able to imagine how all forces can only ever be repulsive and or opposing, because in all reality a hydrogen proton must be surrounded by other Atoms where each is with the same outward inertia and or charge to it, so that in amidst of them we can imply to neutrons and electrons!
Here are some simple models that may point out a little clearer what I mean to imply..
Mind you the symbols refer to a single plane where allowed trajectories are only to the left or right
() this is our compression point and or cancelled out opposing velocities or a neutron.
<()> this is a Proton where the two outward arrows imply its out ward positive charge, velocities and or the "Kinetic energy"
And here we have two Protons with our theoretical Electron amidst them.
<()>()<()> note how the electron area complies and satisfies the opposite charge rule, its kinetic energy is inward and or compressive, also note how its implied experienced gravitational force is only possible via two or more opposing velocities!
It should be noted throughout the universe the above just continues on and in all directions and dimensions!..
It also should be noted if we use the following symbols we could also be referring to an atom with various protons neutrons and "electron valences" to it <()>()<()>()<()> as opposed to three separate Atoms with their respective protons, of course to know precisely what we are dealing with is the exact quantities..
Anyway the point is if another velocity or a rise and fall of potential was to be propagated through a near vacuum " or Our Whole system and or model" which is currently implied to be in a gaseous state, the speed of light and or the electromagnetic wave would have to adhere to the speed of light but via through a gas for our model, which we should note consists of a little more opposing velocities {see satellite communications theory} than a subsystem with a mere near vacuum to it, so had our model and or sub-system been with more Potential Energy and lets say was a solid where there obviously would have to be a whole lot more opposing velocities due to the intensity of compression and or density, the speed of light would have to be near to the speed that of an electron and or an electromagnetic wave in a solid.. so in effect the rise and fall would be detected to have been Blue-shifted as it is propagated through all those extra velocities..
Anyway if we consider the above simple models the reasons should be clear that the more opposing velocities then the longer and or in reality the greater the distance a given velocity would have to negate in reality as each and every opposing velocity would need to be traversed and should each be considered as a Potential with momentum to it.. so yeah that's as simple as I can explain relativity and gravity..
Look, I have to admit, there is much data to consider when one deals with relativity and or Space-Time in conjunction with mass, and for all I know I may have confused most here even more so! and if I have then I would be inclined to ask more specific questions..
Another concern is I don't know what data everyone holds, and the above ramblings may seem it has nothing to do with Black-Holes, but let me assure you it does.. and what I have touched upon is no where near the whole picture!
Err having said this I am sure many more questions are needed, because on proof reading what I have written thus far, It seems like it is all over the place! <sigh>
To which I must apologise for.. as there is no simple and easy way to getting to grips of all the information one needs..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Ron+May 29 2008, 12:16 PM)
Hi Laidback,
Thanks for taking my less than courteous response so well. I sometimes carry other thread feelings to not so deserved targets.
Hey, that's OK Ron, been there and as hard as I try, I still am prone to it myself..
Blue-Shifting involves relative distances involving basic "Relativity concepts" it also refers to frequency changes to relative wave form/s, in this case Electromagnetic waves, which involves mass which in fact involves electromotive forces, which involves in-depth Electronic theory..
I think the first thing as responsible physicists would be to clear up Gravity so that its inertia is properly understood and well what better model than to refer to Force and Motion laws?
If gravity is still not clear by them then we may need to explain how a Potential and Force imply to much the same and Motion and Kinetic imply to much the same..
This way when one needs to model gravity they will need to model the opposing velocities, and as we should be well aware when opposing velocities are presented to each other the Kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential Energy, and with less Kinetic energy our velocities are reduced, and with reduced velocities and or if the maximum velocity is less than what it was previously then "Time concepts" if it is to remain relative must also adhere to the same rate of changes..
For example if our galaxy experienced compression and with it the speed of light was perceived to be slower then in all reality if it takes one light year to traverse a distance then that's what it takes, and as far as an observer not experiencing the compression is concerned the speed of light still takes one light year but if the observed region is experiencing compression then the speed of light will seem to be slowed by those observing from a region that may even be in reciprocal experiencing Red-Shift and or relative expansion.. in fact to us their actions would seem to be faster than ours moment by moment and whats more their distances would seem to be expanding and whats more this all seems to be accelerating! I wonder does this sound familiar??? it should as this is what the latest Red-Shift measurements are implying..
So with the speed of light and local compression, local time is indeed effected.
Another consideration comes to mind where one may compare the speed of light in a NEAR Vacuum compared to it when it is propagated via a solid..
nuff said,
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
Thanks for taking my less than courteous response so well. I sometimes carry other thread feelings to not so deserved targets.
Hey, that's OK Ron, been there and as hard as I try, I still am prone to it myself..
QUOTE
I feel comfortable discussing your ideas, but in a dedicated thread. I don't like to confuse thread starters.
I'll take your last post and start from there.
Ron
The way I see it I have not gone of topic as "Black-Holes" are just another level of compression and or a reference to opposing velocities.. and as physicists when two or more opposing velocities experience one another we have our basic compression and or Black-Hole and or implied Blue-Shifted region..I'll take your last post and start from there.
Ron
Blue-Shifting involves relative distances involving basic "Relativity concepts" it also refers to frequency changes to relative wave form/s, in this case Electromagnetic waves, which involves mass which in fact involves electromotive forces, which involves in-depth Electronic theory..
I think the first thing as responsible physicists would be to clear up Gravity so that its inertia is properly understood and well what better model than to refer to Force and Motion laws?
If gravity is still not clear by them then we may need to explain how a Potential and Force imply to much the same and Motion and Kinetic imply to much the same..
This way when one needs to model gravity they will need to model the opposing velocities, and as we should be well aware when opposing velocities are presented to each other the Kinetic energy is exchanged to Potential Energy, and with less Kinetic energy our velocities are reduced, and with reduced velocities and or if the maximum velocity is less than what it was previously then "Time concepts" if it is to remain relative must also adhere to the same rate of changes..
For example if our galaxy experienced compression and with it the speed of light was perceived to be slower then in all reality if it takes one light year to traverse a distance then that's what it takes, and as far as an observer not experiencing the compression is concerned the speed of light still takes one light year but if the observed region is experiencing compression then the speed of light will seem to be slowed by those observing from a region that may even be in reciprocal experiencing Red-Shift and or relative expansion.. in fact to us their actions would seem to be faster than ours moment by moment and whats more their distances would seem to be expanding and whats more this all seems to be accelerating! I wonder does this sound familiar??? it should as this is what the latest Red-Shift measurements are implying..
So with the speed of light and local compression, local time is indeed effected.
Another consideration comes to mind where one may compare the speed of light in a NEAR Vacuum compared to it when it is propagated via a solid..
nuff said,
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
PE/KE =V
So if Mittens is stationary on the Earth, he has zero velocity and since he is not moving he has zero kinetic energy. I am of course assuming this is a closed system and we are not taking the orbital velocity of the Earth into account. So, since Mittens is not moving and there is no frame of reference and division by zero is undefined and therefore is not zero velocity as implied. I take it means time is running infinite for Mittens? That he can be anywhere in the universe at any time or that, in fact, he is everywhere in the universe at one time? Does this then mean that Mittens is the universe?
I love my kitty.
(BTW I didn't know the Earth was housing a singularity in the center. Does that mean the Earth is actually a black hole?)
Hi Beer, Mittens,
When 0 is in the numerator (as it would be with v=0 in the Lorentz transform), the number is 0. If 0 is in the denominator, the number is undefined. Sorry, Mittens is stuck here with the rest of us.
Peace,
Ron
T(Mittens)=To/[sqrt 1-(v^2/c^2)] , T(Mittens)=To/[sqrt (1-0)] so T(Mittens)=To
When 0 is in the numerator (as it would be with v=0 in the Lorentz transform), the number is 0. If 0 is in the denominator, the number is undefined. Sorry, Mittens is stuck here with the rest of us.
Peace,
Ron
T(Mittens)=To/[sqrt 1-(v^2/c^2)] , T(Mittens)=To/[sqrt (1-0)] so T(Mittens)=To
Hi Peter,
Your quote in "The Mittens Confabulation" , you say: Quote "each and every velocity should in itself be considered a Potential with momentum to it as per PE/KE=V" How can Joules/Joules = d/t?
Also , I did start a thread because I think you have quite a bit to Confabulate
apart from BH's and gravity, but you can just let it drop out , if you like.
Peace,
Ron
Your quote in "The Mittens Confabulation" , you say: Quote "each and every velocity should in itself be considered a Potential with momentum to it as per PE/KE=V" How can Joules/Joules = d/t?
Also , I did start a thread because I think you have quite a bit to Confabulate
apart from BH's and gravity, but you can just let it drop out , if you like.Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+May 29 2008, 10:45 PM)
Hi Peter,
Also , I did start a thread because I think you have quite a bit to Confabulate apart from BH's and gravity, but you can just let it drop out , if you like.
Confabulate? Yeah we will see about that
Anyways..
Sorry I took so long to answer Ron,
Been very busy..
Also , I did start a thread because I think you have quite a bit to Confabulate
apart from BH's and gravity, but you can just let it drop out , if you like.Confabulate?
Yeah we will see about that Anyways..
Sorry I took so long to answer Ron,
Been very busy..
QUOTE
Your quote in "The Mittens Confabulation" , you say:
The key is all "variables" are "dimensions" or a definition such as a height, length width or time.
First let me point out how one definition can be referred to another via proper conversion..
The first example is time where one second can imply to 299792458 meters and this conversion can be best explained by referring to ones experience of a beam of light for a WHOLE second, This means if I turned a torch on "only" for one second, the beam of light or stream of kinetic potential and or quanta of Photons would be 299792458 meters long, and for every second this beam would traverse 299792458 meters..
Should we consider the photons energy via its joules for our beam of light it should be noted our beam of light could be measured to consist with a potential in its own right, so as its potential is passed on from Atom to Atom via as per Electromagnetic wave theory, to which one must remember this potential energy is kinetic energy via its momentum, but importantly it is a division of some potential being passed on to some other Potential and indeed as the beam is propagated each atom rises and falls to what ever electron or photon quanta it passes on to its neighboring Atoms.. As in, it should be noted the Photons energy comes from my torches Potential Energy "A collection of certain Atoms with enormous Potential energy by the way they have been arranged..
Anyway the more potential energy that my battery imparts the less available potential and or Electrons in a solid and or Photons in a gas or near vacuum will be Left in reserve in my torches battery.
Now if that was not clear enough Ron as to how and why "(Joules=PE)/{Joules=KE}=Distance/Time" Let me know?
Now..
All Mass and or all Potentials and or densities work much the same way where portions of a potential is availed to other potentials and in fact because a potential can rise and fall is the reason why motion is possible in the first place..
Here is a quick and dirty model of how all momentum is possible..
"-" lets say this symbol was a near vacuum and its length was 299792458 meters in length and lets say its height was also 299792458 meters but lets state it is a Newton meter.
"=" And lets say this symbol was also a near vacuum where its length was 299792458 meters but its Potential has doubled as the near vacuum consists with a Photon as part of its makeup..
"----------" lets say this model is 2997924580 meters in length, **Note the extra zero!** Or to simplify lets refer to this length as 10 seconds! and the height lets define it still as one newton meter or 1Nm.
"Now should we introduce one second of momentum to our open system and or model, what we should observe over a period of ten seconds is the increased potential that we introduced propagated from one side of the model to the other.
one second of 1 Nm or we could refer to a beam of light one second in length-> "=--------" The first thing we should note is that we have introduced a velocity and this should be obvious that on our left we have 299792458 meters with double the density or double the potential, this means that the c^2 is with twice the Newton meters! And next to it we have a potential that is with only 1 newton meters of Potential, so as a result the increased potential, electron and or photon is passed on to its neighbor - So on and so on..
We will note at this point in time our whole model is only nine seconds wide! And this is extremely important to remember as kinetic quanta has been converted to Potential quanta or heights dimension..
Anyway here is the electromagnetic wave "rise and fall of Potential" and or photon propagated for the following seconds..
"-=-------"
"--=------"
"---=-----"
"----=----"
"-----=---"
"------=--"
"-------=-"
"--------="
"----------" we should note here as the potential or "beam of light" leaves our model or system its initial width or dimension is returned.. As the compression or opposing velocities has been passed on to some other potential and or system or model not in our interest..
Anyway the less stored Potential Kinetic energy, the less Kinetic energy we will have available to us for our intended work, in fact it is for this reason Local speed of light is restricted to 299792458 meters a second via its total dependence on local time distances which mind you is dependent on the local speed of light..
Yeah~ Peace to you too Ron!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your quote in "The Mittens Confabulation" , you say: each and every velocity should in itself be considered a Potential with momentum to it as per PE/KE=V How can Joules/Joules = d/t? |
The key is all "variables" are "dimensions" or a definition such as a height, length width or time.
First let me point out how one definition can be referred to another via proper conversion..
The first example is time where one second can imply to 299792458 meters and this conversion can be best explained by referring to ones experience of a beam of light for a WHOLE second, This means if I turned a torch on "only" for one second, the beam of light or stream of kinetic potential and or quanta of Photons would be 299792458 meters long, and for every second this beam would traverse 299792458 meters..
Should we consider the photons energy via its joules for our beam of light it should be noted our beam of light could be measured to consist with a potential in its own right, so as its potential is passed on from Atom to Atom via as per Electromagnetic wave theory, to which one must remember this potential energy is kinetic energy via its momentum, but importantly it is a division of some potential being passed on to some other Potential and indeed as the beam is propagated each atom rises and falls to what ever electron or photon quanta it passes on to its neighboring Atoms.. As in, it should be noted the Photons energy comes from my torches Potential Energy "A collection of certain Atoms with enormous Potential energy by the way they have been arranged..
Anyway the more potential energy that my battery imparts the less available potential and or Electrons in a solid and or Photons in a gas or near vacuum will be Left in reserve in my torches battery.
Now if that was not clear enough Ron as to how and why "(Joules=PE)/{Joules=KE}=Distance/Time" Let me know?
Now..
All Mass and or all Potentials and or densities work much the same way where portions of a potential is availed to other potentials and in fact because a potential can rise and fall is the reason why motion is possible in the first place..
Here is a quick and dirty model of how all momentum is possible..
"-" lets say this symbol was a near vacuum and its length was 299792458 meters in length and lets say its height was also 299792458 meters but lets state it is a Newton meter.
"=" And lets say this symbol was also a near vacuum where its length was 299792458 meters but its Potential has doubled as the near vacuum consists with a Photon as part of its makeup..
"----------" lets say this model is 2997924580 meters in length, **Note the extra zero!** Or to simplify lets refer to this length as 10 seconds! and the height lets define it still as one newton meter or 1Nm.
"Now should we introduce one second of momentum to our open system and or model, what we should observe over a period of ten seconds is the increased potential that we introduced propagated from one side of the model to the other.
one second of 1 Nm or we could refer to a beam of light one second in length-> "=--------" The first thing we should note is that we have introduced a velocity and this should be obvious that on our left we have 299792458 meters with double the density or double the potential, this means that the c^2 is with twice the Newton meters! And next to it we have a potential that is with only 1 newton meters of Potential, so as a result the increased potential, electron and or photon is passed on to its neighbor - So on and so on..
We will note at this point in time our whole model is only nine seconds wide! And this is extremely important to remember as kinetic quanta has been converted to Potential quanta or heights dimension..
Anyway here is the electromagnetic wave "rise and fall of Potential" and or photon propagated for the following seconds..
"-=-------"
"--=------"
"---=-----"
"----=----"
"-----=---"
"------=--"
"-------=-"
"--------="
"----------" we should note here as the potential or "beam of light" leaves our model or system its initial width or dimension is returned.. As the compression or opposing velocities has been passed on to some other potential and or system or model not in our interest..
Anyway the less stored Potential Kinetic energy, the less Kinetic energy we will have available to us for our intended work, in fact it is for this reason Local speed of light is restricted to 299792458 meters a second via its total dependence on local time distances which mind you is dependent on the local speed of light..
QUOTE
Peace,
Ron
Ron
Yeah~ Peace to you too Ron!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.