[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by cosvis Hi Lolyd and all, I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that a black hole has no external gravity? I thought that the gravity of a black hole is so strong that it even pulls in radiant light and all matter that comes close to it. If this is so than a black hole certainly has gravity that has an effect outside itself. But you might mean something completely different. If the universe is a black hole and all matter, mass and energy are part of a black hole than there is no mater, mass or energy that exists outside itself. Thus, there exists nothing outside the universe on which the black hole universe can have a gravitational effect and in this case the black hole universe has no external gravitation. I am not quite sure if this is what you mean?Yours Cosvis.

My understanding of this is that black-holes, just as you have stated, at the event horizon, and from the event horizon in, would pull all light, headed out, back into their centers, thus I can only see them, also, pulling all gravity, and most all em waves, back into their centers, from the edge of the event horizon, only___No external gravity. Of course, this is still just theory, but if the theories hold, then black-holes can have no external gravity, just internal gravity. Doesn't that make theoretical sense...? Of course, I do accept the theoretical observations of recent x-ray sattelites, showing radiation plumes exiting the conjectured black-holes, at the center of galaxies... At least, it allows theoretical physics and cosmology to possibly make advances___No...?

I don't see as this is in any dis-agreement, with what you generally stated... When we are talking about both the infinite universal black-hole, and the possible black-holes, existing within the universal black-hole, the theorizing gets a bit mis-construed, but I think our thinking is on the proper theoretical track___No...? For all I know, the infinite universal black-hole, may be made up of trillions, to the trillions, of evolving/growing micro-infintesimal finite black-holes, within the greater infinite universal black-hole, and some coalescing into the galaxies, we see... It's just a theoretical idea... Of course, this would raise the question of, "Can the fundamental infinite infintesimal substance parts, form into micro black-holes, and how...?" And possibly, "What would be the required cosmological geometry of such a fundamental wave/substance field...?"

Lloyd

[neutralino]

Interesting post, Lloyd. However, I think there are complications with some of the points you make. Firstly, in general relativity gravity is no longer a force, but is the curvature of spacetime. Gravitational waves are then caused by fluctuations in the curvature of spacetime. Now, if we were talking about gravitational waves caused by, say, a mountain on the surface of a spinning planet then we see how the fluctuations in the curvature of the spacetime (i.e. the fluctuations in the "gravity") are formed, but in a black hole it is not so easy to say where these fluctuations will form; i.e. where is the mass inside a black hole? I don't think anyone really knows, and so one cannot say that gravitational waves formed by the black hole will not escape the event horizon.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by neutralino Interesting post, Lloyd. However, I think there are complications with some of the points you make. Firstly, in general relativity gravity is no longer a force, but is the curvature of spacetime. Gravitational waves are then caused by fluctuations in the curvature of spacetime. Now, if we were talking about gravitational waves caused by, say, a mountain on the surface of a spinning planet then we see how the fluctuations in the curvature of the spacetime (i.e. the fluctuations in the "gravity") are formed, but in a black hole it is not so easy to say where these fluctuations will form; i.e. where is the mass inside a black hole? I don't think anyone really knows, and so one cannot say that gravitational waves formed by the black hole will not escape the event horizon. Just my thoughts, anyway.

Hi Neutralino, maybe, but my science study shows GR to only be responsible for 50% of the grvitational force, of light bent, as it passes a star. The other 50% is somewhat as you state, but I do not fully accept GR completely, as Newton's classical physics of gravity can account for the bending of light, just as easily. I also do not accept the seemed validity of spacetime curvature, in the ways generally understood. To me, space and time, time being no more than distance measure of matter in motion, are two distinct elements of physical space/matter and motion. I'm trying to theorize new ways to see the total universe, and do not hold to Einstein's systems' completed, seeming completenesses. I see them as stepping stones to deeper understandings of the physics involved, therefor; I am following the most recent developments of "Double Special Relativity", which the paper on "A Simple TOE", you have referenced also, is the direction my theorizing is going. To me, if there are different frequencies of basic light/em waves, then they must vary in velocity, and not adhere to Einstein's group velocity of unified c, for all wavelengths. Though science has not been able, so far, to distinguish this slight difference of true c velocities, my money is on the fact, the newest experiments will discover these facts. If the experiments prove to be true, then we have a whole new ball game...

As to the mass inside black-holes, I don't see any other possible way for a black-hole to have mass, and an event horizon, without the mass and gravity being most-totally trapped inside it, giving it its present theorized dynamics. If you have a different dynamics of black-holes, please post it. I'll be glad to check it out, as we are all only theorizing, in this most esoteric of areas, but my theorizing tells me, gravity can't extend beyond the event horizon, or there'd be no extreme internal mass capacity, and also, most have speculated, the laws of physics must work in inverse order inside black-holes. I'm not saying the solar systems, in galaxies, or other matter is not attracted to black-holes, but such matter is attracted, to black-holes, by its own gravity fields, acting on the presence of black-holes___and only the external gravitational attraction of matter outside black-holes, is the true gravity attraction... This may seem somewhat confusing, since none of us can yet describe the true gravity waves mechanics, but the dynamics of black-holes and galaxies, IMO, can work in no other way, to preserve the mass and gravity dynamics of both black-holes and galaxies. If black-holes had the extreme external gravity, internal mass would produce, galaxies would quickly collapse... So, my physicist friends agree that black-holes, if existing at the center of galaxies, would require no external gravity, and high mass internal gravity, and I agree with them...

I think this is also in line with Hawking's early ideas of micro black-holes, and his later ideas of macro black-holes... As a further example, people have put it to me this way, we see neutron stars revolving around each other, at extreme velocities, but we witness no black-holes revolving around each other, which could only be seen by the space in front of background light sources, so if two black-holes approached each other, they'd just simply quietly merge, not rotate and collide, as do neutron stars... This is the way I theoretically understand it, anyway...

So, please post your ideas of the same dynamics and geometries...

Lloyd

[austintorn@aol.com]

“… whole new ball game.”

I just happened to be reading about DSR lately.

As you probably know, GLAST, launching in early 2008, has the sensitivity to probe the Planck scale by detecting a change of speed between protons with different energies in a gamma ray burst traveling over billions of years. One-thousandths of a second in arrival time could be noted.

In DSR, the 2nd special is that the Planck length would be universal for all observers, not involving any length contraction (as light speed is universal) and so all would agreed on the length.

DSR II claims that photons that have more energy travel faster, as in the early universe when temperature was very high.

The DSRs preserve but deepen special relativity; however, if special relativity were shown to break down at the quantum gravity scale, then there would be an absolute distinction between motion and rest.

For DSR, there is also the problem that the Planck energy was the bound for any body to have (leading to the ‘soccer ball problem’), but it is proposed, perhaps proved, that a body has a maximum energy that is one Planck energy for each proton it contains.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

I am so glad that we are starting to communicate our ideas of the physical universe. To your question, Fluent Piffle, "if gravity is found in even the tiniest thing, then it must exist everywhere." In my eternal evolving universe theory, the tiniest particle is a quantum particle and it consists of two equal but opposing gravitational and inertial forces and energies. Its total quantity of energy is a Plank constant; it moves at a constant speed of light; and it is conserved it can neither be created nor distroyed. Therefore, where ever you find energy, there are quanta particles which have gravity.

Lloyd raised a very interesting problem, if no light or photon particle can leave the event horizon of a black hole than no gravity of that black hole can have an effect on objects outside the black hole. This is a new idea to me and it is a challenge. If gravity is a wave and it cannot leave the event horizon than how can it affect objects outside the black hole? This is a possible new suggestion. May be, gravity is not a wave in the traditional sense of a wave; remember, it is potential gravitational energy and thus it may be a negative wave. Its action is one that pulls other objects to itself, like a void, a siphon or a hole that attracts and pulls objects to itself. Thus while no photon can leave the event horizon, the gravity of the photons of a black hole create a huge vacuum or force of attraction that would pull objects into the black hole if they come near enough.

In my theory, the basic particle of the universe is a quantum particle and it consists of two opposing and equal gravitational and inertial forces and energies and it is conserved, it can not be created nor distroyed. If the inertial force or kinetic energy is positive than the equal but opposite gravitational force or the potential gravitational energy is negative. These two forces and energies form the quantum particle that continuously moves at the speed of light, having a constant gravitational attractive force. If we add up the formula of the inertial energy and the gravitational potentional energy of a quantum particle, we would get the formula of a black hole. To me this is very interesting, and it is the reason why I suggested, that the smallest black hole in the universe is a quantum particle, the smallest possible particle. If this is true than it is possible to have black holes within black holes. In my full theory, I even suggest that sub atomic particles themselves could be possible black holes.

Neutralino, you ask the question, "where is the mass in a black hole"? We know from Einstein famous formula that mass or matter consists basically of energy and energy comes in bundles of quanta particles. In my theory also I speculated that each quantum particle has virtual mass, but it can not be seen because it moves at the speed of light; however, we can see its gravitational and inertial effects on matter with which it interacts. There can only be a black hole where there is energy which can be in the form of radiant energy or mass or matter. This mass and matter in a black hole can be changed from matter to energy and vise versa. Thus it could be that a neutron particle could possibly be itself a black hole and it could possibly consists of other smaller black holes like quark particles.

I think we still have to learn a lot. We are only at the beginning of discovering our beautiful universe. If, however, you are right, Lloyd, that the speed of light C, is not constant, than all my theory is kaput (finished) and we will have a whole new ball game.

Yours Cosvis.

[neutralino]

Lloyd,

Here is a page discussing the 'problems' of gravity escaping a black hole. The crux of the argument is that, in GR, the gravitational field outside a black hole can be entirely calculated from the external gravitational field of the star before it collapsed to become a black hole. The website then goes on to discuss electric fields escaping the event horizon.

[Fluent Piffle]

I am so glad that we are starting to communicate our ideas of the physical universe. To your question, Fluent Piffle, "if gravity is found in even the tiniest thing, then it must exist everywhere." In my eternal evolving universe theory, the tiniest particle is a quantum particle and it consists of two equal but opposing gravitational and inertial forces and energies. Its total quantity of energy is a Plank constant; it moves at a constant speed of light; and it is conserved it can neither be created nor distroyed. Therefore, where ever you find energy, there are quanta particles which have gravity.

Hi Cosvis,

This is all consistent with spherical wave theory...

two equal but opposing gravitational and inertial forces and energies

...WSM (after Milo Wolff) states: 'in/out spherical waves', which 'collapse' to the centre, producing the 'physical particle' we observe and measure. We can also say that 'gravity' both pushes and pulls at the same instance, because they are both the same cosmological action.

There is also a lot of similar work being done by others, such as Gabriel LaFreniere..(Just out of interest, and because it agrees with your work.)

This is also consistent with Neutolino's thoughts that:

one cannot say that gravitational waves formed by the black hole will not escape the event horizon

'Gravity' would be everywhere, in all things, right down to virtually non-existent, but without actually being so. Likewise, it would be virtually infinite at, say, an 'event horizon' of a 'black hole' (Galactic centre), but not actually so. Thus, 'gravity' exists inside and outside of Galactic centres, 'Black holes', as we observe.



pif.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by neutralino Lloyd, Here is a page discussing the 'problems' of gravity escaping a black hole. The crux of the argument is that, in GR, the gravitational field outside a black hole can be entirely calculated from the external gravitational field of the star before it collapsed to become a black hole. The website then goes on to discuss electric fields escaping the event horizon.

Thanks Neutralino, but I think I would look for better sources... I dis-agree with the source stated, as do many physicists, including Hawking... We are still far too deeply involved in the theoretical aspects, of this very topic, to state real truths___Yet... So far, all ideas must be explored___Deeply...

Regards,
Lloyd

[MJA]

A new idea on black holes.

Perhaps when a star dies, and the light goes out,
a vacuum is created by the motion of it's quanta of light.
And anything that the extinct stars quanta or packet of light passes,
gets sucked along in its draft.
Much like riding a bike behind the draft of a car.
Only in a black holes case, it speeds away at the speed of light.
Just a thought!

=
MJA

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

It is very interesting to read all the different ideas and informations concerning our quest to find a TOE theory of the universe. Many thanks to Fluent Piffle confirming the ideas of particle formation from the two basic waves formation of photons as seen in the work of Gabriel La Freniere. I also very much like what Lloyd wrote: "We are still far too deeply involved in the theoretical aspects, of this very topic, to state real truths." While scientists have already discovered so much scientific thruths, there is still much more to be discovered, and the road of discovery is far from its end, but I feel, we all should try to contribute to it.

I just want to make some observations of what Austintorn wrote above:"photons that have more energy travel faster... as in the early universe, when the temperature was very high." I am just not quite sure how light photons can travel faster than the speed of light. I always accepted that it is a universal constant that radiant light always travels at the speed of light. To me photons consist of packets of energies called quanta and a quantum has the energy of a Planck constant. Scientists have discovered the Spectrum which is a range of electromagnetic energies spaced in order of increasing and decreasing frequencies or quantities of quanta particles. Some of these photons have extreme quantities of energies but they still travel at the speed of light.

I think when Austintorn talks about "the early universe, when the temperature was very high." he is talking of the Big Bang theory of the universe. I have my doubts about the theory as I have talked about earlier on this site. I prefer the eternal evolving universe theory in order to give a reasonable explanation why there are so many constants that scientists have discovered in the universe eg. the speed of light, the Planck constant, the universal gravitational constant, and even the microwave background radiation, and other constants.

I believe that the universe has been evolving from the very beginning of time. At first there existed only finite energy in a black hole formation with all the evolutionary principles according to which the universe has and is continuously evolving. Before the begining of time there was only eternity and I believe the universe is so set up that it will continue to evolve for ever, in other words, for eternity; thus the theory of the eternal evolving universe.

Yours cosvis