Black Hole Critical Mass Is ???

Greg Neill wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A If there is motion inside a black hole there is time. The
motion takes place from the event horizon to the BH core. Bert


I don't think there could be any motion inside a black hole, unless it
is motion of space-time itself.

According to standard theory there's motion inside the event
horizon. In fact, all trajectories lead inevitably towards
the singularity at the center. In this regard, the spacial
coordinate becomes timelike in character -- outside a black
hole we experience time as a relentless progression into the
future without deviation, and in a similar fashion, below an
event horizon all trajectories lead inevitably towards the
singularity. Once ingested, there's no escape!


That might seem so once you are inside a black hole. But as I
understand it, relative to the outside observer, time becomes
infinitely dilated at the event horizon, so everything would have to
start moving infinitely slowly relative to the outside observer, if he
could see what was going on. Hawking radiation is a finite process of
depletion of a back hole. While it may take many times the age of the
universe for a large black hole to totally evaporate, when you compare
a finite process of evaporation against an infinitely long process of
falling to the center, then it would appear that nothing could fall to
the center before the black hole evaporates. Also Hawking has recently
stated that information will escape from black holes. This also argues
against total collapse, because how could information survive if
everything were crushed into a dimensionless point? Remember the old
frozen star imagery that they used before the black hole imagery was
invented? They said that a collapsing star would appear frozen from
afar, but if you could rush headlong into it, you might catch a glimpse
of its surface falling away below you, but you could never catch up to
it. Perhaps that comes closer to the reality of a black hole. Always
collapsing, but never collapsed. And once anything reaches the event
horizon, it should appear frozen relative to us. So anything below the
event horizon must not be moving, as far as we are concerned.

Double-A

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Raving A short description of a singularity is "Location where the
fabric of space or spacetime suffers a great rupture. Hard to relate
that to any rupture in our spacetime. Most scientist agree
that a singularity is a point in size That this contraction inside a BH
is a region of infinite matter density,infinite energy.and infinite
temperature.This comes out of GR. Now if you were comparing my
Pee-Air with your Jock that is another story. Lets leave it as two
unknowns. Bert


nightbat

We can't Officer Bert because unlike many modern sci fi hype
book selling scientists we profound Earth Science and Researcher team
members deal in reality. A sci fi black hole is a non real world
possibility while your reported comparative question of mutual Pee-Airs
reality based.

The main difference between major important men of science is that their
profound theories and predictions eventually come true while sci fi
hypers sell many books or movie tickets. The hypers usually wind up
making more quick money then humble scientific ones but all of your
modern improved life is owed to the true great men of deep theoretical
and practical applied science.

continue always in being real and great,
the nightbat

Double-A A BH has an internal temperature,and that means motion.
Motion and time are two sides to the same coin. I go against the
thinking that there was no time before the BB Space has virtual
particles,and also waves that are intrinsic to its structure. Space
between universes is a most dynamic place. There is no such thing as
nothing,and that takes in time as well Bert

Double-A The universe is in reality empty space. We must realize
gravity of a black hole is taking away this space. Lets follow this
compression force of gravity. Start with the Earth its crushed to the
size of a pea,and it becomes a black hole. Think of all of the Earth
night-A to the size of just a pea Hmmmm Mind boggling (yes) Here is
the kicker now if this pea size BH enters a BH of say 2 million Sun
masses it will be compressed down to 10^30 of a gram. That is a gram
divided by 1 with thirty zeros after it. Taking this gravity
compression to its end would be this effect. If the whole universe was
a black hole its gravity would compress it into a singularity,that would
be infinitely small. This thinking is the key to open the door and
realize how amazing nature is. This is why my equation G=EMC^2 is the
equation for the universe. It fits

"Double-A" wrote in message
ps.com...

Greg Neill wrote:

According to standard theory there's motion inside the event
horizon. In fact, all trajectories lead inevitably towards
the singularity at the center. In this regard, the spacial
coordinate becomes timelike in character -- outside a black
hole we experience time as a relentless progression into the
future without deviation, and in a similar fashion, below an
event horizon all trajectories lead inevitably towards the
singularity. Once ingested, there's no escape!


That might seem so once you are inside a black hole. But as I
understand it, relative to the outside observer, time becomes
infinitely dilated at the event horizon, so everything would have to
start moving infinitely slowly relative to the outside observer, if he
could see what was going on.

For an outside observer it may appear that time would
stand still at the event horizon, but there is also a
finite time for that observer after which the last photon
from a given object will reach his eye. In other words,
the observer will see the object go dark and disappear.
The calculation of this time period can be found in MTW's
Gravitation.

It seems also that the event horizon will reach up to
engulf a closely approaching object, and do so in finite
time for an external observer. This effect is due to the
mass/energy of the approaching object adding to the
local stress energy in the region where the object is. So
the event horizon is not a perfectly smooth and spherical
bondary, but is distorted slightly by surrounding masses.

Once an object has disappeared below the event horizon,
anything it does is unobservable from an outside vantage
point; the object is physically disconnected from the
outside universe. But if we follow the physics mathematically,
the coordinate system indicates that a body inside the
event horizon must reach the singularity in a finite (and
relatively short) time.

Hawking radiation is a finite process of
depletion of a back hole. While it may take many times the age of the
universe for a large black hole to totally evaporate, when you compare
a finite process of evaporation against an infinitely long process of
falling to the center, then it would appear that nothing could fall to
the center before the black hole evaporates. Also Hawking has recently
stated that information will escape from black holes. This also argues
against total collapse, because how could information survive if
everything were crushed into a dimensionless point?

Information can be "stored" in a number of ways. Spin, for example,
or baryon number, or charge and magnetic fields, all of which can
be associated with a dimensionless point.

Remember the old
frozen star imagery that they used before the black hole imagery was
invented? They said that a collapsing star would appear frozen from
afar, but if you could rush headlong into it, you might catch a glimpse
of its surface falling away below you, but you could never catch up to
it. Perhaps that comes closer to the reality of a black hole. Always
collapsing, but never collapsed. And once anything reaches the event
horizon, it should appear frozen relative to us. So anything below the
event horizon must not be moving, as far as we are concerned.

As above, as far as we're concerned we can have no direct observational
knowledge of anything going on below the event horizon, and our views
of objects falling in are cut off by light extinction just before the
object even reaches it. However, the math seems to indicate that
there is a finite time journey from the event horizon to the
singularity for anything under the horizon, and that the transition
from above the horizon to being below the horizon is abrubt.

Well, that's my understanding of the matter at this point in time,
but I'm open to "adjustments".

From Greg N.:
Once an object has disappeared below the event horizon, anything it
does is unobservable from an outside vantage point; the object is
physically disconnected from the outside universe. But if we follow
the physics mathematically, the coordinate system indicates that a
body inside the event horizon must reach the singularity in a finite
(and relatively short) time.

Excellent example of intuitive extrapolation (IE).. deducing the nature
of the unseen by observing what is seen (iceberg principle). Based on
probabilities and Occam's razor, it presumes the unseen is more likely
to bear the same pattern/format/principle as what IS seen consistently
and universally, than not.

...as far as we're concerned we can have no direct observational
knowledge of anything going on below the event horizon, and our views
of objects falling in are cut off by light extinction just before the
object even reaches it. However, the math seems to indicate that there
is a finite time journey from the event horizon to the singularity for
anything under the horizon, and that the transition from above the
horizon to being below the horizon is abrubt.

IE takes up where empirical evidence leaves off, as shown in the example
here. If science is to ever advance on the 'Big Issues' in
cosmology/astrophysics, such as 'What lies prior to the BB?' and the
ultimate fate of the universe, IE _must_ be recognized as a valid tool
of scientific enquiry. oc

Well, that's my understanding of the matter at this point in time, but
I'm open
to "adjustments".

nightbat Far out hypothetical thinking comes first. Best to keep in
mind Einstein told us light curves,and years later he was proven right.
Eddington would not even bothered to look,and how to look if Einstein
did not come up with the thinking first. We never built that Texas big
accelerator,and that means a lot of hypothetical thinking will not be
proven,and yet nightbat we must not stop thinking(coming up with ideas).
Someday it will be human original thoughts that computers will compare
to reality for us Go figure . Staying in to stay warm Will take a
picture of the shuttle in my back yard,but will it fly tonite????? Every
question mark is a 20% no go. This shuttle flying coffin has to be
buryed. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A The universe is in reality empty space. We must realize
gravity of a black hole is taking away this space. Lets follow this
compression force of gravity. Start with the Earth its crushed to the
size of a pea,and it becomes a black hole. Think of all of the Earth
night-A to the size of just a pea Hmmmm Mind boggling (yes) Here is
the kicker now if this pea size BH enters a BH of say 2 million Sun
masses it will be compressed down to 10^30 of a gram. That is a gram
divided by 1 with thirty zeros after it. Taking this gravity
compression to its end would be this effect. If the whole universe was
a black hole its gravity would compress it into a singularity,that would
be infinitely small. This thinking is the key to open the door and
realize how amazing nature is. This is why my equation G=EMC^2 is the
equation for the universe. It fits


But if the universe were crushed down to something infinitely small,
then the measuring rods would become infinitely small too. So if you
were doing the measuring with infinitely small rods, how would you know
you were infinitely small?

Double-A

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Greg N.:
Once an object has disappeared below the event horizon, anything it
does is unobservable from an outside vantage point; the object is
physically disconnected from the outside universe. But if we follow
the physics mathematically, the coordinate system indicates that a
body inside the event horizon must reach the singularity in a finite
(and relatively short) time.

Excellent example of intuitive extrapolation (IE).. deducing the nature
of the unseen by observing what is seen (iceberg principle). Based on
probabilities and Occam's razor, it presumes the unseen is more likely
to bear the same pattern/format/principle as what IS seen consistently
and universally, than not.


You know, this reasoning supports reincarnation too. It seems more
likely that 1000 years from now I'll be living another meaningless
life, same as now, rather than things being completely different such
as being up in an eternal heaven, or down in an eternal hell, or even
completely non-esistent and oblivious.


...as far as we're concerned we can have no direct observational
knowledge of anything going on below the event horizon, and our views
of objects falling in are cut off by light extinction just before the
object even reaches it. However, the math seems to indicate that there
is a finite time journey from the event horizon to the singularity for
anything under the horizon, and that the transition from above the
horizon to being below the horizon is abrubt.

IE takes up where empirical evidence leaves off, as shown in the example
here. If science is to ever advance on the 'Big Issues' in
cosmology/astrophysics, such as 'What lies prior to the BB?' and the
ultimate fate of the universe, IE _must_ be recognized as a valid tool
of scientific enquiry. oc


By that principle, there always was and always will be one universe or
another. It's most likely that things are always about the same in the
long run, rather that they took some radical departure at one point in
time.

Double-A

Greg Neill wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ps.com...

Greg Neill wrote:

According to standard theory there's motion inside the event
horizon. In fact, all trajectories lead inevitably towards
the singularity at the center. In this regard, the spacial
coordinate becomes timelike in character -- outside a black
hole we experience time as a relentless progression into the
future without deviation, and in a similar fashion, below an
event horizon all trajectories lead inevitably towards the
singularity. Once ingested, there's no escape!


That might seem so once you are inside a black hole. But as I
understand it, relative to the outside observer, time becomes
infinitely dilated at the event horizon, so everything would have to
start moving infinitely slowly relative to the outside observer, if he
could see what was going on.

For an outside observer it may appear that time would
stand still at the event horizon, but there is also a
finite time for that observer after which the last photon
from a given object will reach his eye. In other words,
the observer will see the object go dark and disappear.
The calculation of this time period can be found in MTW's
Gravitation.

It seems also that the event horizon will reach up to
engulf a closely approaching object, and do so in finite
time for an external observer. This effect is due to the
mass/energy of the approaching object adding to the
local stress energy in the region where the object is. So
the event horizon is not a perfectly smooth and spherical
bondary, but is distorted slightly by surrounding masses.

Once an object has disappeared below the event horizon,
anything it does is unobservable from an outside vantage
point; the object is physically disconnected from the
outside universe. But if we follow the physics mathematically,
the coordinate system indicates that a body inside the
event horizon must reach the singularity in a finite (and
relatively short) time.


Here is where I cannot follow.


Hawking radiation is a finite process of
depletion of a back hole. While it may take many times the age of the
universe for a large black hole to totally evaporate, when you compare
a finite process of evaporation against an infinitely long process of
falling to the center, then it would appear that nothing could fall to
the center before the black hole evaporates. Also Hawking has recently
stated that information will escape from black holes. This also argues
against total collapse, because how could information survive if
everything were crushed into a dimensionless point?

Information can be "stored" in a number of ways. Spin, for example,
or baryon number, or charge and magnetic fields, all of which can
be associated with a dimensionless point.

Remember the old
frozen star imagery that they used before the black hole imagery was
invented? They said that a collapsing star would appear frozen from
afar, but if you could rush headlong into it, you might catch a glimpse
of its surface falling away below you, but you could never catch up to
it. Perhaps that comes closer to the reality of a black hole. Always
collapsing, but never collapsed. And once anything reaches the event
horizon, it should appear frozen relative to us. So anything below the
event horizon must not be moving, as far as we are concerned.

As above, as far as we're concerned we can have no direct observational
knowledge of anything going on below the event horizon,


And that is probably a profound consideration.


and our views
of objects falling in are cut off by light extinction just before the
object even reaches it. However, the math seems to indicate that
there is a finite time journey from the event horizon to the
singularity for anything under the horizon, and that the transition
from above the horizon to being below the horizon is abrubt.

Well, that's my understanding of the matter at this point in time,
but I'm open to "adjustments".


Thanks, Greg. There is much to ponder. I have seen many adjustments
to the "standard theory" during my lifetime, and I am sure there will
be more.

Double-A