Black Hole Critical Mass Is ???

Double-A In my "Spin is in theory" It holds this to be reality. If
there was only one object in the universe it could relate to itself if
it was spinning. Its tricky thinking but fits with reality Bert

Double-A Hawkings tells us BH have some internal heat. (not as hot as
space) Motion inside a BH is to its core. You can relate a BH to a
graviton BH macro realm ,and graviton micro realm. Scherk,and Schwarz
would like that thinking Bert

My theory on implosions is they come a trillion of a second first. Then
comes the explosion into our three dimensions plus time. Implosion goes
to the 7 dimensions in the micro world(realm) to create sub-particles
that are in effect the (materials) to be blasted into macro space. Here
you also see a time lapse. Here you also see the very first balancing
act of mother nature.. Time is the fulcrum.that separates implosion from
explosion. Implosion comes first always,and that takes in every
explosion we observe in the universe. Supernova,and all stars that have
an explosion in their final spacetime act. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A In my "Spin is in theory" It holds this to be reality. If
there was only one object in the universe it could relate to itself if
it was spinning. Its tricky thinking but fits with reality Bert


How would it know that it was spinning?

If it is the other masses in the universe that create inertia, then
with their absence, there would be no inertia and therefore no
perceived centrifugal force.

Double-A

Double-A You brought your mind to relate to spinning. I'm talking the
effects that the spinning particle(object) has when at rest or spinning.
Once spinning different internal forces can relate to each other Such as
equator to its axis poles etc Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double-A You brought your mind to relate to spinning. I'm talking the
effects that the spinning particle(object) has when at rest or spinning.
Once spinning different internal forces can relate to each other Such as
equator to its axis poles etc Bert


Again, if it were the only particle in the universe, how could it
conceptually be spinning?

Double-A

From AA:
..if it were the only particle in the universe, how could it
conceptually be spinning?

Would it not display the centrifugal effect, forming an oblate sphere,
with oblateness increasing with spin rate? And would the resultant form,
resembling two frisbees joined back to back, not display two hemispheres
and a common equator rotating on a polar axis? And is this not the
planform common to all rotating systems in nature?
oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From AA:
..if it were the only particle in the universe, how could it
conceptually be spinning?

Would it not display the centrifugal effect, forming an oblate sphere,
with oblateness increasing with spin rate? And would the resultant form,
resembling two frisbees joined back to back, not display two hemispheres
and a common equator rotating on a polar axis? And is this not the
planform common to all rotating systems in nature?
oc


The thing is that if you go with Mach's Principle that inertia is a
result of the presences of the other masses in the universe, then if
there were no other masses in the universe, there would be no inertia.
It is the balance of the centripetal force holding an object together
against the inertial force of matter at the edge being inclined to
continue in a straight line that causes an object to become oblate when
it spins. No inertia, no oblateness, however it may move. That is of
course if Mach was right.

Double-A

From AA:
...if you go with Mach's Principle that
inertia is a result of the presences of the
other masses in the universe, then if
there were no other masses in the
universe, there would be no inertia.

Mach of course was Void-Spacer and had no concept of inertia being a
property of matter _conferred by the spatial medium itself_,
irrespective of there being "other masses" in the universe.

It is the balance of the centripetal force
holding an object together against the
inertial force of matter at the edge being
inclined to continue in a straight line that
causes an object to become oblate when it spins. No inertia, no
oblateness,
however it may move. That is of course
if Mach was right.

Again, Mach's concept of inertia was based on the premise that space is
pure 'void' and therefore plays no role in matter's having inertia.
oc

Double-A If the spinning at 'c' electron was moving instantaneously it
could do all the relations itself,and need not even need another
electron to help it (Wheeler and Feynman) Bert