How solid or hollow is a BH(black hole)?

An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and having a shell
thickness of .0001 ly (9.4605e8 km) offers a thin shell volume of
2.666e44 m3

It really doesn’t take all that much math in order to establish that a
EH thin shell comprised of 1g/cm3 density would amount to 2.666e47 kg,
giving a surface escape velocity demand of 8.674e7 km/sec or 289 times
faster than the speed of light, and that’s if the entire internal
volume of this EH sphere were absolutely devoid of any other mass. If
this same thin EH shell was instead comprised of a superfluid of solid
helium at .214 g/cm3 would still easily provide more than sufficient
mass of 5.7e43 kg, so that its escape velocity of 4.01e7 km/sec at the
EH surface of solid helium is offering 134 times greater than the
speed of light.

So, where’s the need of any solid BH body of mass?

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?

http://www.1728.org/diam.htm

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/as...scape_velocity

Of course once inside of this extremely thin EH shell is going to
represent zero gravity regardless of the EH shell density and its
mass, offering a light year diameter sphere of containing whatever.

Changing the EH shell diameter and its thickness to suit whatever you
like, and run the math through these same online calculators in order
to test out your ideas as to what a hollow BH could have to offer.
Filling this hollow BH with weird aether or whatever else you can
think of, as such will only add to the escape velocity, such as
including an enormous solar system of 2e31 kg is literally adding a
mere drop to this enormous bucket of mass.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and having a shell
thickness of .0001 ly (9.4605e8 km) offers a thin shell volume of
2.666e44 m3

It really doesn’t take all that much math in order to establish that a
EH thin shell comprised of 1g/cm3 density would amount to 2.666e47 kg,
giving a surface escape velocity demand of 8.674e7 km/sec or 289 times
faster than the speed of light, and that’s if the entire internal
volume of this EH sphere were absolutely devoid of any other mass. If
this same thin EH shell was instead comprised of a superfluid of solid
helium at .214 g/cm3 would still easily provide more than sufficient
mass of 5.7e43 kg, so that its escape velocity of 4.01e7 km/sec at the
EH surface of solid helium is offering 134 times greater than the
speed of light.

So, where’s the need of any solid BH body of mass?

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?


because "We" are not in charge.....idiot

On Feb 6, 9:18*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...
An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and having a shell
thickness of .0001 ly (9.4605e8 km) offers a thin shell volume of
2.666e44 m3

It really doesn t take all that much math in order to establish that a
EH thin shell comprised of 1g/cm3 density would amount to 2.666e47 kg,
giving a surface escape velocity demand of 8.674e7 km/sec or 289 times
faster than the speed of light, and that s if the entire internal
volume of this EH sphere were absolutely devoid of any other mass. *If
this same thin EH shell was instead comprised of a superfluid of solid
helium at .214 g/cm3 would still easily provide more than sufficient
mass of 5.7e43 kg, so that its escape velocity of 4.01e7 km/sec at the
EH surface of solid helium is offering 134 times greater than the
speed of light.

So, where s the need of any solid BH body of mass?

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?

because "We" are not in charge.....idiot

If more solid means less space between particles a black hole is a
super-solid. My "critical mass density theory" has to how this is
reality TreBert

On Feb 6, 6:28*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:18*am, "David Staup" wrote:









"Brad Guth" wrote in message

So, where's the need of any solid BH body of mass?

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?

because "We" are not in charge.....idiot

If more solid means less space between particles a black hole is a
super-solid. *My "critical mass density theory" has to how this is
reality *TreBert

But only the EH has to be packed solid, such as a solid form of helium
represented by .214 g/cm3, and thereby leaving its innards quite
hollow.

On Feb 6, 9:35*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:28*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:









On Feb 6, 9:18*am, "David Staup" wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message

So, where's the need of any solid BH body of mass?

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?

because "We" are not in charge.....idiot

If more solid means less space between particles a black hole is a
super-solid. *My "critical mass density theory" has to how this is
reality *TreBert

But only the EH has to be packed solid, such as a solid form of helium
represented by .214 g/cm3, and thereby leaving its innards quite
hollow.

Any idea that the ratio of dark to luminous matter might have anything
to do with whether the galaxy is young (i.e. emission of bipolar
cosmic jets), or older, more super-massive Abell type galaxy?

Here's a chart showing the dark matter distribution, which "peaks" in
dark matter for clustered galaxies, at an observed Hubble shift of
around v = 0.75:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3239/darkmatter.jpg

Perhaps the age of the galaxy on both sides of the hump, is an
indicator of Hawking radiation (intense gravitational field causes
particle/antiparticle creation, allowing one particle to escape, and
the other to fall into the black hole - the escaped particle
annhilates with an escaping anti-particle (Hawking radiation)), i.e.
which is practically non-existent for large galaxies, or medium
galaxies beyond their 'dark matter' prime.

On Feb 6, 6:18*am, "David Staup" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

Why not permit hollow and empty EH spheres to exist?

because "We" are not in charge.....idiot

Who is "We"?

Naturally if you consider us independent outsiders as "We", then you
are 100% correct by stipulating that "We" are not in charge.

Dear Brad Guth:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:49:12 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
....
An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and
having a shell thickness of

Nothing finite can stop infalling matter, at the event horizon. Within the event horizon, is not truly part of this Universe any longer.

David A. Smith

On Feb 6, 8:19*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:49:12 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and
having a shell thickness of

Nothing finite can stop infalling matter, at the event horizon. *Within the event horizon, is not truly part of this Universe any longer.

David A. Smith

Hello Mr David

Its gravity is definitely still a part of "THIS" universe.
If you are inside the Horizon, you feel the light as HEAT em. entropy
down
On the out side you feel the Gravity. entropy up.
Both gravity and em are Subject to the inverse square law. "c squared"

On Feb 8, 9:14*pm, Tyler Dresden wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:19*am, dlzc wrote:

Dear Brad Guth:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:49:12 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

An EH(event horizon) sphere of 1 ly diameter and
having a shell thickness of

Nothing finite can stop infalling matter, at the event horizon. *Within the event horizon, is not truly part of this Universe any longer.

David A. Smith

Hello Mr David

Its gravity is definitely still a part of "THIS" universe.
If you are inside the Horizon, *you feel the light as HEAT em. entropy
down
On the out side you feel the Gravity. *entropy up.
Both gravity and em are Subject to the inverse square law. *"c squared"

Both gravity and em are Subject to the inverse square law. *"c
squared"
fall in one radian, turn one radian = c^2

Dear Tyler Dresden:

On Friday, February 8, 2013 8:14:28 PM UTC-7, Tyler Dresden wrote:
....
Its gravity is definitely still a part of "THIS"
universe.

.... and presumably net angular momentum and charge. But we cannot infer distribution of matter from outside.

If you are inside the Horizon, you feel the light
as HEAT em. entropy down

I am not so sure that light stays as EM. Might become electrons or positrons with a 90 degree twist in dimensionality.

On the out side you feel the Gravity. entropy up.

Gravity is entropy neutral. Friction is not.

Both gravity and em are Subject to the inverse
square law. "c squared"

But necessarily different coordinate systems for distance...

David A. Smith