Escape velocity at the speed of light

"Zarkovic" wrote in message
news:Nx6jb.103160$pl3.77936@pd7tw3no...

I was just curious about it, didn't need it for anything, and I didn't
have
time to do any searches on google or any other search engine. Anyhow,
thanks
to all of you guys.

Hi Zarkovic

That last bit of my post was not directed at you. I was ranting at someone
else in the group. I'm sorry if you got the impression I was ranting at you.

Hi Michael To use a reference frame for escape velocity,the Earth's
escape velocity is 7 miles per second,and a blackhole"s escape velocity
would have to be greater than 186,242 mps. Still it is written that
black holes are not pitch black. The uncertainty principle of QM allows
particles and radiation to leak out of a black hole This causes the BH
to lose mass and evaporate slowly. For the horizon of the BH to shrink
in size,the energy density on the horizon must be negative,warping
spacetime to make light rays diverge from each other. These are
Hawking"s thoughts. My thoughts are matter,spacetime,and radiation once
passing through the event horizon move to the BH core,and concentrate
there. A BH can never go hungry,for it has the micro-wave photons of
space to continually absorb. Since I see space as infinite,and with
infinite energy,it means a lonely BH is absorbing more energy than it is
radiating out. That thought is very important. Bert PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have to be positive.

Hi Michael To use a reference frame for escape velocity,the Earth's
escape velocity is 7 miles per second,and a blackhole"s escape velocity
would have to be greater than 186,242 mps. Still it is written that
black holes are not pitch black. The uncertainty principle of QM allows
particles and radiation to leak out of a black hole This causes the BH
to lose mass and evaporate slowly. For the horizon of the BH to shrink
in size,the energy density on the horizon must be negative,warping
spacetime to make light rays diverge from each other. These are
Hawking"s thoughts. My thoughts are matter,spacetime,and radiation once
passing through the event horizon move to the BH core,and concentrate
there. A BH can never go hungry,for it has the micro-wave photons of
space to continually absorb. Since I see space as infinite,and with
infinite energy,it means a lonely BH is absorbing more energy than it is
radiating out. That thought is very important. Bert PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have to be positive.

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have to be positive.


Why?


Dave

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have to be positive.


Why?


Dave

Mr. Zinni sezz..

Your "Sucking Space" theory is nothing
new. It is in fact, in certain
circumstances, a valid interpretation of
the mathematical model of GR.

Never once was the term "sucking space" used. That is a deliberate
falsification on your part and you know it. The model was represented
as being exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: an accelerating,
pressure driven flow *into* a center of mass, in complete accordance
with GR's abstract but brilliant 'curvature' imagery.

It is not a Theory in and of itself but part
of the interpretive arsenal of GR and it is certainly not a Theory in
the distorted
and *******ized way that you and the
kooks you reference present it.

You yourself have deliberately *******ized it with your "sucking"
implication. You might start with correctly representing the
flowing-space model that the "kooks" have independantly deduced and
presented.

And BTW ("for the newbies"), the Schwartzchild BH model
is a theoretical representation only, meant to illustrate the event
horizon concept. In the real universe, it can safely be assumed that all
stars rotate, and that when a star collapses to a BH, angular momentum
spins it up to a very high spin rate. In the BH inflow diagram you cite,
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/trajrbig_gif.html , what happens to the
flow lines under conditions of very high equatorial spin? The
centrifugally-repellant equator
forces the inflow to favor the poles. And the higher the spin rate, the
more acutely the _TWO_ spiraling inflows will align on the polar axis.
And what does this say about the essential *gravitic bipolarity* of all
(spinning) BHs? A little factoid of basic physics that seems to be lost
on the mainstream. oc

Mr. Zinni sezz..

Your "Sucking Space" theory is nothing
new. It is in fact, in certain
circumstances, a valid interpretation of
the mathematical model of GR.

Never once was the term "sucking space" used. That is a deliberate
falsification on your part and you know it. The model was represented
as being exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: an accelerating,
pressure driven flow *into* a center of mass, in complete accordance
with GR's abstract but brilliant 'curvature' imagery.

It is not a Theory in and of itself but part
of the interpretive arsenal of GR and it is certainly not a Theory in
the distorted
and *******ized way that you and the
kooks you reference present it.

You yourself have deliberately *******ized it with your "sucking"
implication. You might start with correctly representing the
flowing-space model that the "kooks" have independantly deduced and
presented.

And BTW ("for the newbies"), the Schwartzchild BH model
is a theoretical representation only, meant to illustrate the event
horizon concept. In the real universe, it can safely be assumed that all
stars rotate, and that when a star collapses to a BH, angular momentum
spins it up to a very high spin rate. In the BH inflow diagram you cite,
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/trajrbig_gif.html , what happens to the
flow lines under conditions of very high equatorial spin? The
centrifugally-repellant equator
forces the inflow to favor the poles. And the higher the spin rate, the
more acutely the _TWO_ spiraling inflows will align on the polar axis.
And what does this say about the essential *gravitic bipolarity* of all
(spinning) BHs? A little factoid of basic physics that seems to be lost
on the mainstream. oc

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have
to be positive.

Why?

Dave

Since the flow is always *into* (as opposed to 'away from') a BH, it
would be an electrical anode, or (+) terminal. Same with the proton as a
microcosmic analog of a BH.

Flow is always 'away from' the cathode or (-) terminal. oc

PS If
a black hole has a charge it would have
to be positive.

Why?

Dave

Since the flow is always *into* (as opposed to 'away from') a BH, it
would be an electrical anode, or (+) terminal. Same with the proton as a
microcosmic analog of a BH.

Flow is always 'away from' the cathode or (-) terminal. oc

Hi oc Thank you for explaining that to Dave. Another reason for a BH
having a positive charge is quarks have a positive charge,and I read in
a few books }blackholes could be called quark stars. Electons can be
striped away from atoms,but not the nuclei,and that is composed of
positive quarks. Bert