JohnSSM

It kinda seems like, gravity collapses over here...but it effects space time collapse over here... That does not correspond with wiki... "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole." It seems the last line should say...."an example of an object whose radius is smaller than its EH radius would be a black hole" The event horizon for earth would be smashing into its surface...in a black hole, you smash into it before you get to the mass...

Thanks for that, but im still working on establshing that the EH and schwartzchild radius are not the same for a black hole...and I have all the info I need to do that...

The moderator hasnt even read enough of the post to see that wiki disagreed with one of the expert members...

This is what I have stated about the subject since the beginning... "The schwartsman radius defines at what volume mass needs to be compressed to create the effects of a BH....the actual event horizon of that black hole does NOT correspond to this size..." If you had a certain volume of mass, does it not take energy to compress it? and once it does, does that energy now contribute to its gravitational force?

No...they are different radii... The schwartsman radius defines at what volume mass needs to be compressed to create the effects of a BH....the actual event horizon of that black hole does NOT correspond to this size...Wiki does work it wrong...the wording im using does seem to be correct... "The point at which gravitational collapse becomes inevitable is at 9/8 the Schwarzschild radius. This is known as Buchdahl's Theorem -- Schutz's textbook has a section on it. After the mass has collapsed into a black hole, its event horizon will be located at its Schwarzschild radius (assuming it has no angular momentum). " AHA...thats what I was looking for... Earlier in this post, i predict this effect....i didnt know the 9/8ths part but was always wondering what you meant...because you didnt describe it with enough words thoroughly, i didnt get what you were saying...that quoted wording above explains it... Gravitational collapse means event horizon in that example, correct? I use vectors in graphic design...i understand them totally...i have a color red, extend it in this vector of energy to tell me how long the line will be, extend it this vector of angle to describe what direction it goes...

Did you ration that all yourself of take info from somewhere else? Is there any evidence to support your claims?

IS anything in math a "thing" anymore? mass, volume, energy? isnt it all just existance of values in math? Angular momentum...like my golf ball example...im with you... Why is the schwartzchikd radius a defined as the radius at which a BH occurs if its actually 9/8ths? I dont get that at all...was schwarctzcgild wrong is his original math? I have not seen 9/8ths anywhere in reference to schwartzchild, now that im reading about it..so, the only source of this info is you and im wondering if youre still confused about it.. Do you still think the schwartzchild radius defines the beginning of an EH? cuz it does not... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius "The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole." Strange, according to wiki, you are incorrect...wiki agrees with my logic "An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole."

I have no intuitive knowledge of what may happen inside a black hole... My intuitive knowledge says that I could never get close enough to an event horizon without being physically destroyed by forces created by the black hole...I myself have never imagined the inside of a black hole...i figured that the forces of the universe change inside it...it my thoery and how i have envisioned it before, spacetime itself is totally interupted at the event horizon which makes passing through it impossible from either direction...i suppose i always envissioned everything which makes contact with the event horizon is suspended in animation, physicaly smashed on the surface of it... as far as I know the only way to increase my fall into the center would be to add energies in the direction to the center...and to slow it would be adding energies away from center...Adding orbital energies would have little effect on free fall towards the center...

I Must say, it seems you have made a mistake..I finally went and read the swartzchild radius on wiki...before this point in time i didnt...I only took from the scwartchild descrip in this topic...In the third sentence it says... "An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole." This means that the radius of the mass of a black hole is NOT the point of the event horizon...and also says that the event horizon for a black hole happens at a larger radius than the volume radius....The scwartzchild radius detemines when the volume of a mass can create the energies needed... the geometry it changes to create the event horizon DOES NOT correspond to its radial volume. This is what i envisioned and described... Explaining "energy vectors" as I see them may be a waste of time, but maybe you can help me sort it if i decribe what Im talking about... IF someone pushes me, all I really know is they are transferring energy to my mass in a direction...so, you have energy and a vector...im trying to understand how one can have energy appiled to a mass without a vector...I know now that kinetic energy has no vector but i dont understand why it doesnt...and i dont understand how you could have a vector without energy...if the guy never pushed me, then there would be no vector created...but when he does push me, a vector is created...or is it transferred like the energy? IN terms of gravity, I see vectors as the directions of the momentum being carried...or the direction of that energy...those energies (of momentum) and their vectors seem to be what those GR equations would need to calculate the curves in spacetime... Everytime i mentioned energies and vectors, I was really referring to the energy of momentum... What is the 9/8ths that someone mentioned? IS that where the event horizon is created for a BH in regards to it's volume of mass? that makes sense...at least its bigger and thats all I claimed to know...i can envission "bigger" just have no way to calculate the actual size... I can envision that spin would require a smaller shwartzchild radius, but i dont know how much... If we take a golf ball being hit by a club, the club can hit it "straight" on and result in very little spin and the majority of its energy is applied to force in a vector with the contact...If the golf club swipes the ball and does not make contact "straight" on, it creates spin and reduces the amount of energy transferred in the vector...if it werent for the influence of spin on air, the furthest hit golf ball would have the most energy and the least spin... Thats why I figure BH, or masses that become black holes, must have a smaller schwartchild radius the more they spin...a smaller radius implies more energy... If i had a spinning golf ball and a non spinning golf ball, the spinning golf ball would need more energy at impact to go the exact same distance as a non spinning ball....

Once again, I feel that the GR/QM conflict is coming up... IN terms of GR, i was only trying to consider the properties of mass-energy and its effect of changing the geomterical vectors that are "created" or "figured for" by general relativity, which, as I understand it, is purely a theory of geometry...not particles...its math in action that creates the curves in space time...but it is the mass-energy within the spacetime that causes the effect itself...not an outside force...it is the properties of mass-energy that effect the geometry of spacetime curves... Can some address that and let me know where im short? I really thought i grasped this...if all that isnt right, then nothing i said would be right... cmon...its giving offence and you know it...Im just sticking by the rules of the forum as best I can and i include not calling people names in mine... Calling out fatness when someone is complaining about their clothes is also honest...but the word implies hurt feelings...and we all know that....i think...i do...differing realities once again I was right...I was considering black holes purely from a GR point of view and supernova use lots of QM...This conversation could ONLY be speculative in nature...Supernova in a world where QM and GR come together does not have a proof...If they have been successfully unified then im wrong...or maybe its ok to consider them unified for certain models...like that of supernova formation and BHs? I see that the word dick has one purpose and it is to offend...another word could have been chosen that would have fit the rules of the forum much better...like "you are being impatient"...that was not offensive as it desribes more then someone being akin to a penis...impatient was a non-offensive label to give me...dick was not... Let me guess, you all have already reasoned that its ok to say "you are acting like a dick"...and not allow..."Youre a dick"...does "youre acting like" wash away the accusation somehow? I dont wanna argue with a moderator...i think that breaks the forum rules... I dont want this to get lost in the fray...it speaks to the friction between ELFMOTAT and my discussion about black holes... ""Once again, I feel that the GR/QM conflict is coming up... IN terms of GR, i was only trying to consider the properties of mass-energy and its effect of changing the geomterical vectors that are "created" or "figured for" by general relativity, which, as I understand it, is purely a theory of geometry...not particles...its math in action that creates the curves in space time...but it is the mass-energy within the spacetime that causes the effect itself...not an outside force...it is the properties of mass-energy that effect the geometry of spacetime curves... Can some address that and let me know where im short? I really thought i grasped this...if all that isnt right, then nothing i said would be right..."" I think it could be appropriate for me to look for forums in GR that discuss black holes... I just hit a wall on confusion and was interested in some input... In "Relativity" as a whole, we have general relativity and special relativity...and it seems that special relativity describes the particles as energy and begins the QM equations which sprout all over the place.. With special relativity being particle physics and general relativity not being unified with particle physics, does that mean special and general relativity dont unify? no harsh feelings fellas...This topic could spur on many more topics and i think it did. Im going to try to keep my thoughts on the straight and narrow when sticking to the rules im learning and realizing...and I started a new topic that addresses my very first bit of observation about GR and SR... I EFOMAT "I don't understand how you're getting from "some of the BH's energy is stored in its angular momentum" to "therefore its event horizon is smaller." The two seem utterly disconnected." Thats a question I was hoping to answer... Here it is In schwartzchild, You can keep saying "event horizon", but I think radius keeps terms better with volume and mass...The event horizon would exist at this theoretical radius ( this is not true, but i wanted to keep it in the thread), if the object had no spin. If the object weren't perfectly symmetrical, it WOULD spin...its has no choice, GR would make it spin, or maybe SR...all I know is that it will spin...thats why those two are grouped together like that, ie "in a symetrical, non spinning object" being a preface to the theory...So, if it isnt spinning,because it is perfectly symmetrical and has no other forces effecting it which means this object is alone in spacetime...there is no reason to deduct the total amount of energy that spin takes, or reduce radius of schwarztrman...it takes energy to spin something though...Now...if the total energies of that object, are creating a spin, that means some of the vectors from some of the energies are not working to create more gravity...spin does not create gravity...but those vectors have to work to create spin...the energy it takes to spin cannot be used to create its total gravity anymore... So...the Radius distance which dictates how much energy is applied to a mass as you decrease its volume (or in whatever terms you want to view it), now has to account for the energy of spinning and demands more compression before it has the energy to create the properties of a BH...In shcwartzman, i dont know how to not use the word compression, because adding more mass to volume is compressing more mass into a volume, and reducing the volume is still compressing that mass...by the way, both of which would take lots of energy, and in schwartzman theories, we move it around with no such demands....you kinda should be asking, "what makes the volume of the mass decrease?" or, "you just cant stuff more mass into that volume without energy"...and then, where is that energy coming from? Try this...we are going to test the schwartzman radius by slowly reducing the volume of the earth...we need a mechanism to smash earth down to 6000 km from 6300, not losing a drip of mass...anything you might envision is going to require energy that you cannot imagine...but lets say you did and you could just rob a pit of unlimited energy to run your mechanism...by the way, the device not only needs to smash it down, itll need energy at every moment to keep it smashed down...and we run this device, adding more and more compression to the volume of earth, using more and more energy...we will eventually spawn fusion...itll be hydrogen or some assimiliation of gases that will begin that process...now...if we can keep the pressure on with our device and we can keep it compressed that entire time as fusion does its destructive thing, well, eventually, with the right conditions, its seems you would form a black hole...thats how i see schawatrsman...interesting to note...if you could imagine all of the energy your device would have needed to smash earth down to create a black hole, now you would need a rocket with that much energy to escape it...and that is more energy than the velocity of light...there is another way to smash more space into into a volume...its acceleration...acceleration gives you the ability to cram more kilometers into the same time...spacetime, it is a continuum...this effect could also cause a black hole if it were possible to have the energy to move that fast...and the event horizon seems to be a speed for every mass, and not a radius for every mass...there should be a schwartxman acceleration limit for any given mass, just as there is a scwartman radius for any given mass...at that acceleration limit, the forces of spacetime are changed, just like it was a massively compressed object... Lets say you had an object at the schwartzman radius...or the event horizon...and that object is not using the energies from its own resulting vectors, or outside vectors to spin....which will be impossible unless it is perfectly syymetrically spherical...if we now wanted to make the black hole spin, we would have to deduct the amount of energy from its gravitational force to get the energy to make it spin...and you need less volume, more compression, more energy..so you make the radius to acomodate for that...and it finds its new shcqwartzman radius, with spin...not the same distance of the scjhwartsman radius with no spin... You apparently would not be able to increase the radius for a BH without slowing its spin...and the radius does have a limit on the big side...no amount of spin or no spin can make the radius larger once it is calculated for a given mass...only smaller... Heres a good link http://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-centrifugal-force-reduce-the-effect-of-gravity Here is another really interesting perspective... The volume that we discuss getting smaller with r, to me, is the volume of space-time that a mass fills...so the earth right now fills a volume of space-time roughly 6300km in radius...that does not define the point at which gravity interupts space time or, the point which requires an escape velocity that exceeds the velocity of light...that would assume when you hit the event horizon you are hitting the mass of a BH...thats a big assumption...I assumed the point at which gravity creates the event horizon is NOT the schwartzman radius...the smawrtsman is the radius of the mass that you fit into a specfic volume... The event horizon of a black hole could not be inside the volume of its mass...im pretty sure the event horizon could exist relativley far away as a diferent radius...10 feet from the surface of mass? 10 miles? 10,000? i have no idea...the theory suggests the event horizon would be larger in r than the schwartsman r The last line is very cool...thanks... No...you missed the point The point is, if you cant describe the ball, you must not be able to see it...When i make a description, none of you can keep up with it, and out of frustration, you turn to math that you dont even "SEE" and call it your explanation...I havent heard any of you describe the geometery of space-time...I wonder why not when you understand it so well...hmmm

I had never heard the "homogenous distribution" of matter before...that seems important to understand...so, to make GR work you have to spread matter out evenly in a 3d?

I just hit a wall of confusion and was interested in some input... In "Relativity" as a whole, we have general relativity and special relativity...and it seems that special relativity describes the particles as energy and begins the QM equations which sprout all over the place..and GR only concerns itself with geometrical values and not particles... With special relativity being particle physics and general relativity not being unified with particle physics, does that mean special and general relativity dont unify? I am confused. Whoa...im so wrong its not even funny.. This may be the dumbest question ever asked on a physics forum...man...my brian came unwound with my incorrect visions of these thoeries...can I and should i delete it?

Naw...it seems that calling someone ignorant, or a dick, does create offense in most cases...which is why they chose to use those words...which is why the forums rules suggest very deeply that people not refer to each other in derogatory ways...i think...wheres the math? dont got any The rest of the world seems to know that calling people names does create negative feelings...which are usually reflected right back...and there we were... even if ignorant is accurate, it doesnt add anything to the convo... Do you need an equation to figure that name calling is childish and not well received by others?

If someone is using and researching this subject on wijkipedia, as we go, what type of thinking is that? substitutive? Naw...logic can and is used to dictate facts... If I had math to back it all up, then it could finally also make sense to you...and i agree...im speculating...some guys do the stock market really well, others do not...I did i didnt use math for that either...just observation...lucky again! I am certainly taking back my statement about "all energy has a vector"...i was blindly locked into ONLY considering the energy that would effect the geometry of gravity...im now looking for "do those energies without a vector (such as kinetic) effect the geometry of gravity...and if they do, I will learn how they do...as best I can...

How many times did i have to state and restate that there is a radius, at which a certain mass can create the effects of a BH? I did the same thing with BH and supernova that you did to me...I denied what i knew was real until you gave proof, so that you could prove to me that your proof was as good as mine..thats exactly what you do to me... Unreasonably patient? well...ive been arguing the same realities to different people over and over...so perhaps my patience is growing thin compared to someone who just joined in...and I apoogize Now accusing me of not thinking? Im not the one running to other peoples words...i never have...

Instead of learning the lesson you wanted me to learn, I learned there is more than one way to skin a cat... Fellas, if we can start calling each other names, can I go ahead and join in now? Then we can have everyone calling each other dicks...coooooool I only denied it till you gave me proof...which is what you do to me in every post...

You ran me out of the conversation, not with science, but with your own obtusity...i believe thats what you were going for...nice angle I can help you if youre willing to learn...your pride has put you in a position of dominance only in your mind As i suspected, some supernova do indeed create black holes from that ocurrence...it is a step in becoming a black hole...I did suspect that, but there have been plenty of times where others knew something just as much as I did and still asked for proof...which took me much more time to give them than linking a wikipedia page, which i have never done... Being able to express these concepts in my own words seems to be a strength of mine..and explanation does infer understanding...you dont like the forms of my explanations...and we are in "Speculations" precisely because I do not have math to prove it... kinetic energy does not require a vector...good info...i need to see if kinetic energy can effect the curve of space-time...anyone?

Sir...you also have misunderstandings and have posted false conclusions... Im not interested in hearing how I know things you dont know because I am wrong though...Who's pride is being effected here? Im done

Agreement is the best feeling! You are not correct about "anyone can learn" the math...IQ of 70? And maybe not everyone can use their imagination to see certain effects as real...ever tried discussing an issue of visualization with a "dumb" person? Its just as hard as talking math...is there a better word for low IQ than dumb? sorry.... Ha...I was that student...and earlier in this post I describe the inverse square law to a T...without using or knowing the equation of inversed squares... I myself have not been convinced that there is any experimental type proof of black holes being formed by supernova...I will surely go rad what you posted I was only concerned that there IS a radius, at which point, a certain mass can take on BH properties...its the way I think...you can tell, im much less concened about all those vectors involved in figuring things out...I go right for the tensor...and it has proved to work for my understandings...this post is the first discussion ive ever had with anyone who had actually studied GR and has math info...But i have listened to 1000s of hours of youtube lectures over 10 years...so the math as you know it has been well described to me...the effects and how it all works together...just not how it works as math...and I know this means I will never be able to make a true model of my own...But I can hold a discussion about GR, cant i? I think im doing OK If schwartzchild is right, or there is ANY radius, that a certain mass, when reduced to it, will create a black hole...then its very easy to say that the mass of my finger has a radius, at which point, when compressed down to that radius will make a black hole...thats straight up easy logic for beginners...will it go through the effecst of gravity? yes...fusion...all of it... If you read the bit about the pitcher and such, i may not need to answer this... If energy exists, can it exist without a vector? I dont think so...look to the definition of vectors...every energy has a directional component called a vector Why does spin create the need for the radius to be shrunk in order to create a BH? Cuz the spin takes energy away from gravity...that radius is really a point at which you have given mass more energy, to effect gravity more and more until you get a black hole...and it all does come with a "direction" or vectoral component...Its about the collective "angles" of the vectors...they can create spin, or gravity, not both at the same time... You should note that when you shrink the volume of any mass, its takes energy...the common term is called compressive energy...thats what it apparently takes to shrink any volume...In our example, we have been trying to shrink the volume of a mass without adding pressure.... How does nature pull this off? It adds more mass...how? fusion...turning light little matter into heavy friggin matter in the same relative volume... I have a posting called "math as a waveform science"...it implies that math was never meant to count digits or to account for them...it implies that math digitizes waveforms in order to understand them...but is that the only way to interpret the knowledge of waveforms? Waveforms complete math as they combine and interact...no digitizing needed in that process

What is happening in the scwarthchild problem? If you shrink the volume with the same mass to a certain point, it becomes a black hole... Just as the math makes nosense to me, but still works... If supernove sometimes maybe lead to the formation of black holes, we can say that supernova maybe a spurious correlation to the effect The worst logici ever heard is knowing that my results are right and claiming my process of getting there is wrong... Gosh....I just got lucky again, eh? But all supernova do not lead to black holes..for you to make them the reason for black holes holds NO logic All i need is the mass in my finger to create a black hole... and the energy to reduce its volume...that logic is schwarwxchlld at work... Your logic doesn't hold up...you would have to show proof that supernova do create black holes...ill be waiting for links to proof Yknow what creates a black hole...when the volume of any given mass shrinks below the scwartzchild radius... Because you cannot see what I see, theres no reason to get snippy Im not concerned with who was right about the radius or why...only that a radius does exist for a given amount of mass to now create a black hole... if you can understand why a spinning curve ball will never be thrown as fast as a non spinning fastball, by the same pitcher, then you can understand that when a mass is spinning, it needs more energy to create the same gravity as a non spinning mass If you undersand GR, there is no difference between me throwing a ball, or gravity effecting a ball...its just energy that moves the ball...if you spend some of that energy on spinning it, you reduce the power behind the vector that induces motion...cuz you decide to spend some on the vector that creates spin....that should make good sense and there would be no difference in the energy it takes to account for spin, and the energy it takes to account for gravity...but the same energy cant do both tasks....it must be divided

Ya..see the event horizon precisely as "nothing"...not a thing... But we were talking about masses that become black holes...not the black hole after being made...in the case of masses that become black holes, if they are spinning, the radius that determines the volume of the black hole zone of volume needs to shrink...you allready agreed with that How did i intuitively know the results? Maybe my intuitiion and yours work differently? Or do you see everything I see?

It doesnt matter how much energy you lose...if your energy can become compressed tight enough, you have a black hole...

I have been using my imagination...lets just say that, when you throw a curve ball, it can never go as fast as your fast ball, because you must use a good amount of energy to create the spin and now that energy does not exist in forward energy to create speed... With gravity, any offset in mass from a center point (non symetrical objects) would create a vector with spin...that mass can be inside the object itself, or not...in other words, an object can create its own spin, or can be effected to spin by another mass...but since considering all mass in any given volume of space to be "one mass", this should be intuitive... If the vectors effecting any given mass, create spin, then we will need more energy to produce gravity...so, if the schawrtzchild object begins to spin, we know we need to effectively shrink the radius, requiring more energy to now create the BH... Super nova do not create black holes on every occurence...therefore, I say, black holes are not a remnant of stars who supernova

It we compress the volume of earth down to the schwartzchild radius, it will contribute enough added energy to create a black hole...not at all a small amount at all...

Money has no right to influence the decisions made in a fair and equal democracy based on free market capitalism. Imagine what might happen to something like pro-football if the rules allowed for outsiders to bribe referees for favor in observing and calling penalties, instead of the referees following and judging events in the game against rules in the book to the best of their abilities, without a bias, to lean in favor of a bribe. What does the same effect do to our legislative body? The reps are no longer making decisions based on ethics and responsibilties to the attitudes of their constituents equally...the consider those who give them money and adopt more of their attitudes... The first thing that would happen to pro football after allowing referees to take bribes and informing the mass public is, most people would lose interest in watching...who cares to watch a game where someone is buying influence? The game aspect is now fake....like professional wrestling, which is more about antics and personalities than games... If the folks who allow the system to run on bribes, know that bribes will create a loss of interest in the general public to follow legislative processes and vote (What happens when the people realize that no matter who they vote in, money will always have the same influence on them, in effect rendering their vote of "who". to be useless). The bribes are allowed right now because politicians will not do the right thing and make them illegal. And not only do they get to feed off the money and power that money in the system offers them, they also know, it will make us care about what they do, less. Bribing legislators and even adjudicators is now considered free speech and is protected by our constitution as it renders it invalid...and people did pay to get these laws made.... No change in american politics can change the heart of our ills as long as money runs the vote...to be honest, why dont we demand they get rid of legislators and just put the bills and initiiatives on EBAY...whichever one collects the most money, passes...that is what we have now, with people skimming off the top...