elas

Thanks, I note that the equation on the Wikipedia Black Hole page does not use c^ and yet presumably it produces the same r value as the equation on the Schwarzchild page. I will check that bearing in mind that Einstein was unable to answer the question 'why c^' (he asked the question of himself). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged PS (added about 12 hrs later) At long last I believe I can make I can make a logical deduction from all the comments herein and my earlier work on particles. Recall that my original proposal was that for elementary particles: mr = linear force constant.........................................1 After Swansont’s constructive criticism the units were changed and the equation became: mr = G/2.....................................................................2 On this forum Mr Skeptic pointed out that the Black Hole constant I was seeking already existed and it is not G or G2. However the fact that a constant exist is proof that: mr = constant...........................................................3 is also true of Black Holes. When working in terms of linear force it was shown that the linear force of a composite is the sum of the linear force of all the elementary particles that make up the composite; leading to the possibility that this might also be true of black holes ( as Gravity is a Linear force the terms are interchangeable). In conclusion I would say that it is not so much a question of finding something new, as it is a question of finding the simplest equation that explains the cause. The cause being the nature of elementary particles; the equations of physics are only true if all the so-called elementary particles have the same fundamental content of matter and force; that is to say that there is only one elementary particle. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCorrection Equation 3 should read: m/r = constant that is of course what I meant when I wrote that the equations for nucleus radius and field radius act in opposite directions. This also implies that Black Holes and other nuclei have a structure that is the reverse of shell structure which would in turn explain why the strong force increases with distance while magnetic and gravitational forces decrease with distance. It also suggests that Black Holes contain quarks like any other natural composite particle nucleus. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedClearly I have lost the interest of the experts which is a pity because after further examination of the values it is clear that the two questionable values are: 1) not greater than 2.95 From the Black Hole equation and 2) the value of G [see Wikipedia] then note that: 1/(m/r) = 1.48E+00 [approximately 1/2 of 2.95 constant] which (to a greater degree of accuracy) in the same units as used in the particle equation is equal to G/2. Implying that the Schwarzchild radius equation can be used to calculate an accurate value for G It also confirms my original speculation that: r(field) = (G/2)/m r(nucleus) = (G/2)m Gravity, the force of infinity; determines the nature of all with infinity.

My original question was intended to obtain a reply that would enable me to continue with the developement of an idea. Subsequent questions have resulted in my making quick replies without first rigorously checking the development. Somehow I have given you the impression that I am dealing with two bodies (F = GMm/r^2) when in fact I am dealing with one body (Black Hole mass). The following contradicts some of my previous statements as this time, I have taking the time to do a partial check. As usual for me, the problem of finding the correct units is the last problem to be solved. (Currently the decimal point for G is in the wrong place). As with single particles I find that the Black Hole equation can be replaced with: m/r = constant where m = mass of Black Hole r = radius of Black Hole The constant is very close to G (just as the constant in the particle equation is close to G/2) but I have still to sort out the units and confirm this. When I have finished developement I will submit the result to the appropiate forum.

Quite the opposite, it is essential to proving my proposition, that my equation produces the same result as GR, preferably it should also explain how and why. Currently Black Hole gravitation is calculated froim the orbit of nearby stars and the mass is calculated from the gravitational force. Obviously this would include the mass of any planetary system belonging to the Black Hole (just as electrons contribute to the of the mass of an atom). G is the force between two bodies; therefore the constant required for a single body is G/2. This suggest that G/2 is the true Constant of Force. My aim here is to show that G/2 applies to Black Holes (having already speculated on how it applies to particles). In fact the accepted Black Hole equation acts in the opposite direction to a proposed particle radii equation (Black Hole radius divided by Black Hole mass equals G/2 [mass and radius are expressed in the same terms as used in the Black Hole equation]). The equation for field radius is the same as the equation for field nucleus, but in the opposite direction.

You are aware of my work on particle radii. You should also be aware of my explanation of (atomic) electron shell in terms of balanced fields (both published ‘elsewhere’). I wanted to see if there is a similar equation that would give the radius of the nucleus and whether the equation would support the balanced field concept. This has nothing to do with the actual formation of Black Holes but, it has everything to do with the equation used to calculate the radius of Black Holes. In order to find the minimum radius of the nucleus of the solar gravitation field, it is necessary to use all the mass within the solar gravity field. In reality of course the solar system does not contain enough mass to create a Black Hole but, that does not prevent the use in the Black Hole equation as part of a mathematical exercise. The equations found have been published ‘elsewhere’.

You are correct and I apologise if I have given the wrong impression. My interest lies in comparing a proposed equation for particle radii with the equation used to find the radii of Black Holes (in the belief that nature uses the same structural equatation for all forces). Using the solar mass did not produce a usable value, hence my opening question. Using the Solar system mass does produce a usable value and I can now continue with my speculative theory. Discussion of speculative theories is not allowed, so I shall say no more except to point out that perhaps the difference between the use of the system mass compared with the use of the central body mass might be of some interest to Black Hole theorist.

The idea for this equation occurred to me while watching a BBCTV programme On Black Holes in which the expert explained the mathematical relationship between the mass of galaxies and the radii of the Black Holes at the galactic centres. When I read the answers to my original question I realised that the experts used the mass of the system (galaxy) while I had used only the mass of the central body (star); the equation requires the mass value of the system (i.e. the solar system in my example). That is to say that the radius of the field nucleus is determined by the sum of the mass of all bodies with mass, within the field. PS It should be noted that the radii of nuclei is independent of spin (wikipedia article) therefore nuclear spin must decrease with increase in the speed of the field (because no point on the nuclei surface can exceed the speed of light) this causes the angular momentum to remain stable (i.e.unchanging). This sugests that Angular Momentum originates from the distribution of mass (in the form of two opposing waves [just like ocean waves on planet Earth]) within the nuclei. The Black Hole equation uses the solar mass as 1 unit of mass (see Wikipedia on Black Holes). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The measurements made by observers are the mass values of galaxies (solar mass = 1) and the Black Hole radii in km.

I calculated the error as 1.3% but that is not material to the debate. The units were deliberately omitted for reasons I do not want to explain until the proposed value is acceptable.The replies make it clear that the proposed value is not acceptable. First let me sincerely thank everyone for the clarity of their replies, not a single vulgar comment; that's a rare acheivement for replies to my submissions. Secondly let me add that all is not lost, I do need to check the units as it would not be the first time I have got them wrong; added to that there is one other possibility that I will calculate with my fingers crossed. Will come back to this forum if I have a positive result, Many thanks to all elas (10 minutes later) That was a lot easier than expected. The value 2.8615 was derived using the solar mass but, if the sun were to collapse into a Black Hole it would of course, include the mass of the planets. Redoing the calculation using solar mass plus the mass of the planetary system gives a value of 2.94. I can now make a speculative proposal that there is one equation for finding the nucleus of any force field (strong, electromagnetic or gravitational).

Wikipedia gives the value for finding the Schwarzschild radius as approximately equal to 2.95. A theory under development predicts a value of 2.8615. I would like a professional opinion on whether the prediction falls within the area of acceptability or probability.

I wonder if cosmologist could make use of the following observation: The equation for the Schwarzschild radius of black holes can be simplified to: r = m/constant. The proposed formula for particles is mr = constant (r = constant/m). I note that if both equations are applied to elementary particles then: ( r = m/constant) x (r = constant/m) = 1 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, by referring to McGregor's work on electron radii, it can be sugested that the Black Hole equation applied to particles produces the electric radius.

Have read your post and find the opening sententences comprehensible. You then go on to write in terms of points overlooking the fact that points are dimensionless whilst infinity has dimensions and the universe is at least three dimensional. Were you to change from gravity to gravitons (i.e.three dimensional particles), you would be able to express your view more clearly, but unless it is journal published it will not be allowed on this forum, but will be transferred elsewhere.

Have looked up CTC and find that what I am trying to say has already been said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve Existence of closed timelike curves places restrictions on physically allowable states of matter-energy fields in the universe. Propagating a field configuration along the family of closed timelike worldlines must eventually result in the state that is identical to the original one. This has been explored by some scientists as a possible approach towards disproving the existence of CTCs. So my answer to the original question is that universal expansion is time related therefore time travel requires an alteration in the volume occupied by the universe; on the other hand reaching a state identical to the original one is not time travel it is a reconstruction of the present that matches a moment in time that no longer exists. places restrictions on physically allowable states of matter-energy fields in the universe. I wrote "every particle has to revert to its position at that historical instant or you have to fake it by recreating that position artificially"; that is the physics of it.

Closed timelike curves are a mathematical prediction, not an understanding. In order to travel back to any historical instant (such as 2pm) either, every particle has to revert to its position at that historical instant or you have to fake it by recreating that position artificially; it does not exist (somewhere) at this instant and therefore cannot be 'traveled' to: it has to be recreated. 'Closed timelike curves' just like 'pointlike particles' are phrases created to explainlike an understanding.Time is a measurement not an entity; it is not a reality that one can travel to. (Just as you cannot go to a 'metre', but you can go to a 'metre of_ _ _ _ ') PS. To get to the 'pointlike' one man's 'implicationlike' is another man's 'speculationlike', it's all a bit 'profressionallike'.

A long time ago when this point was raised on a different forum, I was told that the problem related to spiral galaxy rotation (mass, gravity and speed of rotation) had been solved; you are implying that the problem still exists. Can someone please give a definitive answer to the question - does the problem still exist?

You are implying that all previous times still exist, where are they?

Take a look at: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/spaceweather/info_mag_fields.html Observe that between N and S the variation in charge particle density is a static variation, hence a static observation derived from moving particles. if the high density were central, the observer would record an apparent static wave. In a partial vacuum field the Vacuum Zero Point is always at the field centre therefore the variation in density accross the field creates a density wave. Where the movement of charged or neutral particles through a charged or neutral field is a regulated steady flow, the variation in density is observed as a static line or wave. When the neutral (gravitational) force between two plates is stronger than the external gravitational force, the (apparent static) wave lies accross the gap.

It is true to say that the prediction theory used to match theory with the observed Casimir force is Quantum Electrodynamics but, the experiment itself is done in completely neutral conditions with no applied electromagnetic field. Force theories are related to density, applying vacuum force removes 'charged' particles and replaces the 'charged' particles with 'neutral' particles; the 'neutral' force then exists and interacts at a higher density (i.e.QE) level. All so-called fundamental forces (and therefore the theories applied to them), are dependent on the existance of a (particle) force carrier. That is to mean, as proposed by Newton, that the universe is corpuscular in nature.

John Cuthber is a Brit. The opening ceremony will be compared with the remarkable last opening ceremony. It's a safe bet (prediction) that all us Brits are in for a huge embarrasment. Our politicians are in charge, we are already in national debt to the tune of £20,000 per person (including children) soon we will add to that the losses on the olympics, it will not just impact on us, it will pound us into the ground.

Surely, 'under vacuum' means a reduction in charged particles, it does not alter gravitational force, gravitons, photons or virtual particles hence the differences are proportional, with gravity playing a larger role due to the abscence of the more powerful charged particles. It is even possible that the gravitons carry some of the observed waves along with other neutral particles; for example: How many neutrinos are flooding through the experiment? All neutral and virtual particles entering the gap between the plates are subject to a change in the orientation of the local gravity field and that movement is observed as an increase in temperature. Vacuum decreases the charge structure only to be replaced by an increase in the flow of the neutral structure. froarty quotes experiments using gas atoms where the change in gravitational orientation would cause a change in electron orbit oreintation hence a temporary increase in temperature.

Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicrometre scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors.[7] Atmospheric pressure is a product of the Gravitational force and particles. Casimir force comes into significant play when the G force between two neutral plates is equal to or greater than the G force creating the atmospheric pressure causing the particle/wave structure between the plates to be polarised as shown in the Wikipedia wave diagram. The atmospheric field between the plates is then separate to the external atmospheric field. The external waves are not restricted to the plane shown in the wikipedia diagram; it would however be difficult, if not impossible; to conduct the experiment in any other plane than the one shown.

can light go faster than the speed of its self Perhaps the answer is not in the same frame. A muon in a cyclotron travels just a little slower than a photon in the same magnetic field; 1) at what speed would an observer on the muon observe the movement of the photon? 2) is it possible for the observer on the muon to observe a particle in the same frame, as travelling at 'c'? If so the particle would not be observed by an observer in a different frame such as the external observer of the cyclotron experiment. However, it should be possible to detect the particle by trapping it in a counter rotating magnetic ring where the particle's speed relative to an external observer would be '0' making it observable by an external observer.

To be absolutely honest, I thought that I was being particularly careful not to introduce my own interpretation. After a quick search it comes as a complete surprise to realise that the movement of the Centre of mass within a particle field is indeed speculative. I had assumed that the knowledge that this movement of the Centre of mass is responsible for a change in the observed energy of the invariant rest mass was well known; but, on that score I appear to be wrong. Would someone please advise me as to how SR explains the cause of the increase in energy?

You are confusing apparent mass with actual mass. Aircraft designers know that even at non-relativistics speeds, the centre of gravity of an object moves forward along the line of advance as speed increases; therefore the mass distribution within the object is altered but the total mass remains unchanged. The apparent mass (measured by collsion; i.e in the direction of travel) increases with speed; the true mass (inappropiately reffered to as the 'rest' mass) remains the same. Forward of the centre of gravity particles are compressed at right angle to the plane of advance. To the rear of the centre of gravity particles are compressed (elongated) in the direction of advance.

Surely Infinite Mass cannot exist without dimensions while Absolute Vacuum cannot exist with dimensions and therefore cannot be infinite? How else can the cause of existance be explained.

Thanks for the references, they are not those that I have come accross before. My point is that there is an alternative cause for atomic structure that gives a simpler and mathmatically more attractive layout. The underlying balanced field structure can also be found in elementary and composite particle field structure and, as my latest submission shows; it (the balanced field structure) can be used to solve the so-called missing anti-matter problem. The theme linking my submissions is that there is one basic structural pattern, repeated on an ever increasing scale, as we move from elementary particle, composite particles, atoms and on to astronomical bodies (i.e. large scale composites). The cause of this structural pattern is the interaction between vacuum force and matter, there is no need to invent other entities; it is only necessary to re-interpret experimental observations with strict adherence to the Law of Economy.

swansont does not say I am wrong, he does say"at last a testable theory" Kaeroll does not say I am wrong he asks "how does it improve on the current periodic table" The Standard model is a Non-Causal Mathematical Prediction Theory it does the predicting. My proposal explains the cause, it does not have to predict although in fact it does predict that certain assumptions made by the Standard model are incorrect. That is not exactly what the message requested, but you are right to complain about my atitude; it comes from years of frustration caused by members making unqualified statements regarding my proposals and the replies to my submissions. My reply to Chuck Norris is given on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44070 The sad thing is that due to the administration rules, he will probably never find my reply.