jajrussel

Time measures the effect of energy. I have forgotten who is or is not at rest, and exactly where they are in respect to each other, but so long as they reside where there is energy the effect can be measured with apparent differences should any of them choose to do so. I do like your style michel123456, so please do lead on, and I will try to keep up. Even if it does mean that I have to figure out where you have put everyone, and why you have put them there.

I tried to find some information on the experiment on the net, but haven't yet. However,I was playing with the numbers and this is what I came up with. I am learning as I go here, so I am not sure that I expressed everything I need to express nor am I sure that I expressed everything correctly, but here goes. 23E6 rpm .8mm diameter (.8mm diameter x 4) x .7853981 = 2.51327392 mm circumference 23E6 rpm x 2.51327392 mm = 57805300.16 mm/min 57805300.16 mm/m / 60s = 963421.6693 mm/s 963421.669 mm/s / 1000 = 963.4216693 m/s 963.4216693 m/s / .8 = 1204.277087 m/s 1 mm diameter = 1204.277087 m/s @ 23E6 rpm So If I figured this right the perimeter of your sphere or disk would be about 2997922458 / 1204.277087 = 248939.7675 meters in diameter when it reached light speed if it were spinning at 23E6 rpm. This really doesn't mean anything, but you can work the numbers, and if you know all the stress levels of the materials you want to work with you can figure out how big not to make it, and how fast not to spin it, or conceivably build something that would rip things apart without coming apart its self during the process. Which is sort of what Jesse Beams did for a living. I could be wrong, but it seems that basically, regardless the size, the sphere or disk with the highest rpm will have the greater energy density at any given point, but the larger the sphere or disk the more energy you can store because you have more area for storage. I am assuming the goal is to combine the two for efficiency. If you were designing a large space craft and wanted to use one or more centrifuges for stability and designed them as containers you could conceivably store more fuel in them for the ride. Then all you have to do is figure how to get the fuel out without stopping the centrifuge, and get it to where you want it. In the meantime there are all kinds of other interesting things that can take advantage of the centrifuges spin.

If my understanding here is correct, the assumption is that the last black hole standing would achieve critical mass and react with a big bang. The problem here is that what makes the black hole a black hole is gravity. The only thing with energy is mass, and all of it is within the black hole. The idea of spaghettification suggest that all this mass is, or is being pulled apart and that it will eventually be packed within a single point, at the central point of the black hole which normally would not only be moving, but changing direction constantly. All of this, and likely a couple of books worth of other things are going on at the same time and nothing has produced energy sufficient to overcome the gravity that makes the black hole a black hole. As the black hole grows so does the gravity. Assuming, that the very last particle of mass to arrive at the central point of the last black hole standing is going to achieve critical mass, suggest that up to that point a balance of energies was reached somewhere along the way. Push and Pull balanced. At the point of critical mass there has to be a sustainable reaction with enough force to rip the central point apart. The mass we are talking about here might only fill a very small volume, but its Schwarzschild radius would be really, really large. Unless, you are suggesting that with nothing to pull on that radius would simply cease to exist, and maybe you are suggesting this since I've noticed that you have said that your model requires space to 'uncollapse' suddenly. My understanding here being that space must be collapsing with that last particle of mass that is going to provide critical mass. I can not seem to get this conception clear in my mind, because then you go on to say that infinite space is already there, and always has been. Which causes me to wonder why your model requires space to uncollapse? You stated that space is energy, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum. Yet, your model by your explanation, extracts all energy/mass and places it at a single point. Does the fact that the singularity exist mean that you can still say that space has energy? Are we dealing with two entities here, or only one. Most concepts of the big bang seem to require that everything that exist had to be, or be created by the big bang. Usually time, space, matter, and gravity are each a part of that creation. My question to you here; Are space and mater separable to the extent that they can both be defined separately, or must space be energy because there is no such thing as a pure vacuum? You can not put all existing energy into your model black hole if space is energy, and still have an existing infinite space outside the black hole. By definition you have said that space is energy and that all energy is within the black hole. I to, am not a mathematician. I am not schooled beyond High School. I have no degrees. I do, have my own opinions. I can't seem to accept that time is anything more than a conceptualized tool. I see no reason why we should consider space or time as space/time. I see no reason why time need exist other than as a conceptualized tool. I can't see the universe falling apart if there were no concept of time, but it would be more difficult to understand. Should I express this idea in forum, I would expect my thought to be disagreed with. I would hope for dialog. In my mind the worst insult is to be ignored. I would hope that dialog would be in response to my ideas. Being asked to express your self mathematically, and not being able to, is not implied stupidity. When we begin to defend our lack of education, we are provoking a response away from the original discourse. I don't think that anyone actually cares, if you can not do the math. What is wanted is that you explain your reasoning. It is your model, who can better understand it? Who can better explain it? You do say that your model is better than the present model. I ask what present model? Whose idea, which model are you comparing your model to? I have other questions unless you answer them when you answer these.

Sort of, kind of, maybe? Not really! Often my attempts at humor are somewhat vague. I had never heard of a Lorentzian manifold, or causal relations between points in the manifold until you directed me in that direction. I view time as a tool, and like any tool it sometimes has to be reshaped in order to work. Often, time becomes a part of the problem we are trying to solve, and we can not see any way to remove it from the problem, so it becomes an associate of the problem. Regardless, how we associate time though, time has no effect on what is happening. The effect is a result of a cause, and the distance between the cause and effect would exist even had we not invented tools for measuring that distance. We could say that something might not have occurred, had not something else occurred for the length of time that it did, but we could also say that what originally occurred had no choice but to occur the way it occurred, effectively linking causes and effects without a time reference. Then someone else will come along and say that regardless the lack of time reference, time still exist. I can not argue with that, because if I want to understand either of the events one of the tools I am going to have to use is time. I do tend to have trouble accepting the idea of time travel. There is nothing wrong with hoping that there might be ways to time travel. The thought probably entered peoples minds long before anyone thought to link space and time mathematically, but before they start building their time machine they might want to try something easier first, like physically drawing a square using time coordinates for the corners. What is time, is not an original question. I am not even sure of how old the question really is. For a very long time people a lot smarter than I am, have been figuring out ways to use it. Today, people are using time in ways I can hardly comprehend. For that reason alone I'm not qualified to answer the question, but I can guess, and my simplest guess would be that time is a tool.

I can grasp this thought if you are saying that space is made up of tiny particles that only interact with mass by pushing. Assuming this is what you are saying, then what we perceive as gravitational force would actually be mass resisting movement. It is a good thought to examine. The only way to examine the thought without using math is to ask questions that do not require a mathematical expression for an answer. This is not such an easy thing to do because if you start using mathematical expressions in your answer, such as positive or negative you are bringing math into the conversation. At which point, anyone might assume it is okay to use math without limitation. Assuming that I have begun to grasp what you are saying, some questions I would have, would be; Why are these gravity particles pushing particles of mass, toward central points? Accepting, that they push, why do they only push from one side? I would think that in order to move the particle of mass would have to be pushed from only one side, yet I am assuming that the gravity particles would have to completely surround the mass particle, all of them pushing the mass particle at the same time. This would lead, well at least I would conclude that the mass particle would be unable to move. If you allow that the gravity particles are moving and that the mass particles are simply being carried along, you need a reason as to why the gravity particles are moving, and why they are moving in the direction they are moving, because someone is going to ask those questions. If you are saying that the gravity particles would normally pass through the mass particle and that the movement occurs because of the occasional interaction between the gravity particle and the mass particle, you would still have to explain why the mass isn't resisting movement, why its moving in the direction it is moving, eventually density, and a lot of other questions. Allowing math, your answers to the questions would not have to make sense to everyone, because not everyone can make sense of the math. By not allowing math your answers have to make sense to nearly everyone, simply because you have a bigger audience.

Time is the relationship between two events. All you have to do is define the relationship to give it meaning. However, the relationship exist whether you define it, or not. The more accurately you define it, the better you will understand it. You don't have to describe it, or define it to experience it. You don't have to experience it to define, or describe it. You can guess. Which, means you can define it any way you want to. How accurately, your description, is entirely up to you. The accuracy of all relationships depends on the complexity of the definitions, and definitions are basically answers to questions. You can make the answers to the questions simple to achieve by throwing out any parts of the relationship that are hard to define, but then you have to be willing to accept that the answer might not be clearly defined. If you are willing to accept an answer that isn't clearly defined, you might as well ask someone else the question, because any answer they give you will lack clarity, or be too complex to be clear. Possibly, even wrong.

I don't know that I ever introduced myself. My name is Joe. I live in Delaware. Theoretical Physics is not a new interest to me, however I tend to be a slow learner due more to an attention deficit than anything else. Well, at least that is what I choose to believe. I don't have to admit to being ignorant. I tend to make the fact obvious, often. Yet, I am admitting it anyway simply because I don't want anyone to think that I am under some allusion that I am, what I am not. I am just a thinker. I can't seem to think any faster than I can talk, and I tend to talk slow enough to annoy people. So, I needed a little time to think about your reply to my question. I am not fully aware of how the LHC works. My understanding is that there is acceleration, then a collision. I would expect obliteration, ( I am not imagining the world coming apart here, only a couple of small pieces of it ), and a large amount of energy in a small space for a very short period of time. I can imagine this energy feeding an existing black hole, but I'm having difficulty imagining conditions being created for the formation of a black hole. None of the mass is moving in the right direction before, or after impact. During impact, well the spread of impact seems too wide. So I am assuming the assumption is a collapse of enough mass to form the black hole. This, almost, seems imaginable, except that most of the energy is due to acceleration. The sudden collision should result in enough force to break the particles. Inertia is impossible to maintain, directions are going to change. At this point it seems, for a reason I haven't pinned down yet, that I should hope that most of the energy gained through acceleration is used affecting the direction changes. What is left is initial mass, somewhat spread out, and possibly still changing shapes and directions. I can imagine hot and cold spots, vortexes forming, swirling bits of matter, that break down as they run out of energy, but still spread to far to form a black hole. Well, this is the way I imagine it. Personally, I am leaning toward the thought that they have a better chance of turning lead ions into gold, but my mind can be changed.

Big things and little things don't work the same. From what I understand this has always been the problem. Black holes seem to require a lot of mass focused on a central point under a lot of preasure. How does the LHC put these three things together?

The first question, is all the criss crossing of the light particles as they leave the sun what cause light to appear to behave as both particles and waves? Second, wouldn't a particle of lights momentum be sufficient to keep it moving through space? Third, would gravity offer the light particle any momentum, a sort of wide angel slingshot effect from things it hasn't passed yet, in a way helping to maintain its momentum?

It wasn't my intent to lend insignificance to the event horizon. I think black holes have a very significant role to play in the universe as a whole. Thoughts that might be borderline crazy actually, (crazy but not magical). Some of the stuff I have read about time, space, and matter do seem more magic than physics, but then again things do seem magical until you understand the physics. The answer is how valid is the physics, and most of the time how many people accept the physics. (Occam, I want to say thank you for the attachment.)

I think I am beginning to understand. I have been thinking of the event horizon as being something of substance when all it is is a reference point related to a central point. It has no choice but to be spherical. When something crosses the event horizen the mass in the center will overwhelm the mass of what has been added by shear size, so the central point will remain unchanged. The only change in the event horizon would be it's reference to the center point, which would occure spherically. After thinking about it I can't see anything crossing the event horizon then getting back out, except maybe space. I have wondered if space can be squeezed out of matter like water being squeezed out of a sponge.

I hadn't thought of the sun. The sun is an in - out system. Things go in and things come out. Hawking radiation sugest the same for black holes. I am thinking about physical ways this could happen. I have accepted that a singularity with infinite density should resist changing shape, but once it begins to spin wouldn't the surrounding space begin to change shape, including the space between the singularity and it's event horizon?

By poles I meant perpendicular to its spin. I guess it was a wayward thought. Thanks.

The reason I asked is because if the black hole could flatten out due to its own spin and or its spin and the gravitational pull of its surounding galaxy then the event horizon would have to change shape as well. Possibly reaching a point where its poles would no longer fit the discription of a black hole allowing energy and matter to escape.

Does a black hole have to be spherical?