stevebtaylor

gravity-wave is the term intended. the physical manifestation of a wave travelling through a fluid, just like here on earth. similar to waves crashing on a beach.

gravitational-waves and gravity-waves are indeed two completely different things. yes, just like here on earth, gravity-waves travel through fluid matter. the definition is; when a gravity field is in fluctuation, a gravity-wave is produced. applying this to the chaotic fluctuation of a collapsing star, a gravity-wave is produced. this wave travels through the in-falling cloud. the question is either 1) what effect does this have on suceeding events?, or 2) explain how the gravity-wave has no effect on the formation of a neutron star.

gravitational waves or gravity waves? this reference is to the physical variety that can be seen travelling through matter.

no, not a gravity-wave from another object. when a star goes supernova its gravity field is changed and in response that produces a physical gravity-wave which travels through matter. this does not refer to gravitational wave radiation, but rather to 'the stone dropped in pond water' variety. as the stellar mass collapses, how does the gravity-wave travelling through it contribute to the formation of a neutron star?

considering that a gravity field in fluctation will produce a gravity wave, will a gravity wave contribute to the formation of a stellar mass collapsing to a neutron star? how?

to clarify, the triple-point of light refers to the state inside a blackhole. the mass of a collapsing star has been converted to energy and that energy has been spatially contracted in the dimension of travel. so what is holding it there? the light, read energy, has absorbed an incredible amount of energy and also been compressed. it should explode. so, does the energy of spatial contraction exceed this value? we dont know because spatial contraction does not have an energy formula.

to clarify, the saturation-point of light refers to the final state in the formation of a blackhole. that matter turns to energy under extreme conditions is proven by nuclear bombs. so energy is the very next step in the conversion of mass to energy. in stellar collapse to a blackhole, the energy is packed into a small space and held there. how? the energy is in there. as a blackhole it is gravitationally equivalent to the mass that produced it. and it is holding together. should not the next easiest answer be field re-arrangement?

to clarify, the gravitational-wave singularity refers to the initial conditions during the final collapse to a blackhole. by definition, a gravity field in fluctuation produces a gravity-wave. a collapsing star will then produce a physical gravity-wave travelling through matter. the matter is moving inward. the point here is our understanding of blackhole collapse. it is more of an argument against excluding or, worse, ignoring, the defined fact that a gravity-wave is an integral part of colloapsing a star to a blackhole. ...and lamenting that science has not yet incorporated this information to the current model.

actually, spacial contraction is in one dimension only, according to the lorentz-transformation equations and einsteins explanation. an accelerated meter stick shortens in the direction of travel, its width and height are unaffected. thus, there can be no folding of space. there is also no blow off into space from a star collapsing to a blackhole. the key signpost of a blackhole is high-energy radiation from the orbiting cloud of original unincorporated matter. what exists inside a blackhole could be known. the next possible state should be proposed before 'nothing' is seriously proposed.

are the following steps in the formation of a blackhole generaly accepted? 1. the final chaotic stellar collapse intitiates the event. 2. the accelerated mass is imploded and converts to energy. 3. spatial contraction is the final step in making a blackhole.

the original purpose of this proposal was to outline the basic layout of blackhole formation and then attempt to fill in the pieces. the basic layout for blackhole formation is; chaotic collapse of stellar mass begins the process. spatial contraction is the end state. in between, mass is converted to energy. the analogy is to a nuclear explosion where an implosion is used to detonate an explosion. for a blackhole to form, this explosion is further imploded. this seems to be the basic outline for blackhole formation. my question to you: is the 3-step ouline for a blackhole valid?

the original idea behind this work was to present the basic outline of blackhole formation and then to try filling in the pieces. the basic outline is : chaotic collapse of stellar mass initiates the process. spatial contraction is the last stage of blackhole formation. in between, mass is converted to energy. the analogy is to nuclear explosion, an implosion detonates an explosion. for a blackhole, spatial contraction further implodes this. this seems to be the basic outline for blackhole formation. gravity waves as initiators, energy bonding of waves and saturation points of light have been offered as possibilities to fill in the missing pieces. my question is this, is the 3 -step basic outline valid?

whew, you sure know your stuff, and thanks for staying up so late. your answers are appreciated. my apologies for getting side-tracked. the main thing bugging me is formation of blackholes. there is no formula that describes the events, as i understand them. the chaotic collapse of stellar mass will cause a physical gravity wave to travell through the matter. blackhole formation ends with spatial contraction. in between, the anology is to nuclear explosion, initiated by an implosion to cause an explosion. the black hole implodes that, too. are these correct? is it worth research and experiments?

thanks again, and what radiates from the event horizon? are not those masses eventually radiated away as high-energy energy? if the amplitude of the wave is not increased then it is indeed a loss of energy. excuse me for omitting that detail in this instance. first, is the photon still considered to carry the electro-motive force? next, permit me to use a very simplified thought experiment to ask a question. in a metal wire, there are concentric rings or fields of force surrounding it. are there concentric fields or forces around each of the electro and magnetic waves of the photon as it is in motion? is this a clearer picture? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeda definition has standing waves produce matter. two similar waves travelling in opposite directions will establish a standing wave. this is repeating what ive said in another thread. one thread will be chosen.

the triple-point of light is the supposed state of a singularity. a collapsing stars' mass is converted to energy by a relativistic event and results in a blackhole. the spatial contraction has bound the energy waves together by re-arranging the em fields. this is basically the starting point of the triple point of light, where the fields of the sinewaves of light are horizontal for both planes of the em waves, and so in absorbing an amount of energy via amplitude amplification, the fields hold the waves frozen in place. this requires only that the weak fields of individual waves relax under pressure and extend across the new object with a strong field, a blackhole singularity. now, my question is this. do those fields exist around each sinewave (electro=y, magnetic=z, time =x) that describes a photon in motion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedis that a clear question? ive benn surfing and can find nothing on this.

actually, how would many blackholes (one per galaxy, minimum) form at a time near the start of space-time and yet still the universal expansion accelerates? this is a digression and i apologise for it. back to matter at hand. a standing wave of energy is considered or defined to be matter. and a standing wave is produced by two similar waves travelling in opposite directions. for my proposal to work, the spatial contraction would shorten the wavelengths and then rebound to establish standing waves throughout, resulting in the formation of the blackhole. the field bonds would then not be necessary. a single wavelength singularity would not occur.

klaynos, thank you very much for the itemized reply. photons have energy, energy is a property, i agree. however would energy is a measurement, be as accurate as mass is a measurement? if energy is not itself a thing, is mass also not itself a thing? the area under the sine wave was, at one time, was a measure of the energy of the wave. went to website, saw page one. it seems the rest is for sale. maxwells equations do describe a more compex photon. its an observation. ie, blackholes may be older than galaxies and the universe is expanding. i dont see how, either, but they must play a part in the space ecosystyem and/or recycling business. the suggestion wasnt to a limit of spatial expansion, rather more to an unknown or as yet undiscovered recycling system, including space. wouldnt blackholes need to give back, must, for an expanding system? ?karma! so, i suggest that dark matter comes from, or is produced by, primal galactic black holes. sorry, no proofs here. it may be prudent to consider that one type of blackhole is not the same species as another, in position (galactic) or time (primal). how would a blackhole form at the beginning of space-time and yet still the universe accelerates its expantion?

the mass, when accelerated to relativistic values, changes to energy. preferably high-energy. (am i even close on this stuff?) the star is imploding for the final crunch...that kind of energy! storing energy in a singularity. well put. the star implodes. spatial contraction occurs. maybe a gravitational wave. high energy energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, generically speaking, lightwaves have their wavelength shortened. correct me on this if it is wrong. the sine-wave described by a photon and its electro and magnetic fields exhibits force fields emanating around it? it is those weak fields that under stress will re-orientate horizontally. taken together, across the span, they would have strength to store energy. as theoretical as this sounds, i want a singularity in this universe, obeying the laws of physics.

amr, you have a model that has light radiating within the event horizon? ive begun viewing the gravity well diagram of a black hole from a different angle. if it is seen from above, they would look like concentric rings and not a groove, indicating a gradient of energy levels. the hallmark sign of a black hole is the signature radiation that is emitted as matter is accelerated and emitted before reaching the event horizon. if it is emitting radiation then there shouldnt be anything to absorb. either way, it seems that they are barriers. klaynos, photons are not energy? can we say the sine wave describes energy levels? when mass is accelerated to relativistic speeds and radiates, is not the electro-magnetic radiation described by a sine wave representing a photon? why i am presenting without maths is because math is a very seductive and elegant art. however, before popping into another universe, before going down a wormhole, before pinpoint singularities, before the laws of physics break down, the singularity and blackhole are understandable as objects in and of this universe. black holes are now thought to be as old, if not older, than galaxies, as well as an integral part of galactic structure. blackholes are older than galaxies? theres lots of them! the universe is expanding? the acceleration increases! whats going on? does the collapse of structures that capture light even from the beginning of time create a universe that expands faster than light? black holes must be giving back in a big way! do any current models consider this?

okay. here the imploding star is not symmetrical. this proposal is mass to energy conversion. would this make a difference? is furnituring an implosion? no reduction in gravitational effect of mass. the condensed energy is gravitationaly equivilent to the previous mass, less what is not required. i prefer an increase in energy to form a singularity.

amr, could you go over the first three sentences for clarity, please? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedklaynos, the math isnt worked out, as yet. during an electronics class some years ago the prof pointed out the behaviour on an oscilliscope when dials were turned to, first, increase the amplitude and second, to shorten the wavelenth, on the screen. the result was wobbly waves, then many horizontal lines, followed by them all falling to the bottom of the screen. this was not part of the course, he merely pointed it out. has anyone ever come across this oscilloscope demonstration before or since?

a lot of the work done was in theory. i suggest experiments that test spatial contractioin and the bound energies there.

are you refering to pin-point singularity, your opinion or in jest?

actually, im doing both. the mass turns to energy, which is electro-magnetic radiation, or generically, light. is this in fact correct? whether the energy or photons behave as a wave or a particle, im going with the wave.

how the fields react is the point here. during collapse, mass turns to energy at relativistic speeds. this high-frequency energy has its amplitude increased, initiated by another wave. the area under the waves, as well as the distance between waves, is contracted spacially. this puts the em fields in a predicament. the simplest solution would re-arrange the fields. this would result in bound energy, and have gravitational properties.