Hijack of a Pet Theory Hijack from What exactly is energy?

[Vmedvil]

Well, energy is defined as change is space² per Change in Time² for a unit of mass which velocity increases mass via relativistic mass at increased rate of travel through space, So it is safe to say that Mass is compressed energy and the increase in velocity somehow increases the amount of energy able to be stored in the mass field due to Time Dilation or Length Contraction probably by increasing the time experience by the particle, so that would mean that Mass is a reaction to time increasing as Space Decreases and since Mass increases as time does we can say that Mass allows time to move more quickly and is somehow more stable with increased time rate and has decreased entropy as time rate increases, otherwise it would contain less energy as time rate increased as the system would gain more entropy and become less stable, so Energy must be some sort of space-time stabilizing agent to balance out entropy, so the universe can stay in a more stable state which the universe tends to like.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

Well, I disagree hawking Black-hole Entropy shows that mass at high energy states has a larger entropy they universe likes equilibrium which is the reason why more mass is absorbed to reduce the entropy which the barrier between mass and energy is shown  by a black-hole as the other forces are much weaker here compared to Mass and Energy forces where energy in the form of gravitational potential energy pushes upon mass directly.

 

In this situation the temperature of more massive black hole is shown to be very low or a very small entropy with decreases space size and larger time size the mass is quite stable were as the gravitational energy is very unstable with a high entropy, the energy is moving toward equilibrium in the mass where as the energy is moving away from it near infinities. 

Which temperature is just average kinetic energy of the matter, so they must have a extremely large pressure upon them to move that little by the gravity which it does, thus the mass must also have a small kinetic energy when confined which means less entropy in that matter field than outside in the gravitational field. 

If the temperature is low then the average kinetic energy must be low of the confined particles which means less chaos in the matter field then Energy field around it, this how energy is a stabilizing agent for matter via confinement, which brings that area closer to equilibrium via isentropic compression which is usually done by weaker forces than gravity at light speed or slightly greater, but confinement decreases entropy in mass thus allowing more energy to be stored in mass at higher levels of compression of the mass.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Vmedvil

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, I disagree hawking Black-hole Entropy shows that mass at high energy states has a larger entropy they universe likes equilibrium which is the reason why more mass is absorbed to reduce the entropy which the barrier between mass and energy is shown  by a black-hole as the other forces are much weaker here compared to Mass and Energy forces where energy in the form of gravitational potential energy pushes upon mass directly.

We weren't talking about black holes

Potential energy does not push on anything. Energy ≠ force.

10 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

If the temperature is low then the average kinetic energy must be low of the confined particles which means less chaos in the matter field then Energy field around it, this how energy is a stabilizing agent for matter via confinement, which brings that area closer to equilibrium via isentropic compression which is usually done by weaker forces than gravity at light speed or slightly greater, but confinement decreases entropy in mass thus allowing more energy to be stored in mass at higher levels of compression of the mass.

There are no forces weaker than gravity; the confinement of an electron in some material is electromagnetic which is much, much stronger.
It's not happening at light speed, and cetrtainly not greater than light speed.
 

[Vmedvil]

I was referring to the confinement of mass within a BH due to gravity maybe i didn't make that clear and no there are not forces stronger than gravity with that much mass nearby, it is even stronger than the SNF near a BH which actually is at the speed of light or above due to the fact that not even light can escape that gravity well. What I was trying to say is the gravity is much stronger than the SNF there which pushes it to having nearly no Average Kinetic Energy, so the SNF push must be weaker than the Blackhole's push having such a low temperature having higher when the SNF is present. Yes, Energy is just Force over a displacement or distance, so if the energy is greater in that distance then the Force is as well. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

it is even stronger than the SNF near a BH which actually is at the speed of light or above due to the fact that not even light can escape that gravity well.

Not making much sense.

1. What is "at the speed of light or above" ? (Nothing is above the speed of light, so it seems a nonsensical statement anyway.)

2. The speed of light is not the reason that light cannot escape from a black hole. 

[Vmedvil]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not making much sense.

1. What is "at the speed of light or above" ? (Nothing is above the speed of light, so it seems a nonsensical statement anyway.)

2. The speed of light is not the reason that light cannot escape from a black hole. 

I realize that it is because of curvature of space but isn't the Curvature directly equal to the amount of energy present in any form?

and if it takes energy to deform the membrane against curvature or bending/tension doesn't that mean it requires Kinetic Energy which is basically velocity?

 

And above the speed of light is where light does not have a great enough velocity to escape.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

and if it takes energy to deform the membrane against curvature or bending/tension doesn't that mean it requires Kinetic Energy which is basically velocity?

No, it doesn't mean it is kinetic energy. It is just mass-energy (and the other components of the stress-energy tensor). And kinetic energy is not "basically velocity".

Quote

And above the speed of light is where light does not have a great enough velocity to escape.

What does that mean?

[Vmedvil]

Just now, Strange said:

No, it doesn't mean it is kinetic energy. It is just mass-energy (and the other components of the stress-energy tensor). And kinetic energy is not "basically velocity".

What does that mean?

Below the Schwarschild radius.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Below the Schwarschild radius.

Nothing travels faster than light below the Schwarzschild radius.

[Vmedvil]

Just now, Strange said:

Nothing travels faster than light below the Schwarzschild radius.

So, the light just sits at the Schwarzchild radius then? With a equal amount C <-> C , C - C = 0

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

So, the light just sits at the Schwarzchild radius then? With a equal amount C <-> C , C - C = 0

No. Who said that?

[Vmedvil]

Just now, Strange said:

No. Who said that?

You did either it goes faster than the speed of light or sits at the event horizon forever with a endless tug of war between gravity with a velocity of C and light against it with a velocity at C at 180 the direction. So, it just sits there with zero velocity in that relative frame.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

You did either it goes faster than the speed of light or sits at the event horizon forever with a endless tug of war between gravity with a velocity of C and light against it with a velocity at C at 180 the direction. So, it just sits there with zero velocity in that relative frame.

I said no such thing. I just said that light (or anything else) never travels faster than light.

At the photon sphere a photon can orbit a black hole indefinitely (at the speed of light). Within the photon sphere it cannot escape and will enter the black hole (at the speed of light). At no point does this imply that light travels (locally) at anything other than the speed of light. Inside the event horizon, there is no path that leads out of the black hole so there is nowhere where a photon could "hover" as you describe. All paths lead to the centre of the black hole. (And, inside the black hole, the radial direction becomes the time dimension and so attempting to leave radially would be equivalent to travelling back in time. Ain't going to happen.)

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I said no such thing. I just said that light (or anything else) never travels faster than light.

At the photon sphere a photon can orbit a black hole indefinitely (at the speed of light). Within the photon sphere it cannot escape and will enter the black hole (at the speed of light). At no point does this imply that light travels (locally) at anything other than the speed of light. Inside the event horizon, there is no path that leads out of the black hole so there is nowhere where a photon could "hover" as you describe. All paths lead to the centre of the black hole. (And, inside the black hole, the radial direction becomes the time dimension and so attempting to leave radially would be equivalent to travelling back in time. Ain't going to happen.)

Spot on, let's move to a spinning black-hole when they do this, The Kerr Metric.

Looks strangely familiar to a object we all know Dense core with things orbiting infinitely around it in weird orbitals, almost like a atom.

 

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Looks strangely familiar to a object we all know Dense core with things orbiting infinitely around it in weird orbitals, almost like a atom.

A joke, right?

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

A joke, right?

Well, photons escape atoms, I don't think they are going to escape this place unless they tunnel out as hawking radiation, it requires sacrifice and possibly the reason we don't see equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Vmedvil

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, photons escape atoms, I don't think they are going to escape this place unless they tunnel out as hawking radiation, it requires sacrifice and possibly the reason we don't see equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe.

Hawking radiation doesn't tunnel out, and you have presented no physics as to why this would involve a CP violation.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, photons escape atoms

Right. So just one more reason why your comparison of black holes with atoms was idiotic.

Quote

I don't think they are going to escape this place unless they tunnel out as hawking radiation, it requires sacrifice and possibly the reason we don't see equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe.

They do not tunnel out as Hawking radiation. This is created at the even horizon and (in the popular, informal and not terribly accurate description) one of a pair enters the black hole. This has nothing to do with the amount of antimatter. For one thing, there is no antimatter involved. And for another the Hawking radiation of any realistic black hole is close to zero.

 

[Vmedvil]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Right. So just one more reason why your comparison of black holes with atoms was idiotic.

They do not tunnel out as Hawking radiation. This is created at the even horizon and (in the popular, informal and not terribly accurate description) one of a pair enters the black hole. This has nothing to do with the amount of antimatter. For one thing, there is no antimatter involved. And for another the Hawking radiation of any realistic black hole is close to zero.

 

Well, here is the equation if it is actually quantum tunneling. 

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Right. So just one more reason why your comparison of black holes with atoms was idiotic.

They do not tunnel out as Hawking radiation. This is created at the even horizon and (in the popular, informal and not terribly accurate description) one of a pair enters the black hole. This has nothing to do with the amount of antimatter. For one thing, there is no antimatter involved. And for another the Hawking radiation of any realistic black hole is close to zero.

 

The Larger the BH the lower the hawking radiation that is correct but the different between matter and antimatter in the early universe was only a very small matter in the orders of 1:1.000000001 ratio, what if those particles could do that process as well that are charged where the electron escapes and the position goes into the abyss. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, here is the equation if it is actually quantum tunneling.

Where have you copied this from?

I haven't heard of this described n terms of tunneling before. My (limited) understanding from reading one of the papers on this (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001) is that the particle can tunnel out because the event horizon is shrinking to be inside the location of the particle. Interesting.

[Vmedvil]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Where have you copied this from?

I haven't heard of this described n terms of tunneling before. My (limited) understanding from reading one of the papers on this (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001) is that the particle can tunnel out because the event horizon is shrinking to be inside the location of the particle. Interesting.

Well, it is a slide from "Presentation on theme: "Hawking radiation as tunneling from squashed Kaluza-Klein BH Ken Matsuno and Koichiro Umetsu (Osaka city university) (Kyoto sangyo university) Phys. Rev."— Presentation transcript:" it is on slide player, (Presentation transcript)

[Mordred]

 EDIT removed

Edited November 9, 2017 by Mordred

[Vmedvil]

Let's see if this flys, this is an equation I designed to explain, the inside of a BH, All hail the quantum gravity equation, Medvil's Kerr Hack, you can't prove it wrong C - C = 0

Spin versus the gravity well @ R_s

∇'(x',y',z') = ∇(1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2

and

∇E_b(t,ω,R,M,I) = ∇(1/((1-(((2M_bG / R_s) - (I_sω_s²/2M_b))²/C²))^1/2))M_bC²

Edited November 9, 2017 by Vmedvil