Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well, energy is defined as change is space2 per Change in Timefor 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.

relativisticmassequation.png

Relativity.png

no_bubbs_1538_un15-19.jpg

compexp.gif

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted (edited)

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.

 

hawk1.jpg

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. 

83ad62c7-852a-44e5-8c10-55a346922b51.jpg

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. 

tempkin.gif

Average+Kinetic+Energy+and+RMS+velocity.

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 by Vmedvil
Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 12:17 AM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Expand  

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.
 

Posted (edited)

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 by Vmedvil
Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:05 AM, 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.

Expand  

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. 

Posted (edited)
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:14 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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?

PC6slide6.gif

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.

SchwarzchildRadius.gif

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:22 AM, 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?

Expand  

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.

Expand  

What does that mean?

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:28 AM, 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?

Expand  

Below the Schwarschild radius.

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:42 AM, Strange said:

Nothing travels faster than light below the Schwarzschild radius.

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 1:00 PM, Strange said:

No. Who said that?

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 1:04 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.)

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 1:12 PM, 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.)

Expand  

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

I15-61-Kerr.jpg

220px-Generic_geodesic_orbit_around_a_Ke

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

22476-004-9B6970F9.jpg

 

Posted (edited)
  On 11/8/2017 at 2:09 PM, Strange said:

A joke, right?

Expand  

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.

main-qimg-b91d8aca7c62a0beaff01e3f28e15ed1.png.5f0e39c6dee2c644fdc349151a23a330.png

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 2:16 PM, 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.

main-qimg-b91d8aca7c62a0beaff01e3f28e15ed1.png.5f0e39c6dee2c644fdc349151a23a330.png

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 2:16 PM, Vmedvil said:

Well, photons escape atoms

Expand  

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.

Expand  

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.

 

Posted (edited)
  On 11/8/2017 at 2:36 PM, 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.

 

Expand  

Well, here is the equation if it is actually quantum tunneling.slide_10.jpg 

  On 11/8/2017 at 2:36 PM, 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.

 

Expand  

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. 

pairproduction.png

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:02 PM, Vmedvil said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 11/8/2017 at 11:24 PM, 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.

Expand  

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)

Posted (edited)

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 @ Rs

∇'(x',y',z') = ∇(1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2

and

Eb(t,ω,R,M,I) = (1/((1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2))MbC2

Edited by Vmedvil

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.