JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 So all your doing is causing kinetic movement of the particles interfering with their polarity average Yep...i suppose...are you ready to accept that this is a fact of shall i provide links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 do i need an equation for that? Lol I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it offhand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Jeez...I cant find any links that discuss it Im almost positive I heard in from Feyman in a youtube lecture...those lectures are long and he says much...ill try Correct Amazing...ha...wanna talk about how gravity does the same thing to mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Yep...i suppose...are you ready to accept that this is a fact of shall i provide links? It's a well known and tested principle. It's when you introduce new ideas or not well known and wish to present them that the equations become needed. Or when you wish to prove a theory. Jeez...I cant find any links that discuss it Im almost positive I heard in from Feyman in a youtube lecture...those lectures are long and he says much...ill try Amazing...ha...wanna talk about how gravity does the same thing to mass? If you think about it I am. But not necessarily mass. Mass is ambiguous. rest mass inertial mass etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 So...gravity despressed the gluons and they can no longer support the strong interaction...no more mass! and with no more mass, there is no more space-time.. I do believe that mass is the magnet of gravity...The vectors and energies in mass are what curve spacetime in GR The vectors and energies of magnets are what curve EMFs If its well known,then why test me...am I testing you? I jus trying to talk about stuff wit you...i havent asked for credentials... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 You don't need gluons to have mass. Any sufficient energy density can cause gravity. Even fundamental particles with no gluons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Its a black hole in space...what else could it be besides an absense of it? You can have mass without the strong interaction? No way sorry...matter...I was thinking matter First the gluon field goes down, then the electromagnetic force is diabled in atoms...then..? ha Im winging it now...ill have to think on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Its a black hole in space...what else could it be besides an absense of it? You can have mass without the strong interaction? No way sorry...matter...I was thinking matter First the gluon field goes down, then the electromagnetic force is diabled in atoms...then..? ha Im winging it now...ill have to think on it It is pretty hard to tell what happens beyond the event horizon but for every particle that enters the BH the event horizon increases in area, that is weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Youre gonna start losing your mas- like properties to effect space time because the strong force and electromagnetic forces add energy to the individual particles...when you lose those forces, they begin losing their ability to effect GR...how far does it go? It is pretty hard to tell what happens beyond the event horizon but for every particle that enters the BH the event horizon increases in area, that is weird. It seems to make sense...i dont know its a fact...but it seems to make good sense So the strong force is gone, EM is gone, youre losing mass all over the place...then the weak interaction takes over and breaks everything down..no more effect on GR and the geometry of outside vectors is cut off...i give you, black hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ok don't add any mass to The Earth keep the system isolated. Shrink its volume below its Schwarzchild metric. You now have a BH. The mass did NOT change and yet the gravity it exerts did. Any particle or body of particles has a Schwartzchild metric. Add enough energy density and it will become a black hole. All particles has a mass equivelent e=mc^2 Mass can increase via momentum or an increase in energy ie kinetic energy. Rest mass is primarily due to the strong force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ok don't add any mass to The Earth keep the system isolated. Shrink its volume below its Schwarzchild metric. You now have a BH. The mass did NOT change and yet the gravity it exerts did. Any particle or body of particles has a Schwartzchild metric. Add enough energy density and it will become a black hole. I knew that from imagining foam...truly In an earlier post i claim that your finger could be made into a bh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ok don't add any mass to The Earth keep the system isolated. Shrink its volume below its Schwarzchild metric. You now have a BH. The mass did NOT change and yet the gravity it exerts did. Any particle or body of particles has a Schwartzchild metric. Add enough energy density and it will become a black hole. I'm pretty sure that's not true if you keep the center of the Earth and the location of the test particle in the same spots they were before the shrinking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 You need to understand what rest Mass and inertial mass. Relativistic mass is the old term. Photons has no rest Mass. It can still have a mass equivalent due to energy level changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 If youre rationing that compressed mass is what compresses back into spacetime with an energy called gravity and it can get powerful enough to break space-time linearity, .then increasing the density of any mass would allow you to do this... I'm pretty sure that's not true if you keep the center of the Earth and the location of the test particle in the same spots they were before the shrinking. Are you now asking me loaded questions? Lame man, really lame...stop..its manipulation kinda... wanna get back to how gravity breaks the field of space_time at a certain energy density level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Are you now asking me loaded questions? Lame man, really lame...stop..its manipulation kinda... No, no I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) the mass changes a bit if you increase the energy with compression...I dont know in what amounts...thats wrong...but ill leave it there just to show im human ) No, no I'm not. Thanks for asking, though. IM sorry fellas! I didnt even notice a new person in the convo...I thought Morded was making a claim and then denying it...i was confused! Edited January 10, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure that's not true if you keep the center of the Earth and the location of the test particle in the same spots they were before the shrinking. Here read it for your self The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Holy gumby...I didnt even notice robbity...i thought it was just mordred and me...embarassing Here read it for your selfThe Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius We get to agree! You need to understand what rest Mass and inertial mass. Relativistic mass is the old term.Photons has no rest Mass. It can still have a mass equivalent due to energy level changes Rest mass and inertial mass differ by vector energy...rest mass has little to none...inertial mass has little to lots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Here read it for your self The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius None of that has any bearing on what I said. If you keep the test particle in the same spot, the acceleration will be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Holy gumby...I didnt even notice robbity...i thought it was just mordred and me...embarassing We get to agree! Rest mass and inertial mass differ by vector energy...rest mass has little to none...inertial mass has little to lots... You backslid into thinking gluons. You can't define mass strictly by gluons. None of that has any bearing on what I said. If you keep the test particle in the same spot, the acceleration will be the same. You'll have to expand on that statement. Considering I'm describing an increase in density and by the gas laws an increase in density is also an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature is an increase in kinetic energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 You'll have to expand on that statement. Considering I'm describing an increase in density and by the gas laws an increase in density is also an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature is an increase in kinetic energy. So, the black hole Earth and the regular Earth will both have a Schwartzchild metric. [math]c^2\tau^2=(1-\frac{r_s}{r})c^2dt^2-(1-\frac{r_s}{r})^{-1}dr^2-r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^{2}\theta{d}\phi^2)[/math] If we're keeping the mass the same, making an Earth black hole rather than an Earth+ black hole, then the metrics will be the same since rs will be the same. Now, you're talking about adding in energy. We're not talking about an Earth black hole anymore. We're talking about an Earth+acraploadofenergy blackhole which has a different rs than Earth. However, that's not what you said when I responded to you saying that it was false. What you said was: Ok don't add any mass to The Earth keep the system isolated. Shrink its volume below its Schwarzchild metric. You now have a BH. The mass did NOT change and yet the gravity it exerts did. Any particle or body of particles has a Schwartzchild metric. Add enough energy density and it will become a black hole. All particles has a mass equivelent e=mc^2 Mass can increase via momentum or an increase in energy ie kinetic energy. Rest mass is primarily due to the strong force. That's the Earth blackhole, not the Earth+acraploadofenergy black hole. I maintain that the quoted post is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 So, the black hole Earth and the regular Earth will both have a Schwartzchild metric. [math]c^2\tau^2=(1-\frac{r_s}{r})c^2dt^2-(1-\frac{r_s}{r})^{-1}dr^2-r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^{2}\theta{d}\phi^2)[/math] If we're keeping the mass the same, making an Earth black hole rather than an Earth+ black hole, then the metrics will be the same since rs will be the same. Now, you're talking about adding in energy. We're not talking about an Earth black hole anymore. We're talking about an Earth+acraploadofenergy blackhole which has a different rs than Earth. However, that's not what you said when I responded to you saying that it was false. What you said was: That's the Earth blackhole, not the Earth+acraploadofenergy black hole. I maintain that the quoted post is incorrect. I was talking about a reduction in r2...we can keep the current mass of earth, and IF we had an outside force to apply the pressure needed, we could have an earth only black hole...The pressure needed in any case could only be gained by adding mass to the volume, which creates more pressure on it's self from it's own changes to GR geomtery The question i always asked was, can I take the earth and make it a black hole...the answer was yes, with enough compressive force...or how about the sun? just enough to spur fusion? yes I can turn earth into a nebula by doing the same thing with a bit of reverse alchemy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I was talking about a reduction in r2...we can keep the current mass of earth, and IF we had an outside force to apply the pressure needed, we could have an earth only black hole...The pressure needed in any case could only be gained by adding mass to the volume, which creates more pressure on it's self from it's own changes to GR geomtery r is the distance from the center of the mass sphere. So, again, I stipulated keeping the test particle in the same spot. rs won't change because Mordred specifically said we're keeping the mass the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure that's not true if you keep the center of the Earth and the location of the test particle in the same spots they were before the shrinking. Why would you want to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Why would you want to do that? So you can compare apples to apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now