41
General Science / Re: Do white sheep eat more than black sheep?
« on: 19/03/2020 14:04:42 »
Maybe in a cold climate they need more energy to maintain their core temperature
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
From our position of medium density between the dipoles the event horizon of this area is aberrated (reduced in this case) by intervening gravitation and matter obscuring our observation. From a region of low density it would be more evident. I did not claim there would be evidence, it just follows from a logical chain of thought.The Shapley Attractor is the region of highest density we are 'falling' to. In both time and space.
What evidence do you have that it has an event horizon?
Within the Shapely Attractorwe are in fact falling into one right now!
And where is this event horizon you speak of?
By changing the flow of time any measurement of c (being distance/time) will be dependent on where the observation is made, the results obtained within that gravitational field will not match those 'at infinity' due to 2 observers disagreeing on the values of time and distance, they will agree on c but disagree as to the distance and length of time used to derive this value.If you were in the same reference frame as the black hole your time would also be dilated (relative to the earth say) by the gravitational field, yes?
Yes, but that wouldn't change the Schwarszchild radius.
If you were in the same reference frame as the black hole your time would also be dilated (relative to the earth say) by the gravitational field, yes?The error in the Schwarzschild radius is that of a lack of a frame of reference.
The Schwarzschild radius is valid for any reference frame. For an observer in the same reference frame as the black hole (where the black hole appears stationary), the Schwarzschild radius would be as described by the standard equation used to calculate it. In a frame moving relative to the black hole, it would be length contracted.
The error in the Schwarzschild radius is that of a lack of a frame of reference.There is an event horizon for any mass, however small
The correct thing to say would be that there is a Schwarzschild radius for any mass. This is not the same as there being an event horizon for every mass. There is only an event horizon if the mass is contained within its Schwarzschild radius.
It was my poorly worded example. To put another way if a massive object were to approach a black hole the event horizon would have a lesser radius due to the change in equilibrium of gravitational potential. Or yet another example is if you flew in the opposite direction to a black hole the event horizon would increase in radius to that observer.if I put that mass within a much stronger gravitational field...
The only way you could do that would be if you put the object with an event horizon inside of another event horizon (a smaller black hole into a larger black hole). I once did some math and discovered that the gravitational potential energy for any given mass is identical at an event horizon regardless of the mass of the black hole.
Right you are. I just don't like that term because it implies if the radius is not achieved there is no gravitational effect on time.There is an event horizon for any mass, however small
The correct thing to say would be that there is a Schwarzschild radius for any mass. This is not the same as there being an event horizon for every mass. There is only an event horizon if the mass is contained within its Schwarzschild radius.
However the speed of time is not the same in all reference frames.
This extreme black hole red shift theory, makes the boundary of the universe the speed of light times the age of the universe, away from the BB center. The speed of light is the same in all space-time references. It is not limited by inertial references or space-time expansion/contraction. The latter only affect wavelength, by not speed. The black hole is still part inertial reference, albeit close to a C equivalent.
If it involves a particle it also involves an event horizonIf an event horizon is approached a quantized energy is released as the event horizon recedes. Particle accelerator collisons will always yield what looks like a recurring particle when what is happening is there is an ejection of energy from the event horizon
Particle accelerator collisions don't involve event horizons.
It was just an example to help conceptualizeImagine a region of huge density surrounding an observer in half a sphere or a dome shape, if the region has sufficient density to form a black hole the region should contract to a much smaller event horizon around its axis, with the appearance of the background stars on the opposite side being stretched (aberrated) across the dome side due do gravitational lensing.
If it collapsed into a black hole, it wouldn't retain its dome shape. It would become a sphere (or oblate spheroid if it was rotating).