0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Imagine 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.

Quote from: Paul25 on 11/03/2020 12:07:15Imagine 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).

If 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

Quote from: Paul25 on 15/03/2020 15:05:47If 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 horizonParticle accelerator collisions don't involve event horizons.

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 horizon

The equations of gravitational time dilation imagines two clocks, one located an 'infinite distance' away from a gravitational field, there is no such a place

There is an event horizon for any mass, however small

Quote from: Paul25 on 16/03/2020 20:07:19There is an event horizon for any mass, however smallThe 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.

I just don't like that term because it implies if the radius is not achieved there is no gravitational effect on time.

if I put that mass within a much stronger gravitational field...

Quote from: Paul25 on 16/03/2020 21:04:17if 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.

The error in the Schwarzschild radius is that of a lack of a frame of reference.

Quote from: Paul25 on 17/03/2020 15:00:36The 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.

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?

Quote from: Paul25 on 17/03/2020 15:52:53If 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.

we are in fact falling into one right now!