0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As Schwarszchild pointed out there is a point where mass density generates a gravitational field strength that traps light.
If the speed of gravity equals c and gravity does in fact interact with itself then that implies that the gravitational field can also trap itself within the event horizon. We assume that at the centre of gravity the field cancels and we have zero g at that point. Would this change within a collapsing mass?
If not then, although the event horizon traps light and gravitation, we would have freedom of movement the nearer to the centre of gravity we get. How is this different from a proton or neutron?
It may be that the proton is simply a scaled down version of a macroscopic black hole and that singularities are not an inevitable consequence of collapse.
Quote from: jeffreyHAs Schwarszchild pointed out there is a point where mass density generates a gravitational field strength that traps light.That wasn't Schwarzschild. That was David Finkelstein in 1958.
Quote from: jeffreyHIf the speed of gravity equals c and gravity does in fact interact with itself then that implies that the gravitational field can also trap itself within the event horizon. We assume that at the centre of gravity the field cancels and we have zero g at that point. Would this change within a collapsing mass?No. Not if it's symmetrical. If it was symmetrical then ask yourself which way the force would point and why.
Quote from: jeffreyHIf not then, although the event horizon traps light and gravitation, we would have freedom of movement the nearer to the centre of gravity we get. How is this different from a proton or neutron?How would you have more freedom the closer you get to the center of a black hole? You're deal before you get there and at the center there is a point of matter already there which you would then become part of and would be unable to leave. Where's the freedom in that? I can't see any relationsip between this and protons and neutrons.
Quote from: jeffreyHIt may be that the proton is simply a scaled down version of a macroscopic black hole and that singularities are not an inevitable consequence of collapse.Nope. A proton certainly isn't a black hole. If it was then it'd keep increasing in mass by capturing photons and other particles whereas protons remain the same mass.