[Space Flow]

You can calculate how much more mass the plasma will gain from Einsteins's E=mc2, which is roughly 1.5E-8 grams.

So I maintain that the mass of 1 mole of H2 gas at room temperature = 2 grams mass cannot be measurably distinguished from the same number of Hydrogen atoms as a plasma ≈ 2.000000015 grams mass.

However, the rate of electromagnetic interactions (photon absorption/emission) is far higher in a plasma than in a neutral gas. The way I read the description of Space Flow theory, the plasma should weigh thousands (or millions?) of times more than the same amount of gas at room temperature.

Thank you for doing the math on that.

I am not really convinced there is much absorption/emission happening at atomic level in a plasma. Being a Plasma your Hydrogen is ionised. Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon. The high energy photon bouncing of the electron and continuing on.

The total Mass/Energy inside a radius already has to take into account the energy represented by all the energetic activity happening within this radius, and not just the energy necessary to turn the gas into a plasma.
There would certainly be a Mass/energy and space flow increase, but as compared to the Energy represented by the particles themselves, that extra energy would still make up a very small fractional increase in Space-Flow/Gravity.
I say that it would still be an unmeasurable difference today.

Keep in mind that the Gravity effect due to flow is tiny as compared with the forces, when dealing with small concentrations of Mass inside any radius.
It takes a lot of mass inside a small radius to give this effect any power, that can compare with say the EM Force.
Changes due to temperature are certainly a part of this effect, but such a small part of the overall that they can mostly be ignored. Of course it would depend on how many decimal places you needed accuracy to.

[evan_au]

Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.

In a fully-ionized plasma, the electrons have far more energy than the ground-state energy of the atom (around 13 eV for Hydrogen). So the electrons don't try to fall into an orbital (and emit a photon), but remain in a hot soup of electrons and protons.

Every time an electron passes a proton (which is very often, since they are moving at very high velocity), the path of the electron is bent towards the proton by its proximity to the positive charge. Every time an electron passes another electron, or a proton approaches another proton, their path is bent away from the similar charge; all these events are electromagnetic interactions which generate or absorb photons.

This change in behavior is shown by the fact that the plasma is opaque (all frequencies are absorbed very quickly), while Hydrogen gas at room temperature is transparent to visible frequencies (ie effectively no frequencies are absorbed).

[Space Flow]

Quote from: Space Flow
Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.
In a fully-ionized plasma, the electrons have far more energy than the ground-state energy of the atom (around 13 eV for Hydrogen). So the electrons don't try to fall into an orbital (and emit a photon), but remain in a hot soup of electrons and protons.

Every time an electron passes a proton (which is very often, since they are moving at very high velocity), the path of the electron is bent towards the proton by its proximity to the positive charge. Every time an electron passes another electron, or a proton approaches another proton, their path is bent away from the similar charge; all these events are electromagnetic interactions which generate or absorb photons.

This change in behavior is shown by the fact that the plasma is opaque (all frequencies are absorbed very quickly), while Hydrogen gas at room temperature is transparent to visible frequencies (ie effectively no frequencies are absorbed).

Evan that's kind of what I was getting at. The total Mass/Energy of that plasma is higher than the Mass/Energy of the non-ionised Hydrogen gas and that in large is because of those interactions and as such that plasma would weigh proportionately more than the equivalent Hydrogen atoms.
In proportion to the rest Mass of the Hydrogen atoms this would still be an incredibly small increase in Mass. Therefore an incredibly small increase in Space Flow.
The main intake of spacetime happens at the fundamental particle level. "Quarks" with electrons adding a very small fraction to this. Increases due to energy added is again a much smaller part of the total Mass/Flow.
Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.
I reckon that's what Black Holes must be made off.
We talk about Neutron degeneracy holding a size of star just outside the same star's event horizon, but a neutron is not a fundamental particle. Quarks are. I don't believe there is a degeneracy pressure for Quarks as they are fundamental particles and can not be brocken into smaller pieces. Their vibrations use up the more space than all other processes combined. The Mass attributed to Matter can go up fractionally through the addition of Energy but the mass is always dominated by the amount of Space used by Quarks.
It is this demand for Space that makes up what we call the gravity well of a Black Hole.
That is how Gravity get's out of a Black Hole. Because nothing actually get's out. No Force, no Field, no Particles and no Singularity. Just spacetime flowing into a Quark Star's surface at the maximum possible supply rate. It is also why if you add any matter, the event horizon will increase proportionately. The supply rate is already at maximum for the amount of matter demanding it. by adding matter you increase the demand in a radius that can't increase supply. The radius has to increase to compensate.
Am I telling fairy tales?
It seems to make a very coherent picture to me..

[evan_au]

Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.

The proton (containing 3 quarks) has the mass of 1836 electrons. This means the electron has about .0016% of the mass of a quark (on average; I know an isolated quark is not stable).

This is a fairly sizable contribution to the mass of an atom (unlike effects like heating up an atom).

But this mass also accrues to an isolated electron traveling through a dark vacuum. As I understand it, an electron has no internal structure to vibrate, and it is not interacting with other atoms or photons.

So here is a case where mass happens, but there is no vibration to chew up the hypothetical Space Flow.

Perhaps Space Flow is superfluous to mass?

[Space Flow]

Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.

The proton (containing 3 quarks) has the mass of 1836 electrons. This means the electron has about .0016% of the mass of a quark (on average; I know an isolated quark is not stable).

This is a fairly sizable contribution to the mass of an atom (unlike effects like heating up an atom).

Exactly.

But this mass also accrues to an isolated electron traveling through a dark vacuum. As I understand it, an electron has no internal structure to vibrate, and it is not interacting with other atoms or photons.

So here is a case where mass happens, but there is no vibration to chew up the hypothetical Space Flow.

An electron may or not have a vibration rate but it has spin. Spin is a physical movement requiring space. The space required by spin is tiny compared to the space required by a Quark vibration but it is still a requirement.

Perhaps Space Flow is superfluous to mass?

Perhaps.
Perhaps there is a better way to look at all the pieces we have of this giant jigsaw puzzle.
Perhaps all these pieces can be arranged to form a more coherent picture than the one I'm painting.
And perhaps not.
All I can say is that to me it is the one that seems to leave the least unanswered questions.
If your interested Matt Faw has put something together that brilliantly describes this Space Flow on larger scales.
 Why I Dont Believe in Dark Matter, By Matt Daw

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon?

In a discussion about black holes, it was mentioned that the area of a black hole's event horizon increases proportionally to the mass of the black hole.

There is a principle that information cannot be lost from the universe. It is as if a history of the three-dimensional matter entering the black hole is encoded in the two-dimensional surface of the event horizon, like a hologram. This would include the mass, charge & angular momentum of the matter inside.  Perhaps this could be the source of the (hypothetical) gravitons?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Discussion near the end of: http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/12/191-string-theory/

I haven't looked at the podcast yet but thinking about what you wrote about encoding on a two-dimensional surface led me to an idea that it may not be simply two dimensional but a 3 dimensional volume. This will be the volume between the lightlike orbit around the black hole and the surface of the horizon itself. I haven't looked at the ratio of this volume to the 'volume' enclosed by the horizon but the 'entropic' volume should be larger. This would indicate that entropy can be described as a geodesic through this zone of the black hole where the increase in disorder is at a maximum. A very strange idea to comprehend.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

When looking at the work done on an object following a radial geodesic the path will need to be integrated to account for a continual increase in the function. The work continually increases until either a surface is encountered or an event horizon is reached.

W = 1/2m(v_2^2 - v_1^2)

The other quantity that continually increases is entropy. The disorder of the system. In the vicinity of an event horizon the tidal forces introduce disorder into the system BEFORE the event horizon is reached. Does this indicate a volume for entropy rather than a surface? Is the holographic principle really 3 dimensional?

delta S = delta S_sys + delta S_env (entropy of system + entropy of environment)

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I do not believe what I am saying above has anything to do with entropic gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Gravity, Entropy and coherence.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath573/kmath573.htm

[guest39538]

Since the geodesics inside an event horizon must be coherent since they all must point towards the singularity and follow the most direct route does this imply that the gravitational field of all objects is also coherent? Meaning that propagation follows a consistent radial direction away from the centre.

I thought it was the opposite and pulled towards the center but pushed away from the center at the same time?