[guest39538]

Could it be possible that a BH does emit light, but at a frequency we cannot yet detect?

Technically, Hawking radiation would be just that. For most black holes, the radiation emitted is so weak that we wouldn't detect it. However, that's coming from outside of the horizon, not inside of it.

Thank you for the education on BH's , I can see the objective existence.


Do BH's have a polarity?

[Kryptid]

Thank you for the education on BH's , I can see the objective existence.

You're welcome. I've actually enjoyed this conversation.

Do BH's have a polarity?

They can indeed have electric charge. It's one of only three properties they are predicted to have: mass, spin and charge. All black holes have mass (for obvious reasons) and almost all black holes should have spin (since they form from the collapse of spinning stars), but most would have little or no electric charge. This is because any charged black hole would attracted oppositely-charged particles which would neutralize the hole.

[guest39538]

Thank you for the education on BH's , I can see the objective existence.

You're welcome. I've actually enjoyed this conversation.

Do BH's have a polarity?

They can indeed have electric charge. It's one of only three properties they are predicted to have: mass, spin and charge. All black holes have mass (for obvious reasons) and almost all black holes should have spin (since they form from the collapse of spinning stars), but most would have little or no electric charge. This is because any charged black hole would attracted oppositely-charged particles which would neutralize the hole.

I have also enjoyed this conversation thanks.   

In consideration of charge,  if a BH had a greater charge than an orbiting body, would the charge of the orbiting body be attracted to the charge of the BH?

[Kryptid]

In consideration of charge,  if a BH had a greater charge than an orbiting body, would the charge of the orbiting body be attracted to the charge of the BH?

That would depend on the strength of the fields in question, the polarizability of the orbiting body, the distances involved, and the net charge on the orbiting body. If the body was made of something highly polarizable, like metal, it's possible that a very strong electric field around a black hole could induce a dipole in the metal body that would increase the net attraction between the two objects. The electric field around the black hole would probably need to be absurdly strong in order have any such significant effect like that.

[guest39538]

In consideration of charge,  if a BH had a greater charge than an orbiting body, would the charge of the orbiting body be attracted to the charge of the BH?

That would depend on the strength of the fields in question, the polarizability of the orbiting body, the distances involved, and the net charge on the orbiting body. If the body was made of something highly polarizable, like metal, it's possible that a very strong electric field around a black hole could induce a dipole in the metal body that would increase the net attraction between the two objects. The electric field around the black hole would probably need to be absurdly strong in order have any such significant effect like that.

Space itself is not known to have  any gravitational affect on an object, the object having no inertia in regards to space.  An electrical field has an infinite radius?

Little force would be needed to move a body that had no inertia?

[Kryptid]

Space itself is not known to have  any gravitational affect on an object, the object having no inertia in regards to space.  An electrical field has an infinite radius?

Little force would be needed to move a body that had no inertia?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Both the black hole and the orbiting body have inertia.

[guest39538]

Space itself is not known to have  any gravitational affect on an object, the object having no inertia in regards to space.  An electrical field has an infinite radius?

Little force would be needed to move a body that had no inertia?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Both the black hole and the orbiting body have inertia.

relative to what?

[Kryptid]

relative to what?

Relative to anything that applies a force to them (which in this case, would be each other via gravitational and electric fields).

[guest39538]

relative to what?

Relative to anything that applies a force to them (which in this case, would be each other via gravitational and electric fields).

Actually, do you not think the inertia is relative to velocity?    The orbiting bodies velocity being resistant to change of speed or direction? 

The BH and the orbiting body as a set,  having no inertia when compared to external forces ? 

In other words an external force could move the BH and orbiting body around in space?

If the orbiting body stopped orbiting the BH, the electrical attraction would pull the body into the BH?

[Kryptid]

Actually, do you not think the inertia is relative to velocity? The orbiting bodies velocity being resistant to change of speed or direction?

Only in as much as an increase in velocity causes relativistic mass gain.

The BH and the orbiting body as a set,  having no inertia when compared to external forces ?

Of course they would. Anything that tries to act on them would experience resistance.

In other words an external force could move the BH and orbiting body around in space?

Yes.

If the orbiting body stopped orbiting the BH, the electrical attraction would pull the body into the BH?

The gravity alone would be enough to pull it in, but the electric attraction would help.

[guest39538]

The gravity alone would be enough to pull it in, but the electric attraction would help.

Would the electrical attraction be enough to pull it in , if the gravity did not exist?

[Kryptid]

Would the electrical attraction be enough to pull it in , if the gravity did not exist?

Without gravity, the black hole couldn't even exist.

[guest39538]

Would the electrical attraction be enough to pull it in , if the gravity did not exist?

Without gravity, the black hole couldn't even exist.

Why couldn't it ?   

An electron is attracted to a Proton by polarity, there does not need to be gravity at all?

[Kryptid]

An electron is attracted to a Proton by polarity, there does not need to be gravity at all?

The attraction between a proton and electron is far from sufficient to form a black hole. The whole reason that black holes form from massive, dying stars is because gravity can only be attractive and thus builds up to higher and higher levels as you add more mass. The force eventually overwhelms any mechanism that could oppose the collapse. Electric charges don't work that way.

[guest39538]

An electron is attracted to a Proton by polarity, there does not need to be gravity at all?

The attraction between a proton and electron is far from sufficient to form a black hole. The whole reason that black holes form from massive, dying stars is because gravity can only be attractive and thus builds up to higher and higher levels as you add more mass. The force eventually overwhelms any mechanism that could oppose the collapse. Electric charges don't work that way.

I must be missing some point of science because in my schematic gravity is not needed or exists?


schematic.jpg (14.83 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3759 times)

[Kryptid]

I must be missing some point of science because in my schematic gravity is not needed or exists?


schematic.jpg (14.83 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3759 times)

Yeah. One thing you're missing is that objects don't have to contain any electric charge in order to have mass.

[guest39538]

I must be missing some point of science because in my schematic gravity is not needed or exists?


schematic.jpg (14.83 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3759 times)

Yeah. One thing you're missing is that objects don't have to contain any electric charge in order to have mass.

The point is though , objects do contain the properties of electric charge but it is neutralised by the combining of the two individual mono-poles.   This does not mean the forces of charge stop acting, why would it?

[guest39538]

Why would a negative or positive charge be attracted to a neutral object if the neutral object had no acting charges?

[Kryptid]

The point is though , objects do contain the properties of electric charge but it is neutralised by the combining of the two individual mono-poles.   This does not mean the forces of charge stop acting, why would it?

Not all objects contain smaller electric charges. Electrically-neutral black holes don't. Z-bosons don't. Photons don't. Neutrinos don't. Yet all are attracted to gravitational fields.

Why would a negative or positive charge be attracted to a neutral object if the neutral object had no acting charges?

It wouldn't be unless the neutral object could be polarized (and not all objects contain electric charge, so not all objects can be polarized).

[guest39538]

The point is though , objects do contain the properties of electric charge but it is neutralised by the combining of the two individual mono-poles.   This does not mean the forces of charge stop acting, why would it?

Not all objects contain smaller electric charges. Electrically-neutral black holes don't. Z-bosons don't. Photons don't. Neutrinos don't. Yet all are attracted to gravitational fields.

Why would a negative or positive charge be attracted to a neutral object if the neutral object had no acting charges?

It wouldn't be unless the neutral object could be polarized (and not all objects contain electric charge, so not all objects can be polarized).

Anything that is neutral could be plus and neg ,  that means nothing. Consider lightning, it suck up the neg or pos energy of the ground.  it is attracted to the neg or pos of the ground.


lightning.jpg (34.63 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3529 times)