0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Magnetism could only move particles away from the hole if they are already outside of the horizon.

I agreed that magnetism would have an effect on electrically-charged particles generated as Hawking radiation (which are outside of the horizon), but at no point did I agree that magnetism can pull them out of an event horizon. It can't.

you can't stop yourself from moving towards the singularity inside the hole. Magnetism, even if it is literally infinitely strong, will make no difference.

In order to get better understanding:Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizon

Both particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.

Therefore:Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?

1. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon (even one meter inwards) gets infinite gravity force in order to overcome the infinite Lorentz force. Is it feasible?

So, do you mean that if there is a positive particle out of the event of horizon of a SMBH (But very close to it), based on magnetism and Lorentz force this particle could be ejected outwards.

However, if it is located inwards into the event of horizon, than there is no way to push it outwards even if the magnetism is infinity?

In order to get better understanding:Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizonBoth particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.

Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?

If the magnetism is infinite do you agree that Lorentz force should also be infinite?

If so, I can't understand why infinite Lorentz force can only extract the particle that orbits outwards from the event of horizon but can't do it with the one that orbits two meter inwards?

2. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon doesn't get infinite gravity force. However, the Lorentz force there is zero. So, could it be that once we cross the event of horizon the magnetic force goes to zero?

Orbits don't exist inside the horizon nor is the gravity there infinite in strength.

Thanks KryptidSo, the info is as follow:1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force

1. Space time.If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.

We also know that if we go in one direct line, we will never come back to the starting point.

However, based on the space time module, we have discovered that if we go in one direct line, we might come back to the same starting point.

Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite.

You have already confirmed that new particle can be created below the event of horizon in a BH.

This particle can even be ejected from the event horizon if the BH is small enough.

That proves that particle can orbits below the event horizon.

1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force

1. Space time.If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.Therefore, my personal understanding is that the space time is just a module which doesn't necessarily represents the real Universe - especially, once we get into the edge of the module.Now our scientists have decided to use this model also for the aria inwards the event horizon.Why is it? Based on what data?

What is the chance that this model is not relevant for the event horizon? Can you please prove that space time module works also at the event of horizon?How the extreme conditions at that aria could affect the space time?If we use this module for the event of horizon, why we can't use it for outside that aria?Why not using it for the center Bulge or even for the whole galaxy?Why do we insist to fix it only for that limited aria - Event horizon?

Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite. Did we try to verify this issue in our space time modeling?

You are talking about a universe with overall curvature. That is a different matter than the curvature of space-time around a massive body due to gravity. A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat. Don't confuse local curvature with universal curvature.

spacetimemix.jpg (622.89 kB . 711x1198 - viewed 3 times)It's just that, at the event horizon, the conditions become so extreme that the mixing becomes a complete swapping so that space becomes fully time-like. This is what defines the event horizon and what makes it different from other locations in a galaxy.

How do we know that "A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat?

In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?However, if there is no mathematical roof for that, why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?

It is also around a massive Body. The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?

In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?

There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?However, if there is no mathematical roof for that,

why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?

It is also around a massive Body. The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.

If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.

Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?Can you please prove it?

where the accretion disc is is part of spacetime, as is Earth.

What do you mean I decided to "set the space time"? Space-time is everywhere, not only below the horizon.

space-time is everywhere so I don't know what you are talking about.

The gravitational force is finite, but that is not what inevitably draws particles towards the singularity once they get inside the horizon. The particles are driven by the swapping of space and time. Time travels forwards outside the horizon whether you want it to or not. Space travels inwards towards the singularity whether you want it to or not. It's like trying to swim upstream when the current is moving too fast for even an infinite force to swim against.

So now you both agree that even the accretion disc is under the space time.

the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time

You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:

Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon

How could it be that the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time can eject most of its mass, while the event of horizon can't do so just because of the same space time.You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:Please see the following:

Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon and prevents from any particle to be ejected outwards, works so badly at the accretion disc and has no resistance for the massive ejection at that aria?In other words - If the space time has no objection that most of the particle can be ejected from the accretion disc, could it be that it also has no objection that particles can be ejected also below the horizon?Why it prevents from particles to be ejected from the horizon, while it has no resistance that most of the particles can be ejected from the accretion disc?

Do you have better idea than space-time to show the difference between the horizon and the accretion?

What you are missing is that space-time behaves differently inside of the horizon than it does outside of the horizon.

Because space is fully time-like inside the horizon but it isn't outside the horizon.

So, there are two types of space-timeA. Fully time-like Space-time which works exactly up to the event Horizon - Nothing can escape from it.B. Not fully time-like space time which works in the accretion disc - Everything can escape from it.

Questions:1. How the space-time knows exactly where is the border of the "fully time-like"?

2. Why the "fully time-like" is exactly located at the event horizon?

3. Why not 5% or 50% outwards or inwards from the horizon.

4. Would you kindly offer real proof for the border of the "fully time-like" space-time version (If possible -mathematical calculation)

Any time there is a gravitational field present, it causes some degree of space-time mixing. This causes objects in space to move in a preferred direction: towards the source of the field. In weak fields like on Earth, this direction is merely preferred but not mandatory.

As the gravitational field becomes stronger, space becomes increasingly time-like and the preference for movement into the field becomes stronger.

Once the field becomes so strong that the escape velocity reaches the speed of light space has become fully time-like and what was merely a preferred direction becomes a mandatory direction instead. It's like travelling down a river that goes faster and faster until it eventually becomes impossible to resist its flow.

Don't understand this. There are 4 dimensions, and they don't seem to 'mix'. Nothing moves through spacetime. They move through space, but have worldlines in spacetime. No worldline can be angled so much that its events become separated in a space-like manner. That's the speed of light restriction. It's the same as saying that my worldline must be entirely contained in my own causal cones.All this is no different inside the event horizon. There's still 1 time and 3 spatial dimensions, but the event horizon is in the past light cone of any event in there. None of it is in the future light cone.

Not necessarily true inside the event horizon. There are still the 3+1 dimensions with no preference for direction of movement through space. In theory, masses could form with stuff orbit them and such. There would be no obvious tidal force tearing such systems apart. The spacetime is reasonably normal and not different in a way that one is termed 'time-like' and the other not.

I find the river a poor analogy because sufficient force would allow one to resist any arbitrarily large flow. The river is still space. Time is not something that flows in a spacetime model.

I'm just using the terminology that Kip Thorne uses in his book (see the page I scanned above).

The main thrust of what I'm saying is that the light cone tilting is not something that happens suddenly at the event horizon. It becomes more and more tilted as you approach it.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I could instead say that the river flows at the speed of light. Then it becomes more apparent that force alone won't allow you to resist it.

An event horizon is what it is specifically because nothing can get out of it and the reason nothing can get out is because space is fully time-like there.

The boarder of the" fully time-like" space time is at the event of horizon because nothing can escape from that point and than in order to proof that nothing can escape from there we use the space-time formula.

There must be an error in this logic.

Nothing can escape from the event horizon based on its meaning and not because of space-time.