[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have it backwards. A lowering of orbital energy results in a decrease in the size of the orbit, not an increase.

I don't agree with that.
Lowering of orbital energy means lowering the orbital velocity and lowering the gravity force!
The formula for gravity is:
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
As there is no change in the mass or the G, than the only way to decrease the gravity is by increasing the radius.

Moving away from a source of gravity requires an input of energy because you are moving against a gravitational potential. It's the same reason that energy input is required to lift something off of the ground, but not required to drop something.

The orbital energy is a direct outcome of the orbital velocity which means - kinetic energy and not potential energy.
As the radius of the orbital object is smaller, its orbital velocity is faster.
If we set the moon at a distance of 1000 Ly away from the Earth, does it mean that its orbital energy is stronger?
What will be its orbital velocity?
At this distance, the gravity force between the two objects will be virtually zero.
Therefore, loosing orbital energy means increasing the orbital radius and decreasing the orbital velocity.

[Kryptid]

I don't agree with that.

Too bad, because you're objectively wrong.

Lowering of orbital energy means lowering the orbital velocity and lowering the gravity force!

The orbital velocity actually isn't lowered: objects in closer orbits move faster. You also aren't lowering the gravitational force, since velocity has no impact on that.

The formula for gravity is:
F = G m1 m2 / r^2

That formula only confirms what I've said. The force of gravity depends only upon the masses and their distance, not their velocity relative to each other.

As there is no change in the mass or the G, than the only way to decrease the gravity is by increasing the radius.

A decrease in orbital energy is not the same thing as a decrease in the gravitational force felt by an object. Orbital energy is the sum total of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy that the orbiting object has.

The gravity energy is a direct outcome of the orbital velocity which means - kinetic energy and not potential energy.

It's both, actually. You can't ignore potential energy.

As the radius of the orbital object is smaller, its orbital velocity is faster.

Yes, but its potential energy is lower.

If we set the moon at a distance of 1000 Ly away from the Earth, does it mean that the gravity energy is stronger?
What will be its orbital velocity?
At this distance, the gravity force between the two objects will be virtually zero.

You need to learn the difference between gravitational force and gravitational potential energy.

Therefore, loosing orbital energy means increasing the orbital radius and decreasing the orbital velocity.

By that reasoning, airplanes should fly up into outer space when they run out of fuel instead of crashing to Earth.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, the new creation of the pair-particles by the black hole's gravitational energy increases the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time!

Then we can end the thread right here, as that violates the first law of thermodynamics. Your model has falsified itself.

There is no violation for the first law of thermodynamics!
The black hole's gravitational energy is for free and It is the ultimate energy source for the pair production.
In the article they claim about virtual particles that orbit around the BH.
Their orbital velocity might be faster than the speed of light due to the ultra black hole's gravitational energy.
Those virtual particles are transformed into real particles. However, in this process the orbital energy between the virtual particle (which had just been transformed into real particle) to the BH must decrease.
The outcome is a reduction in the orbital energy/velocity of the new born particle with reference to the Virtual particles.
Therefore, the orbital velocity of the new born particle must be equal or lower than the speed of light.
In other words, the transformation of the virtual particle into real particle takes some energy from the black hole's gravitational energy
Therefore, the new pair is created by using real energy (black hole's gravitational energy) that some of it must be lost during this creation process.
Hence, as some of the black hole's gravitational energy is converted into real particles, there is no violation for the first law of thermodynamics!
New particles are created by using real energy.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, the new creation of the pair-particles by the black hole's gravitational energy increases the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time!

There is no violation for the first law of thermodynamics!

Do you know what the first law of thermodynamics even is? Right now, you sound like someone who is saying, "I robbed a store, but I didn't steal anything".

The black hole's gravitational energy is for free

So now you think that gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy? Seriously? Do I really need to explain why that isn't the case?

In case you need a mathematical demonstration that objects in higher orbits have more energy, you can look at the equations on this website: https://deutsch.physics.ucsc.edu/6A/book/gravity/node15.html

The gravitational potential energy of an orbiting body can be calculated with U = -(GMm)/R, where

“U” is the gravitational potential energy in joules
“G” is the gravitational constant (6.674 x 10⁻¹¹ m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻²)
“M” is the mass of the larger body in kilograms
“m” is the mass of the smaller body in kilograms, and
“R” is the distance between the two in meters.

So for the Moon in its current orbit:

U = -(GMm)/R
U = -((6.674 x 10^-11)(5.97237 x 10²³)(7.342 x 10²²))/384,399,000
U = -7.61316 x 10²⁷ joules

The kinetic energy for an orbiting body can be calculated with K = (1/2)(GMm/R), where the variables have the same meaning as in the prior equation (except for “K”, which is kinetic energy instead of potential energy). So the Moon’s orbital kinetic energy is:

K = (1/2)(GMm/R)
K = (½)(((6.674 x 10^-11)(5.97237 x 10²³)(7.342 x 10²²))/384,399,000)
K = 3.80658 x 10²⁷ joules

Add them together and we get the total energy:

E = U + K
E = (-7.61316 x 10²⁷) + (3.80658 x 10²⁷)
E = -3.80658 x 10²⁷ joules

So now I’ll consider an extreme situation like the one you described (where the Moon is 1,000 light-years from Earth).

U = -(GMm)/R
U = -((6.674 x 10^-11)(5.97237 x 10²³)(7.342 x 10²²))/(9.46 x 10¹⁸)
U = -3.09373 x 10¹⁷ joules

K = (1/2)(GMm/R)
K = (½)((6.674 x 10^-11)(5.97237 x 10²³)(7.342 x 10²²))/(9.46 x 10¹⁸)
K = 1.5468665 x 10¹⁷ joules

E = U + K
E = (-3.09373 x 10¹⁷) + 1.5468665 x 10¹⁷ joules
E = -1.5468635 x 10¹⁷ joules

Since -1.5468635 x 10¹⁷ joules is larger than -3.80658 x 10²⁷ joules, the Moon would have more total energy if it was 1,000 light-years from Earth than if it were in its current orbit. So energy has to be put into the system in order to increase the distance between two gravitating bodies.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Since -1.5468635 x 1017 joules is larger than -3.80658 x 1027 joules, the Moon would have more total energy if it was 1,000 light-years from Earth than if it were in its current orbit. So energy has to be put into the system in order to increase the distance between two gravitating bodies.

Thanks for your effort in setting the calculation.
I do appreciate that.

The gravity energy is a direct outcome of the orbital velocity which means - kinetic energy and not potential energy.

It's both, actually. You can't ignore potential energy.

Let's look at the meaning of Gravitational energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
"Gravitational energy (GPE) is the potential energy of a physical object with mass has in relation to another massive object due to gravity. It is potential energy associated with the gravitational field. Gravitational energy is dependent on the masses of two bodies, their distance apart and the gravitational constant (G)."
Therefore, when we discuss about BH's Gravitational energy (GPE) we actually have to focus on the BH's potential energy with related to the new born Pair particles. So, we can't ignore it as you have stated.
Let's go back to that article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, real particle and antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy or actually BH's potential energy.
Let's stop at that moment of creation.
Before any particle is ejected outwards or inwards.
Before we set any change in the mass of the BH or the accretion disc due to in falling particle.
Do you agree that the creation of those particles must come from the BH's potential energy?
As it is stated:
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If so, how that BH's Potential Energy is converted into real pair of particle?
Can you please explain it?

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that the creation of those particles must come from the BH's potential energy?
As it is stated:
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If so, how that BH's Potential Energy is converted into real pair of particle?
Can you please explain it?

The black hole's potential energy isn't converted into a particle pair. No energy is consumed in the creation of the particle pair because the pair's net energy is zero. You are getting too hung up on the "particle pair created by gravity" analogy. It isn't literally true. It's just a metaphor used by scientists in an attempt to make the process easier for laymen to understand.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you agree that the creation of those particles must come from the BH's potential energy?
As it is stated:
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
If so, how that BH's Potential Energy is converted into real pair of particle?
Can you please explain it?

The black hole's potential energy isn't converted into a particle pair. No energy is consumed in the creation of the particle pair because the pair's net energy is zero. You are getting too hung up on the "particle pair created by gravity" analogy. It isn't literally true. It's just a metaphor used by scientists in an attempt to make the process easier for laymen to understand.

Sorry
It isn't metaphor. It is a clear explanation about the creation process/energy for new particles.
They didn't try to support any sort of theory.
Therefore, I have full trust in those scientists and it is clear to me that they are fully correct.
Not just in that message but also in the following one:
"Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"
Those two key messages perfectly fit to my theory and proves that new real particles are created due to the black hole's gravitational energy!
Those new particles increase the total mass in the Universe as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc while the other is falling into the SMBH.
If you still think that our scientists have an error in their understanding, than you have to argue with them about it.
So far our scientists have never observed any matter falling into the accretion disc. (For sure - Not NASA)
They will never ever find any sort of in falling matter into the accretion disc even if they will stand near the accretion disc with the best telescope.
It's a time to change a disc in the theory of our Universe.
The SMBH is the source for all the matter in the galaxy/Universe.
Nothing moves in.
Everything is moving outwards.
All the stars in the galaxy including our Sun with all its planets and moons have been created by our SMBH and are drifting outwards.
Once you agree with that - you will understand how our Galaxy/Universe really works.
We see today that all the far away galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
It is clear that without new mass creation, the density of our (observable) universe should decrease.
However, the creation of new mass by all the SMBH in the universe are fully balanced with the matter that escapes from our observable universe.
If we could come back again to our Universe in 100 Billion years from now, we should find exactly the same observable Universe density, the same cosmic radiation and almost the same space view.

[Kryptid]

Sorry
It isn't metaphor. It is a clear explanation about the creation process/energy for new particles.

If it really was that clear, then you would stop misinterpreting it to mean what you want it to mean instead of what it actually means. I already posted a link that discusses how the particle pair analogy is not representative of the actual math behind the Hawking process.

Therefore, I have full trust in those scientists and it is clear to me that they are fully correct.

If you had "full trust in those scientists", then you would trust them when they say that the particle pair has net zero energy and would therefore stop this nonsense about gravitational fields creating net positive energy. Gravity can't break the law of conservation of energy. In practice, your actions say "I have full trust in those scientists when what they say agrees with what I believe".

Not just in that message but also in the following one:
"Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"

This has been explained to you already. Go back and read our past explanations if your memory is really that bad.
 

Those two key messages perfectly fit to my theory and proves that new real particles are created due to the black hole's gravitational energy!

First of all, learn what it means to prove something. Second of all, you can't drain energy from a gravitational field. Gravitational fields are an intrinsic attribute of the mass that produces them. There isn't any usable energy in a gravitational field. It would be like trying to drain the energy from the charge of an electron. It doesn't work. If it was possible to draw unlimited energy from a gravitational field, then we could have perpetual motion machines on Earth that worked by converting the local gravitational field into energy. But we can't because that isn't how physics works. Again, gravity can't break the first law of thermodynamics.

If you still think that our scientists have an error in their understanding, than you have to argue with them about it.

The error is with your understanding, not that of scientists. Scientists aren't the ones arguing that the created particle pairs have a net positive energy: you are.

Those new particles increase the total mass in the Universe

Again, I have to ask you, do you know what the first law of thermodynamics is?

Everything is moving outwards.
All the stars in the galaxy including our Sun with all its planets and moons have been created by our SMBH and are drifting outwards.

Is your memory really that bad? Have you already forgotten the math I just did that shows that it takes an energy input to increase orbital distances? Or did you just ignore it because it shows that you are wrong?

However, the creation of new mass by all the SMBH in the universe are fully balanced with the matter that escapes from our observable universe.

When was it ever discovered that there is a net loss of matter from our observable universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If you had "full trust in those scientists", then you would trust them when they say that the particle pair has net zero energy and would therefore stop this nonsense about gravitational fields creating net positive energy. Gravity can't break the law of conservation of energy. In practice, your actions say "I have full trust in those scientists when what they say agrees with what I believe".

OK
There are two different issues
1. New real particle creation near the BH event horizon
2. The energy source for that creation
I hope that by now we all agree that new real particle and real antiparticle are created near the event horizon.
So, let's focus on no. 2 - the energy source for that creation.
In the article it is stated:
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
But you don't like it.
You claim that gravity  by itself has no energy and therefore due to the first law of thermodynamics, there is no way to extract new energy from gravity in order to generate new particles.
Surprisingly - I agree with your explanation - as long as we only focus on gravity.
However, BH is not just about gravity, it is much more than that.
In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
"In physics, black hole thermodynamics[1] is the area of study that seeks to reconcile the laws of thermodynamics with the existence of black-hole event horizons. As the study of the statistical mechanics of black-body radiation led to the advent of the theory of quantum mechanics, the effort to understand the statistical mechanics of black holes has had a deep impact upon the understanding of quantum gravity, leading to the formulation of the holographic principle.[2]"
That shows that our scientists are not fully sure how thermodynamics works at BH.
In order to overcome the First low of thermodynamics it is stated:
The first law
"The left side, {\displaystyle dE}dE, is the change in energy (proportional to mass). Although the first term does not have an immediately obvious physical interpretation, the second and third terms on the right side represent changes in energy due to rotation and electromagnetism. Analogously, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of energy conservation, which contains on its right side the term {\displaystyle TdS}{\displaystyle TdS}."
It is stated: "changes in energy due to rotation and electromagnetism"
Therefore, it seems to me that when we add to BH gravity the impact of the orbital rotation plus the electromagnetism, than we can gain the extra energy which is needed to create new real particles near the event horizon.

[Kryptid]

You claim that gravity  by itself has no energy and therefore due to the first law of thermodynamics, there is no way to extract new energy from gravity in order to generate new particles.

I'm not so sure that I would say that a gravitational field has no energy. In quantum theories, gravitational fields are modeled as being composed of virtual gravitons. Each of those gravitons should carry some amount of energy. However, this is not energy that can be accessed because those are virtual particles that must quickly vanish back into the vacuum and carry their energy with them in the process. That is the important distinction I want to make. It is very possible to have energy around that you can't use to perform work. The zero-point energy of a vacuum is one such example.

Therefore, it seems to me that when we add to BH gravity the impact of the orbital rotation plus the electromagnetism, than we can gain the extra energy which is needed to create new real particles near the event horizon.

Rotation is indeed an accessible source of energy. It, however, still follows the first law of thermodynamics. As energy is drained from the black hole's spin, the black hole's spin slows down. Once all of the black hole's spin energy is drained, it is no longer spinning and can therefore no longer donate energy via that method.

Electromagnetism is like gravity in the sense that you can't suck energy out of an electromagnetic field because it is an intrinsic property of electric charge. It doesn't contain usable energy in itself, but it can transfer energy from one source to another (which is the basis for our electrical technology). As such, a magnetic field being dragged around by a rotating black hole can transfer energy from the black hole's spin to magnetized objects in that same field. Once all of that spin is gone, however, there is nothing left to drain energy from.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid for your great explanation

So, now we agree that the BH's gravity + BH's spinning + BH's Electromagnetism can set the requested energy which is needed to create new pair particles.
However - There is a cost for that.
It should reduce the spinning energy of the BH.
However, for any new pair particles creation, one particle is ejected outwards into the accretion disc and the other Antiparticle is falling into the BH.
Assuming that the BH is full with antiparticles - the in falling new antiparticle is actually increases the BH mass.
More mass in the BH means more spinning power/energy.
Therefore, the mass of the antiparticle that falls into the BH overcomes the energy spinning reduction due to the pair creation.
What do you think about this idea?

[Halc]

Therefore, it seems to me that when we add to BH gravity the impact of the orbital rotation plus the electromagnetism, than we can gain the extra energy which is needed to create new real particles near the event horizon.

Rotation is indeed an accessible source of energy.

Just a nit.  Dave didn't mention spin, he spoke of orbital rotation, and while some black holes have this, a SMBH does not unless it is merging with another.  So Sgr-A does have orbital energy relative to the SMBH in Andromeda, and that energy will indeed be used to propel random stars to escape velocities, thus draining Sgr-A of its 'orbital energy' and causing it to quickly (in only 10ish billion years) spiral in (gaining negative gravitational potential energy) until the end.

As such, a magnetic field being dragged around by a rotating black hole can transfer energy from the black hole's spin to magnetized objects in that same field.

I'm no expert in EM fields, but does spinning what seems to be a monopole charged object produce a magnetic field?  The no-hair theorem lists charge but not magnetic field, but perhaps the latter can be computed given the angular momentum figures.

Wiki does say this line: "Magnetic charge, if detected as predicted by some theories, would form the fourth parameter possessed by a classical black hole."

I don't even know what 'magnetic charge' is, as opposed to magnetic field.  I also don't know what they mean by 4th parameter since location, mass, momentum, spin, and charge seems already to be 5 parameters.

[Kryptid]

Assuming that the BH is full with antiparticles

That's not a good assumption. Particles are as likely to fall in as antiparticles.

Therefore, the mass of the antiparticle that falls into the BH overcomes the energy spinning reduction due to the pair creation.

No, no it doesn't. Basic math will tell you that much. If 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the hole in order to produce a positron-electron pair, then the black hole can only get 0.511 MeV of that energy back by consuming one of the particles. It would only get back half of the energy that it expended.

Any method you use to try to get a system to create net energy is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. You might as well stop trying.

Just a nit.  Dave didn't mention spin

He did in reply #802.

I'm no expert in EM fields, but does spinning what seems to be a monopole charged object produce a magnetic field?

If by "monopole charge" you mean electric charge, yes. Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field. However, I have mostly given up on trying to teach Dave Lev that a neutral black hole can't have a magnetic field. I just try to go with it and demonstrate that, even if such was the case, it still won't give him the result he wants.

I don't even know what 'magnetic charge' is

Magnetic charge is a single north or south pole, which could only exist if magnetic monopoles exist. If they do, then a black hole that consumes magnetic monopoles could have a net magnetic charge.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Any method you use to try to get a system to create net energy is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Dear Kryptid
I was quite sure that we have already agreed that there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You have already confirmed it:

Rotation is indeed an accessible source of energy. It, however, still follows the first law of thermodynamics. As energy is drained from the black hole's spin, the black hole's spin slows down.

Electromagnetism is like gravity in the sense that you can't suck energy out of an electromagnetic field because it is an intrinsic property of electric charge. It doesn't contain usable energy in itself, but it can transfer energy from one source to another (which is the basis for our electrical technology). As such, a magnetic field being dragged around by a rotating black hole can transfer energy from the black hole's spin to magnetized objects in that same field.

So Please - It is not a tango - two step forwards, one step backwards.
You have to respect your confirmation that the BH has the ability/energy to create new real particles pair!!!
However, we also agree that there is a cost for that new creation. It is the energy reduction at the BH.
So, please - we have already found a solution for the first law of thermodynamics:
BH's gravity + BH's Spinning/rotation + BH's electromagnetic force - all of that are transformed into the requested energy that sets the creation of new real particles.
So, please don't go back again to that thermodynamic issue any more.
I fully agree that we still have to overcome few milestones, but would you kindly confirm the above?

[Kryptid]

Dear Kryptid
I was quite sure that we have already agreed that there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You have already confirmed it:

As long as new mass-energy isn't being created, then the first law of thermodynamics is being obeyed.

So Please - It is not a tango - two step forwards, one step backwards.
You have to respect your confirmation that the BH has the ability/energy to create new real particles pair!!!

What I confirmed is that energy can be drained from a black hole's rotation. Whether that rotation can naturally result in the creation of new particles is a different matter. I'm mostly just going with it for the sake of argument because the main thrust of what I'm trying to say is that a black hole contains a finite amount of mass-energy and therefore can only send a finite amount of mass-energy out into the Universe.

However, we also agree that there is a cost for that new creation. It is the energy reduction at the BH.
So, please - we have already found a solution for the first law of thermodynamics:
BH's gravity + BH's Spinning/rotation + BH's electromagnetic force - all of that are transformed into the requested energy that sets the creation of new real particles.
So, please don't go back again to that thermodynamic issue any more.
I fully agree that we still have to overcome on few milestones, but would you kindly confirm the above?

The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does. Otherwise, I'll say that maybe rotation can be used to create particle pairs. It's not that the rotation doesn't have energy that could theoretically be converted into particles. The energy is certainly there. It's just that the right mechanism to bring about this conversion would also have to be present.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'll say that maybe rotation can be used to create particle pairs.

I really don't understand why suddenly you are so afraid that BH's rotation can be used to create new particle pairs?
Why can't you just say?
Yes, the rotation of the BH can be used to create particle pairs, as long as there is a balance between the energy that are drained from a black hole's rotation to the energy that is needed for the new creation particle pairs?

[Kryptid]

I really don't understand why suddenly you are so afraid that BH's rotation can be used to create new particle pairs?
Why can't you just say?
Yes, the rotation of the BH can be used to create particle pairs, as long as there is a balance between the energy that are drained from a black hole's rotation to the energy that is needed for the new creation particle pairs?

Actually, I just remembered that Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So I will agree that such particles can be produced.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Actually, I just remembered that Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So I will agree that such particles can be produced.

Thanks
I really appreciate this answer.

So, let's start to deal with the milestones:

Assuming that the BH is full with antiparticles

That's not a good assumption. Particles are as likely to fall in as antiparticles.

We have already agreed that  the BH's electromagnetic force transformed the requested energy for the pair creation.
Therefore, It must be there
In the same token, new created particles should carry opposite electrical charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
Assuming that the new created particles are fully affected by electromagnetic force, don't you agree that one should pushed outwards, while the other one must pulled inwards due to Lorentz force? 

[Kryptid]

Assuming that the new created particles are fully affected by electromagnetic force, don't you agree that one should pushed outwards, while the other one must pulled inwards due to Lorentz force? 

Only if the black hole has net electric charge.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Assuming that the new created particles are fully affected by electromagnetic force, don't you agree that one should pushed outwards, while the other one must pulled inwards due to Lorentz force?

Only if the black hole has net electric charge.

Thanks
So by assuming that BH has a net electrical charge, Antiparticles will fall into the BH, while the accretion disc will get particles.
That is perfect solution.
It shows that the BH increases its mass due to the in falling new born Antiparticles. However - we still need to set the energy issue.