0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You have it backwards. A lowering of orbital energy results in a decrease in the size of the orbit, not an increase.
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.
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.
The gravity 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 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.
Therefore, loosing orbital energy means increasing the orbital radius and decreasing the orbital velocity.
QuoteTherefore, 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.
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!
The black hole's gravitational energy is for free
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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?
QuoteDo 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.
SorryIt isn't metaphor. It is a clear explanation about the creation process/energy for new particles.
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!
If you still think that our scientists have an error in their understanding, than you have to argue with them about it.
Those new particles increase the total mass in the Universe
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/09/2019 06:10:29Therefore, 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.
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.
Assuming that the BH is full with antiparticles
Therefore, the mass of the antiparticle that falls into the BH overcomes the energy spinning reduction due to the pair creation.
Just a nit. Dave didn't mention spin
I'm no expert in EM fields, but does spinning what seems to be a monopole charged object produce a magnetic field?
I don't even know what 'magnetic charge' is
Any method you use to try to get a system to create net energy is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
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.
Dear KryptidI was quite sure that we have already agreed that there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.You have already confirmed it:
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 on few milestones, but would you kindly confirm the above?
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?
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.
QuoteAssuming that the BH is full with antiparticles That's not a good assumption. Particles are as likely to fall in as antiparticles.
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?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/10/2019 10:25:37Assuming 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.