Brent, Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and several others (eg. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: Inside Black Holes of 'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say what you are saying, namely that
1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by the matter entering the black hole. I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to correction if you can provide an authoritative one..... In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on the basis of which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of the Schwarzchild solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created by the mass INSIDE IT. So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black hole or do you have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain English you can provide? Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the matter inside a black hole leaves through the singularity and pops up somewhere else, but there is no convincing argument that that must be true. And if so you must come up with a VERY convincing argument that explains why a BH still appears to contain all the mass producing its gravitational field even though that mass isn't actually there anymore. Just referencing an equation that doesn't have a mass term does none of the above. Again is this your personal interpretation or can you give me an actual authoritative reference that states your 1. and 2.? BTW where are you employed as a physicist? In academia or the corporate world? Best, Edgar On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:20:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, > > No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the > difference. > > My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the > uneven Hubble expansion of space around galaxies. > > The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble > expansion. It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational > field behind them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which > moving masses leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to > me to contradict GR. > > Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still > causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he > believes. > > > All you would have had to do is look at the Wikipedia: > > ============================= > Deriving the Schwarzschild solution The Schwarzschild > solution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_solution>is one of the > simplest and most useful solutions of the Einstein > field equations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations>(see > general > relativity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity>). It > describes spacetime <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime> in the > vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. It is > worthwhile deriving this metric in some detail; the following is a > reasonably rigorous derivation that is not always seen in the textbooks. > > Working in a coordinate > chart<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_chart>with coordinates [image: > \left(r, \theta, \phi, t \right)] labelled 1 to 4 respectively, we begin > with the metric in its most general form (10 independent components, each > of which is a smooth function of 4 variables). The solution is assumed to > be spherically symmetric, static and vacuum. For the purposes of this > article, these assumptions may be stated as follows (see the relevant links > for precise definitions): > > (1) A spherically symmetric > spacetime<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherically_symmetric_spacetime>is one > in which all metric components are unchanged under any > rotation-reversal [image: \theta \rightarrow - \theta] or [image: \phi > \rightarrow - \phi]. > > (2) A static spacetime <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_spacetime> is > one in which all metric components are independent of the time coordinate > [image: > t] (so that [image: \frac {\part g_{\mu \nu}}{\part t}=0]) and the > geometry of the spacetime is unchanged under a time-reversal [image: t > \rightarrow -t]. > > (3) A *vacuum solution > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equation>* is one that > satisfies the equation [image: T_{ab}=0]. From the Einstein field > equations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations> (with > zero cosmological > constant<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant>), > this implies that [image: R_{ab}=0] (after contracting [image: > R_{ab}-\frac{R}{2} g_{ab}=0] and putting [image: R = 0]). > > (4) Metric signature <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_signature> used > here is [image: (-,+,+,+)]. > > =================================== > > > But apparently learning something is not on your agenda. > > Brent > > > Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have.... > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >>> I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect >>> outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and >>> nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? >>> >>> Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears >>> completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and >>> that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping >>> from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a >>> pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space >>> warping behind in any other circumstances.* >>> >>> I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy >> would leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone >> somewhere else. >> >> Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that >>> caused it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. >>> That is why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from >>> each other all the time. >>> Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original >>> galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can >>> go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter >>> can... >>> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
