Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
Suppose we actually have microscopic black holes in the center of the moon, or earth for that matter. They would tend to be maintained at the center of gravity. Their matter consumption rate would depend on relative motion with that matter, and their cross section for consumption would be very small. Even in a liquid core environment, the rate of matter consumption would eventually depend primarily on the viscosity of the core matter. The rate of consumption would be finite and for a very long time possibly exponential. In a solid core body like the moon, the consumption might never occur, because the black hole would essentially hollow out a vacuum around itself. If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. Such atoms would be insulated from further accretion by electromagnetic action of the satellite nuclei on surrounding matter. Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. If sufficient delay can be obtained, then the black hole will evaporate. If the force of the black hole's gravity ever exceeds the EM force, at a macro distance, then the ball game is probably all over for the host body. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
Surprised that you didn't mention the possibility of a mirror matter black hole, which might be unreactive with normal matter, although at that level of extreme density - it is anyone's guess as to whether everything becomes cosmic mush. Hey - since we are walking on the wild-side anyway: Also the further possibility that the destructive ability of micro black holes, if they can exist at all (I think not) but if they can - that these can be effectively neutralized by small amounts of mirror matter which would accumulate due to gravity, but possibly form a dense surface shell - rather than be 'consumed', thus offering some 'protection' g. - Original Message From: Horace Heffner Suppose we actually have microscopic black holes in the center of the moon, or earth for that matter. They would tend to be maintained at the center of gravity. Their matter consumption rate would depend on relative motion with that matter, and their cross section for consumption would be very small. Even in a liquid core environment, the rate of matter consumption would eventually depend primarily on the viscosity of the core matter. The rate of consumption would be finite and for a very long time possibly exponential. In a solid core body like the moon, the consumption might never occur, because the black hole would essentially hollow out a vacuum around itself. If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. Such atoms would be insulated from further accretion by electromagnetic action of the satellite nuclei on surrounding matter. Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. If sufficient delay can be obtained, then the black hole will evaporate. If the force of the black hole's gravity ever exceeds the EM force, at a macro distance, then the ball game is probably all over for the host body. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In the too cute to be real science department there is a rambling discourse floating around in cyberspace from an entity known as qdevice (John Titor wannabe?) ... and it provides another way to verbalize what mirror matter really is ... which BTW probably relates to the hypothesis (or gimmick) which is used throughout SciFi to rationalize FTL travel and communication with parallel universes (through non-destructive wormholes). If our observable universe is [effectively] a black hole, because its density matches critical density, [a few cosmologists believe it is *exactly* the critical density] then a smaller black hole in our universe would behave like another whole observable universe [i.e. a wormhole], and it would mean the black hole singularity would spread out all over its event horizon: it would never be located in any interior point at all. [All parallel unvierses would appear as black holes in our universe. Since these are a small fraction of stars, the number of parallel universes is relatively small in number- far from infinite. [comment: we are presently on the surface of a black hole which merely seems very large because of the inherent illusion - to a mentality which is trapped therein - IOW an inability for our minds to understand 4-space] [comment #2] instead of universe I would limit the identity of what we are focusing on to a local group of galaxies IOW to all of the matter which is gravitationally bound to us as evidenced by a blue shift] The weak holographic principle tells us there is not a core within a black hole, but all the information is encoded on its surface, the event horizon. So there aren't particles inside that black hole, only on its surface. We know that an event horizon is a 3-sphere which expands [there is no 'time' in 4-space, since time has been infolded into that dimension as space, ergo everything is simultaneously expanding] So once we've entered a black hole we remain in its event horizon forever, we do not fall into any point-like singularity. We do not suffer spaghettification at all. The cost to pay for this magical mystery tour is we will be unable to escape the black hole at any speed lower or equal to speed of light in the vacuum. Furthermore, something has happened to our constituent matter. Our matter is now mirror matter with respect to ordinary matter outside the black hole, although we can't locally realize this change of mirror symmetry. This is the reason why photons can't escape the event horizon of a black hole, there aren't photons, but mirror photons, from the point of view of an outer observer; mirror matter emits only mirror photons, so they only can be detected by mirror matter. An observer outside the black hole can't detect mirror photons. However he can detect mirror gravitons, because a mirror graviton is still a graviton. Hmm
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:55:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. [snip] What is to stop the accelerated positive nuclei from emitting EM radiation and spiraling into the BH? Since the BH has a huge gravitational force associated with it, there is no need for either it, or the orbiting matter, to be charged. Other matter will happily orbit it (in the conventional sense), just in very tiny orbits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:55:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. [snip] What is to stop the accelerated positive nuclei from emitting EM radiation and spiraling into the BH? This is a very interesting point. A stable BH atom with a neutral BH would indeed require a neutral satellite. However, if the black hole can exhibit charge, i.e. if virtual photons carry no mass charge (while real photos do) as in my gravimagnetics theory, then the same fields exist as for an ordinary atom, and radiation should be suppressed. There should exist quantized stable non-radiating orbits for charged black holes. Since the BH has a huge gravitational force associated with it, there is no need for either it, or the orbiting matter, to be charged. Other matter will happily orbit it (in the conventional sense), just in very tiny orbits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that's what I meant by the following sentence: On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:55 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: Even purely by the force of gravity and by quantum constraints, a gravitation force atom might be feasible having nuclei for satellites. However, a microscopic black hole does not necessarily have a hugh gravitational field associated with it at atomic radius distances. A black hole can be created using *any* amount of mass, provided the mass is stuffed within the Swartzchild radius for that mass. The mass required for a stable gravitationally based atom would be very large. Fe = Cc * (q^2/r^2) Fg = G * (m1 * mp) / r^2 The force between two charges at 1 Ang is 2.31x10^-8 N. Using equation 2 above: (r^2 * Fg)/ (G * mp) = m1 m1 = 2.07x10^9 kg So, to have a 1 angstrom orbital radius, say for a neutron orbiting the black hole, it would have to weigh over a billion kg. I think BH atoms from the Supercollider would have to be charge oriented only, unless they really took on some big mass quickly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On Sep 4, 2008, at 6:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Surprised that you didn't mention the possibility of a mirror matter black hole, which might be unreactive with normal matter, although at that level of extreme density - it is anyone's guess as to whether everything becomes cosmic mush. The quality of mirror matter is that its only reaction with ordinary matter is via gravitational influence. According to standard theory it would look no different from an ordinary BH. According to my gravimagnetics theory, it might exhibit negative gravitation, and thus fly off. Hey - since we are walking on the wild-side anyway: Also the further possibility that the destructive ability of micro black holes, if they can exist at all (I think not) Uh, I think the their feasibility is considered a certainty according to standard theory. but if they can - that these can be effectively neutralized by small amounts of mirror matter which would accumulate due to gravity, but possibly form a dense surface shell - rather than be 'consumed', thus offering some 'protection' g. That depends on whether such matter exhibits positive or negative gravitational charge. If my gravimagnetics theory is correct, then about half the universe carries negative gravitational mass and is in the form of mirror matter. This is the source of dark energy and explains the breaking of symmetry at the big bang. We just can't see the stuff that completes the symmetry. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On Sep 2, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:20:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] The large Hadron back in the news, Richard http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=74044 Quote: The Large Hadron Collider will not be producing anything that does not happen routinely in nature due to cosmic rays, he told the Sunday Telegraph. If they were dangerous we would know about it already. This is wrong. Cosmic rays are stopped in the atmosphere which is a gas, and not very dense. That means that microscopic black holes have a chance to evaporate before traveling their MFP. With the supercollider however any black holes formed may collide with a solid, which has a much smaller MFP, potentially giving black holes a chance to grow before they evaporate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The above is especially true if black holes spontaneously gain mass by generating mirror-matter/matter pairs, as suggested in my gravimagnetics theory: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf The half-life for generating such mirror-matter/matter pairs is likely long for a very small black hole, due tot he very small volume where this is feasible. However, if fed enough matter before it evaporates, then such a black hole takes on an expanding life of its own by this process. It is also true, according to the above theory, that black holes can exhibit magnetic and electrostatic fields, and thus, provided their kinetic energy becomes thermalized, and they are small enough, they can bind to ordinary matter, and thus not accumulate more matter until having enough time to evaporate. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] OK - but then what about the situation with our moon or Mars -- with almost no atmosphere and a dense solid core to absorb cosmic rays ? This is an excellent point, and I concede. You have put my mind at rest. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
The large Hadron back in the news, Richard http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=74044
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
On a philosophical note just because one might have the knowledge, heat, materials and tools for producing a thing called a subatomic particle that does not establish the thing is fundamental to nature. eg. A blacksmith uses some knowledge, heat, materials and tools to produce a thing called a horseshoe, but he understands the thing is man-made, rather than god-given or natural. Harry on 2/9/08 9:20 pm, R C Macaulay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The large Hadron back in the news, Richard http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=74044 http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewamp;pageId=74044
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:20:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] The large Hadron back in the news, Richard http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=74044 Quote: The Large Hadron Collider will not be producing anything that does not happen routinely in nature due to cosmic rays, he told the Sunday Telegraph. If they were dangerous we would know about it already. This is wrong. Cosmic rays are stopped in the atmosphere which is a gas, and not very dense. That means that microscopic black holes have a chance to evaporate before traveling their MFP. With the supercollider however any black holes formed may collide with a solid, which has a much smaller MFP, potentially giving black holes a chance to grow before they evaporate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
