I'm quite certain I've discovered the grand theory

[PRyckman]

I wouldn't know where to begin, could you tell me the interpretations of such an answer? Oh and what's the equation for pie again?

 

[chroot]

Well, it's simple. If you pack a given mass, M, into a small enough space, you will create a black hole.

Do you know what defines a black hole? It's simple, really. First, imagine the good ol' Earth. You know that if you throw a baseball up into the air, it'll come to the ground, right? What happens if you throw it really hard, by strapping a big rocket to it? If you can accelerate it up to 11 km/s, the baseball can actually leave the Earth's gravitational field entirely, and never come home.

That speed, 11 km/s, is called the escape velocity, because an object will have to go at least that fast to escape the Earth's gravity.

A black hole is an object with such intense gravity that even light cannot escape. In other words, at some distance from the object, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. The distance from the object at which this occurs is called the event horizon, and the event horizon is at a distance of $2GM/c^2$ from the object.

Let's put in a concrete example. How about the mass of the Sun? How small would you have to compress the Sun to turn it into a black hole?

Answer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=2+G+(mass+of+sun)+/+c^2&btnG=Google+Search

Keep in mind that I haven't mentioned singularities at all. Why not? Because you don't have to have a singularity to have a black hole. All you have to do is get enough mass into a small enough space. Current physical models know of no forces that could prevent such a mass from collapsing all the way to a singularity, and most physicists feel that means that current physical models are wrong!

It is quite likely that a theory of quantum gravity like string theory will eliminate the singularity in our models of black holes.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

(And there is no such thing as an "equation for pi". Note the spelling, too -- it's pi, a greek letter, not pie, a dessert.)

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

So what is the calculation that has been defined to millions of decimal points to no end?
..On topic
Does that Energy have to be in wave form to cause a black hole? (compressed matter would have an extremely high Energy field

 

[chroot]

Ah, you're saying "what's the algorithm used to calculate the digits of pi?" There are many such algorithms.

The terms 'wave form' and 'energy field' are not part of accepted physics, so I don't know what you mean.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Does the Energy have to have no mass, that causes the black hole, for instance would a bright enough laser focused perfectly cause small black holes?

 

[PRyckman]

I thought the value for pi was calculated using radius and area for a circle

 

[chroot]

For a black hole, it doesn't matter whether the stuff inside is mass or energy. It's all the same to gravity.

Pi is defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. That definition is not useful for calculating its digits with a computer. That requires an algorithm.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

No for a black hole it doesn't matter, for my equation it does :)

Okay could you relate trying to find pi to trying to find edges on a perfect circle?

 

[chroot]

I don't really care what your equation says, to be frank.

A perfect circle has no sides.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

So then that'd be why you can't find a value for pi?

 

[chroot]

What do you mean by 'value?' Pi has a perfectly well-defined value.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

and what value is that? 3.14 ?

 

[chroot]

No, 3.14 is an approximation of pi. What I mean is that pi occupies a distinct spot on the number line.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

And although you don't care could you make an educated guess based on your obvious wealth of knowledge, what passes into a black hole would it be energy or mass when crossing the event horizon.

 

[chroot]

It doesn't necessarily become either. Once again, as far as gravity is concerned, energy (by that I assume you mean light) and mass are the same stuff.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

hmm, I think I'll need some time to theorize after that statement. So your opinion then is it stays in the form it was before reaching that point?

 

[chroot]

May I suggest that spend more time reading and less time theorizing? I mean no offense, but you are quite ill-equipped to be formulating new physical theories. You would do well to understand existing physics before attempting to make your own.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

I think understanding the concept is more important than understanding the math, it seems to me I can turn equations into language easier than I can language to math, and you visa verca.
However You didn't answer my question
Is your opinion that Energy stays in the form it was in when crossing the event horizon?

 

[chroot]

Yeah, light stays light when it crosses the event horizon.

Keep in mind that language is not a very useful tool for either learning or communicating physics. To paraphrase a cliche, an equation is worth a thousand words. Actually, probably even more than that.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

I can answer that question for you, we know incredible energy is given off in the criation disk(i know that's off) This is all energy not matter. Therefor we must assume all mass is transferred into quanta


enough quanta, Plancks energy in a certain distance and you have a black hole.

 

[chroot]

The accretion disk is outside the event horizon. What happens in the accretion disk has nothing to do with what happens inside the event horizon.

Your last sentence, properly worded, should be "Enough matter or energy in a small enough volume, and you have a black hole."

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Therefor to swing it all back to the interference patterns, quanta, or energy is what has an affect on gravity, And that effect can be seen by the interference

 

[PRyckman]

but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?

 

[chroot]

There is no relationship to interference patterns.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

but if you move infinitely closer to the event horizon more and more mass is being separated into energy?

No.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Gravity plays no effect, only the minima and maxima of the waves interacting makes the interference?

 

[chroot]

Wave interference has nothing to do with gravity. Currently, there are two major theories in physics: quantum mechanics, which deals with the double slit experiment and so on, and general relativity, which deals with gravity and black holes. Currently, the two are not related to each other in any way.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

what if gravity and black holes were determined instead by time? Would that relate them? Instead of gravity being a force of energy it is described as I had described it in "what is energy" thread

 

[chroot]

What if green were really four?

Your ideas make no sense. The gravitational force does not depend on time, and indeed it cannot. The invariance of physical laws to translations in time is equivalent to the conservation of energy. If gravity changed its character over time, then the conservation of energy would be violated, and no one has ever shown even a single example, ever, of energy conservation being violated.

- Warren

 

[PRyckman]

Well time is relative to the amount of energy right? Therefor the amount of energy is greater on Earth than halfway between Earth and mars. I'm not saying gravity changes character over time, I am looking at one frame of time, not time passing. Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy.

Are you saying the conservation of energy would be violated if the Earth lost mass over time by putting out a gravitational field? If that's what your saying then Gravity must not be energy huh?

 

[chroot]

I have no idea what "the amount of energy is greater on Earth than halfway between Earth and mars" means.

"Energy: kinetic,gravity etc alters the speed at which time passes relative to other areas with diferrent energy" is almost correct. Gravitational fields to affect the passage time, cf. gravitational time dilation.

And yes, if the Earth lost mass over time simply by virtue of mainting its gravitational field, then energy conservation would be broken.

- Warren

 

[Antonio Lao]

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? Do we quantized distance first then quantized matter and energy? Or do we quantized matter and energy first then quantized distance?

The quantization of matter is the beginning of the atomic theory.

The quantization of energy is the beginning of quantum theory.

The quantization of one-dimensional space (distance) is the beginning of quantized space. This is my research.

Quantized Space = c Energy

Energy = mass c^2

Quantized Space = mass c^3

Note: the three equations above are based on the assumption that continuous space and quantized space are equal but in truth they are not when look upon in microscopic and macroscopic point of view.

 

[PRyckman]

Sorry to be vague, Energy existing as a potential whether it be infared or xray measured at some point on Earth would be greater than the Energy existing as a potential than in space away from such a large body.

Ok now Since Earth isn't losing mass over time maintaining it's gravitational field, then gravity must not contain energy. To again obey the laws of conservation of mass.

If gravity doesn't contain energy is it still a force of E?
Is it not possible that energy creates a force on time and Gravity is just a byproduct of that?

 

[PRyckman]

That's interesting Antonio, I wonder what chroot will have to say on that.