Are these your words, or are they taken from another site?
Gravity Waves
- Thread starter Little Bang
- Start date
The photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass. It has no rest mass because it isn't at rest, and you can't slow it down like you can slow down an electron. But when you catch it in a mirror-box, it increases the mass of the system. It's still going at c, but it's going round and round at c, so it's effectively at rest. See Light is Heavy by van der Mark and (not the Nobel) 't Hooft: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478 and think of the electron as a 511keV photon in a box of its own making.
If you've got a 511keV photon going round and round at c, you cannot also make the whole thing move linearly at c as well. Because to do that light would have to go faster than light.
Formation of matter is pair-production. Think of it as making light go round and round. A gravitational field slows it down. That's why it curves. See Einstein talking about that :
Please give the source and author of the image on your post....
It is not that you are not aware of prevalent GR based interpretation of photon following the curved geodesic. So what makes you think that gravity causes slowing of photon when it curves? This is not even a bonafide objection against GR.
Are you talking about light getting stopped, but then thats a different stuff...
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
"Hovering" is another one of those terms that would only make sense in terms of a Euclidean solid. If the black hole is orbiting another black hole, or moving at relativistic speed with respect to our galaxy because it is at cosmological distances from us, or even rotating about its own axis, then the aggregate motion of the event horizons is shared by all of the photon ENERGY trapped within it. Time is more fundamental than energy, bound or unbound. It doesn't "stop" anywhere. Nothing "hovers" in one place in an inertialess vacuum, at any magnitude of mass, which is continuously impacted by Higgs for any bound energy with mass.
The Standard Model without Higgs is like the periodic table without hydrogen. If you don't understand the most fundamental element, you might as well all be alchemists. I can't make it any plainer than that.
Relativity is as fundamental a principle to the Standard Model as Pauli's exclusion principle is to an understanding of atomic structure and electron configuration, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Last edited:
Thats very interesting observation......any work on this?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
If anyone here believes that it "hovers", then what exactly does it hover WITH RESPECT TO?
Thats poposcience, I know...
But can you cite any work, where the work has been done as per your post...
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Any "work" I could cite would not be based on direct observations. Other than the fact that black holes manifestly move and very likely rotate, anything else would fall into the general category of fantasy or science fiction, so why even bother to look for it, or even publish it?
There probably is an Ancient Greek philosopher who thought of it first also, and based his findings on a consideration of solid Euclidean geometry with infinite inertia and fixed coordinate system origins nailed into inertialess space everywhere. I don't care, particularly if someone believes an EH can somehow "hover" somewhere that is inexplicably a fixed position in the grand scheme of things while everything else moves.
Even something that is fixed must be fixed with respect to something else that moves. There is no preferred FoR.
Entanglement is a state of perfect, lossless rotation. It is fixed, in a sense, everywhere, but it has no inertia of its own without the Higgs mechanism.
Last edited:
mine. i typed this on another site. then copied and pasted it too here. i have typed this here before in the past.
Although in this instant you are correct [and which I also objected to in post 180] It is rather hypocritical of you to ask for references and links supporting any argument, don't you think?
In general most of what you have sprayed on this forum is incorrect at best, and pseudoscientific nonsense at worst, and most all come without any links or references, and when asked for are just ignored.
Even your alternative science comrades seem to disown you most of the time.
Why not at least try and be consistent because at present, your contradictions stick out like dog balls.
Agreed, hovering is a poor terminology to use. Although I also used it myself.
In actual fact any photons emitted directly radially away from just outside the EH, is always moving away at "c", with spacetime "falling" inwards at "c" as per the "river model" and
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
I see no reason why you should find my content posts personally so offensive, in general my posts are of 3 types.
Type 1: They are simply the interpretation of the mainstream theories/hypos. You find them incorrect because you are not fully clear about them. Take for example this Planck's time, you are not aware of this possible discrete quantum concept of time with T(Plancks) as the least count. Another, that charge nullification of BH, you are not aware that a BH (say +ively charged) cannot attract a negatively charged particle from outside of EH...It is not charge charge interaction on the either side of EH, it is simply mass accretion but result is same once accreted. Similarly you do not know how the spin is negated over a period of time...You also are not aware of the fallacy that for HR based evaporation the BH needs to be totally isolated with no accretion not even of CMBR, which is an impossibility. Here you want links / references from me, where is the need? You have all the references and links, read them carefully, you will understand what the theory is.
Its a fact that so far you have not been able to pin point any inaccuracy with my interpretation of mainstream. You are free to do so..Your friend 'Origin' tried to find something, but he ran away.
Type 2 : This is my opinion. I have my reservation about GR / BH / BB / Inflation / Spacetime. And I write about it because I feel so, if I feel that I am wrong then I will not write...So far neither you nor anybody else could counter any of my arguments....such posts then get reduced to uncivilized nonsense with name callings from both the sides.
Type3 : Just for fun, but most of the time reduces to name callings, leg pullings, sarcasms or straightforward abuses.
So out of the all 3, you can object to Type 3, but you also participate in that, so you loose the right even to crib on that.
BTW : Did you notice how that Swetpea, whom you were supporting, is advocating for you to be put on selective 'ignore'. I am sorry, I stated that he is your friend, he cannot be of anybody's.
Last edited:
You type this on another site...you typed this in the past on this site also.
You copied it from another site ...you pasted it here.
People on the other site requesting you to type part 2...people here (?) are also requesting you to type part2.
Why this? Hilarious ! (Shrugs
. It appears that couple of your circuit chips are down, I will get the hardware guy track you down and replace these chips, if one more chip goes down then 'self destruct' sequence would start, so please do not move around, till the hardware guy replaces your chips....After that you will just s'hrug' as usual, no lengthy typing.Again this is the pot calling the kettle black. Quite obviously and as noted by others, it is you that takes offence at mainstream cosmology.
I have, many times, and they all refute your nonsense. But you are unable to supply anything supporting what you claim, or the lies you perpetrate.
In essence another gutless lie infused copout.
Your child like obsession with people running away continues. And of course you persist in your lie.
[1] You are unable to see the connection with Planck scale and quantum levels.
[2] While admitting that the Planck scale is just a convenient concept, you still claim certainty with time discreetness.
[3]You still dispute that any BH can have three properties, mass, spin and charge, despite expert reputable links showing your ignorance.
[4] You are unaware of the properties of both spin and charge being negated over time, again despite reputable references supporting that.
I'll just stick to the list of errors you so often convey under the handle "the god"for now, and will leave the even more astonishing ignorant claims by rajesh at this time.
That's another lie of course. Your view has been debunked many times, and you simply ignore relevant points, decry any reputable links, and sidetrack debates when backed into a corner.
And of course if there has ever been no "counter arguments"to your nonsense, you would not be here now would you? Or are you now going to cry conspiracy by stubborn mainstream academia?
So you are now saying that you are the forum clown?
See my last comment. You do seem somewhat confused though and emotional.Just another example of your agenda laden misinterpretations.
He was of course having a shot at another well known forum whinger, who takes plenty of time criticing the forum, but still frequents it.
And if you check out the relevant posts again, you will find the original reference was to post 3 which wasn't mine.
Do better my son...a lot better!
You type this on another site...you typed this in the past on this site also.
You copied it from another site ...you pasted it here.
People on the other site requesting you to type part 2...people here (?) are also requesting you to type part2.
Why this? Hilarious ! (Shrugs
shakes head.. umm, what ?Paddo, Your right there.He was of course having a shot at another well known forum whinger, who takes plenty of time criticing the forum, but still frequents it.
And if you check out the relevant posts again, you will find the original reference was to post 3 which wasn't mine.
Do better my son...a lot better!
From your quoting of the doughnut I notice he/she must be still reading my posts, funny since I thought I was on ignore.
In case the doughnut is reading this, your find the ignore button via the heading 'People you ignore' on your personal details page.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's interesting [somewhat]. There's a reason it's "under appreciated". Probably not used much by professional physicists. I don't agree with the authors that this interpretation, somehow, makes the physics more intuitive. Regardless any photon path originating outside of the event horizon and moving in the + radial direction escapes to infinity. It isn't trapped in a 'no fly zone' and hidden from future observation like some forum member wants to believe. So if a Gravistar exists it should have an observable signature.Agreed, hovering is a poor terminology to use. Although I also used it myself.
In actual fact any photons emitted directly radially away from just outside the EH, is always moving away at "c", with spacetime "falling" inwards at "c" as per the "river model" and
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
Again this is the pot calling the kettle black. Quite obviously and as noted by others, it is you that takes offence at mainstream cosmology.
I have, many times, and they all refute your nonsense. But you are unable to supply anything supporting what you claim, or the lies you perpetrate.
In essence another gutless lie infused copout.
And of course you persist in your lie.
[1] You are unable to see the connection with Planck scale and quantum levels.
[2] While admitting that the Planck scale is just a convenient concept, you still claim certainty with time discreetness.
[3]You still dispute that any BH can have three properties, mass, spin and charge, despite expert reputable links showing your ignorance.
[4] You are unaware of the properties of both spin and charge being negated over time, again despite reputable references supporting that.
I'll just stick to the list of errors you so often convey under the handle "the god"for now, and will leave the even more astonishing ignorant claims by rajesh at this time.
That's another lie of course. Your view has been debunked many times, and you simply ignore relevant points, decry any reputable links, and sidetrack debates when backed into a corner.
And of course if there has ever been no "counter arguments"to your nonsense, you would not be here now would you? Or are you now going to cry conspiracy by stubborn mainstream academia?
So you are now saying that you are the forum clown?
Just another example of your agenda laden misinterpretations.
He was of course having a shot at another well known forum whinger, who takes plenty of time criticing the forum, but still frequents it.
And if you check out the relevant posts again, you will find the original reference was to post 3 which wasn't mine.
Do better my son...a lot better!
As usual nonsense and adhominems.......You cannot engage intelligently on the topic in hand so attack the person...usual Paddoboy style.
You have no answer for your ignorance on the content as raise by me in my post # 191 (Type 1 : Your incorrect understanding of Mainstream Interpretation is cause behind your repeated need for references from others).
Whatever my Son. When you start acting half decent and stop your lies, inuendoes, misinterpretations, I'll start treating you with some respect, which as yet you do not deserve.
And that's why you are here?
You are preaching alternative crap, and that's where it remains.
If you had anything of substance, you would not be here.
Your stuff has been totally refuted and debunked many times, you are just too stupid to accept it.
ps: My reputable links will continue, and they'll also continue to show you as the fraud that most on this forum now know you are.
You are unders some kind of stupid delusion that others do not have access to these links / references....Most of your links are for basic lay people with few acceptable loose wordings...this is no science..
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
Perhaps children's fairy tales, you may have a chance of some success.
It's a pity then that you do not take notice of them, instead of imagining that you are intelligent enough to model your own stuff.
Perhaps children's fairy tales, you may have a chance of some success.