The electric and magnetic fields are embedded in the curved spacetime aroud the event horizon. They are attached to the black hole... to te outside Universe, they effectively define the black hole
Last edited:
Why do Blackholes have Magnetic poles ?
- Thread starter Singularity
- Start date
Hi CANGAS,
I don't pretend to be an expert in General Relativity. I've said as much as I can.
If you'd like to learn more, I direct you to read a graduate text or a popular science account.
Some things you might like to consider:
Virtual photons are not limited to moving at light speed.
Anything in the space outside the black hole can not distinguish by electromagnetic means the difference between the event horizon and a conducting sphere.
I don't pretend to be an expert in General Relativity. I've said as much as I can.
If you'd like to learn more, I direct you to read a graduate text or a popular science account.
Some things you might like to consider:
Virtual photons are not limited to moving at light speed.
Anything in the space outside the black hole can not distinguish by electromagnetic means the difference between the event horizon and a conducting sphere.
My guess is that Pete has, as usual, lapsed into a regimine of taking either far too little of his meds, or, far too much.
This thread subject is serving to point out the present condition in science of how there really are untied ends in mainstream established science, and how there are serious unanswered questions about the nature of electromagnetic interractions and about the nature of space and of gravity.
If virtual photons are exempt from Special Relativity, this tells us a very important truth about the legitimacy of SR.
Virtual photons aren't exempt from SR. They just aren't predicted by it. It isn't until you put SR and QM together to form quantum field theory (QFT) that you get virtual photons. The fact that QFT has been verified to over 10 decimal places in some instances is a strong indication that both QM and SR are on the right track.
And my point was, interpreted for the understandingly challenged, that even if they are unbelievably both on the right track, they are collectively ( though in my opinion Quantum Physics seems to be leading the pack ) not on the final lap yet.
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
No, frame dragging effects and the field go right through the outer horison and right through the inner one as well right down to the physical singularity.
Trilairian
Registered Senior Member
The Kerr-Newman solution is dealt with as a static state solution just like a current loop of constant current can be treated so there are no changes inside or out to consider. In that sense yes you are right, there are no "effects" outside the horizon.
That was the point of your "serious unanswered questions" comment. I would think it would be obvious that I was referring your comment, "If virtual photons are exempt from Special Relativity, this tells us a very important truth about the legitimacy of SR."
My point is that the antecedent of that comment is false, so the consequent is moot.
Help! Old scientist , fluent in English, urgently needs volunteer to translate Jibber Jabber into understandable language.
You are not a scientist, and if you can't understand what I wrote then you aren't fluent in English either. You're just a fucking idiot.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1221057&postcount=35
Its amazing how u missed my primary point about twin jet pairs existence.
U cant become a scientist, nay.
Where did you get the idea that virtual photons are exempt from special relativity?
You are such a truly dumb bass that you do not know what the meaning of the word "if" is?
For the sarcastically challenged: I was making the point, which would have been picked up by anyone with an IQ over about 1.98, that virtual photons should not be exempt from Relativity, if Relativity is legitimate.
If your IQ is as low as you have just tried valiantly to prove that it is, please do do not wander into a serious science arena again.
CANGAS definitely has a proven history of fu***cking, and also has a proven history of NOT being an id***ot.
CANGAS cannot, frequently, understand the Jibber Jabber you write because the Jibber Jabber you write is Jibber Jabber.
At least, you agree that virtual photons are not exempt from relativity
At least, I have an IQ, not like you, you have only the Q without the I
CANGAS is on fire.
I wonder how to extinguish a gas induced fire.
BTW, who gives a damn to virtual photons, chill people its virtual. Just ignore and be real.
I wonder how to extinguish a gas induced fire.
BTW, who gives a damn to virtual photons, chill people its virtual. Just ignore and be real.
I am not a scientist. I am not an expert in physics or math or much of anything normally discussed in sciforums. I am an aircraft mechanic who finds the subject matter usually discussed in these forums quite fascinating and a fun tool for learning more about subjects I don't normally encounter in my everyday life.
So far I have learned that Black Holes and their mechanics are far from being a closed book. I have also learned that individuals who have knowledge of these things will from time to time get into heated debates.
I have also learned that CANGAS is quite smart, learned, and very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights.
That being said, CANGAS is a prick. Personal attacks serve no purpose except to dissuade reasonable discussion and cause hurt, hate, and any number of other things that do not add to the discussion. It's too bad that he cannot just answer others without trying to find hurtful ways of proving that he is better.
I apologize for the interruption in this thread but I felt that it needed to be said.
Thanks
p.s. some interesting reading for CANGAS can be found in the forum rules. I will quote a relevant piece for him below:
One example that could be found in just this thread could be:
I'm sure more can be found but I'm not sure they need quoted here.
So far I have learned that Black Holes and their mechanics are far from being a closed book. I have also learned that individuals who have knowledge of these things will from time to time get into heated debates.
I have also learned that CANGAS is quite smart, learned, and very good at explaining his position. His statements are, for the most part, well thought out and pleasurable to read. He often adds much to the discussion at hand and I have learned much from his insights.
That being said, CANGAS is a prick. Personal attacks serve no purpose except to dissuade reasonable discussion and cause hurt, hate, and any number of other things that do not add to the discussion. It's too bad that he cannot just answer others without trying to find hurtful ways of proving that he is better.
I apologize for the interruption in this thread but I felt that it needed to be said.
Thanks
p.s. some interesting reading for CANGAS can be found in the forum rules. I will quote a relevant piece for him below:
James R said:
One example that could be found in just this thread could be:
CANGAS said:
I'm sure more can be found but I'm not sure they need quoted here.
Last edited:
For us latecomes, can you summarise your point about twin jets then?
Hopefully none of that has resulted in procreation.
CANGAS, you are just about the dumbest person I have encountered on the internet. The only thing preventing me from declaring you the dumbest person I have encountered on the internet is your soul sister, MacM.
Only to an uneducated dolt such as yourself. There were no grammatical errors in my post, and neither did I use any words from any other language.
Once again, you put the irony meter in the red. Dipshit, you are obviously the one who doesn't understand what "if" means if you didn't understand my post. A statement whose logical form is "If p, then q" has two parts: the antecedent (p) and the consequent (q). "If p, then q" is true whenever p is false. The truth value of q doesn't make any difference (hence, it is moot, just like I said).
Before you make a complete fool of yourself by declaring yet another correct post "jibber jabber", try educating yourself.
Start here: http://www.dictionary.com