rotation

[RichD]

A black hole has angular momentum as one of its characteristic
parameters. Is it possible, in principle, to measure this,
for an observer inside?

Similarly for the entire universe - does it make sense
to speak of 'universal rotation', and possible to
measure this? Or at least observe a non-zero rotation?


--
Rich

[David Fuller]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

Er = 1/2Iw^2

Black hole mass /2 = I

Heisenberg Uncertainty = mass = velocity.
Mass*velocity=c^2


w is the angular velocity = c
c left * c right = c^2
c left + c right = zero




I is the moment of inertia around the axis of rotation

[David Fuller]

It is forced to spin because the mass is missing. trying to recapture the missing mass causes spin left * spin right with zero surface velocity

Heisenberg uncertainty = magnitude of velocity of spin = magnitude of mass = photons in a box

[james...@gmail.com]

The Earth's turn cancels weight at a maximum at the equator.
That motion of day time cancels the Earth's gravity G... weight downward
from the above...

Mitchell Raemsch

[David Fuller]

space is Kinetic Energy being utilized or absorbed by gravity to push time into the future.

Mass gravitates away space as fuel, pushing the present into the future.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.02.2016 23:37, schrieb David Fuller:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
>
> Er = 1/2Iw^2
>
> Black hole mass /2 = I

How do you come to that idea?

> Heisenberg Uncertainty = mass = velocity.

???


> Mass*velocity=c^2


NO!

E=m*c²

=>
m = E/c²



TH

[Heiðr Einherjar]

Il giorno Thomas Heger ha scritto:

>> Mass*velocity=c^2
>
>
> NO! E=m*c² => m = E/c²

No, 1/c² = m/E (E =/= 0)

[David Fuller]

(-1)^2 = 1

(-c)+(-c)= -2c
((-2) * c) / (-(c^2)) = 6.6712819 × 10^-9 s / m

[David Fuller]

(-1)^2 = (e^(pi*i))^2

[David Fuller]

Space = -(kinetic energy)
Mass = (energy debt)

-(kinetic energy)+ (energy debt) = missing total system energy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Rotation_in_systems

[David Fuller]

No, 1/((-c)+(c)) = 1/0

0 = (1 / ((1.37 * (10^10) years)^2)) * pi =
(1.68081284 × 10^-35 s^-2)

[David Fuller]

(1 / ((1.37 * (10^10) years)^2)) * pi = 1.68081284 × 10^-35 s^-2


((1 / ((1.37 * (10^10) years)^2)) * pi) / c =
5.60658813 × 10^-44 m-1 s-1

((1 / ((1.37 * (10^10) years)^2)) * pi) / 376.730313 = 4.46158108 × 10^-38 s-2

[james...@gmail.com]

بتاريخ الثلاثاء، 9 فبراير، 2016 12:34:05 م UTC-8، كتب RichD:

> A black hole has angular momentum as one of its characteristic
> parameters.

A black hole event horizon is a "spatial local Boundary" emptiness.
If you fall into this spherical empty event horizon space you can not
deliver any angular momentum. A singularity at the center
of round gravity black hole can have no rotation in mathematical truth
either...

Gravity ought not create boundaries locally or universally.
Or the Hypersphere-one closed Universe
There are no local boundaries "No Boundary" proposal is
about Einstein's original closed universe.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/9/16 2/9/16 2:34 PM, RichD wrote:
> A black hole has angular momentum as one of its characteristic
> parameters. Is it possible, in principle, to measure this,
> for an observer inside?

Measuring its magnitude is surely not possible, as an observer inside cannot
possibly observe the whole thing. An observer outside cannot see the whole
thing, either, but can make global measurements that can determine its total
angular momentum. An observer inside cannot make such global measurements.

So let's consider the simpler question: can an observer inside determine whether
the black hole is rotating at all? And in which direction around what axis? The
black hole must be very massive (= very large) for this to make sense, so the
observer has time to make observations.

The usual standard for "no rotation" is a locally inertial frame, and any
observer in freefall is at rest in one. How can such an observer observe the
black hole "itself"? (to check if it is rotating wrt her locally inertial
frame). The answer, of course, is that she cannot, because the black hole
"itself" has no substance to observe.

But a key aspect of a Kerr black hole (i.e. one with nonzero angular momentum)
is that inside its horizon the locally inertial frames are rotating relative to
distant locally-inertial frames. Assuming there are distant stars and galaxies
in the universe being discussed, the observer inside the black hole can see the
blue-shifted light from these distant objects. And she can observe the rotation
of her locally-inertial frame relative to these light rays. Yes, the null
geodesics they follow will pick up some of the rotation, but not all of it, and
I'm pretty sure she could determine the axis and direction of that rotation,
which necessarily corresponds to the overall rotation of the black hole.

> Similarly for the entire universe - does it make sense
> to speak of 'universal rotation', and possible to
> measure this? Or at least observe a non-zero rotation?

It does make sense to consider an overall rotation of the entire universe. It is
challenging, however, to construct the corresponding boundary conditions "at
infinity", and they seem rather unphysical. For a compact universe (i.e. one
with no boundary and thus no need for boundary conditions), I don't think there
can be an overall rotation that is consistent with any possible topology. I'm
not sure about a universe that is compact spatially but not temporally.

The Kerr manifold is a universe with an overall rotation. It is quite
complex.... It is not compact.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 11.02.2016 02:17, schrieb james...@gmail.com:

>> A black hole has angular momentum as one of its characteristic
>> parameters.
>
> A black hole event horizon is a "spatial local Boundary" emptiness.
> If you fall into this spherical empty event horizon space you can not
> deliver any angular momentum. A singularity at the center
> of round gravity black hole can have no rotation in mathematical truth
> either...
>
> Gravity ought not create boundaries locally or universally.
> Or the Hypersphere-one closed Universe
> There are no local boundaries "No Boundary" proposal is
> about Einstein's original closed universe.
>

A black hole is (in my own lingo): 'seeing time from the back, if the
axis of time is turned away'.

Since things and humans are locked to the timeline, they cannot escape
the black hole. But in return they experience an entire new universe,
not seen before.

This is actually general relativity in action and an effect of changes
in the direction of time (within spacetime).

But you could see also a black hole from the other side and that would
be a white hole.

Actually you can't see it, since you can only see things, that have
already happened. But things seem to pop out of nowhere and that is,
what we call 'big-bang'.


TH

[Muddy Shoes]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> A black hole is (in my own lingo): 'seeing time from the back, if the
> axis of time is turned away'.

Absolutely NOT. That's the point, under the event horizon you cannot
observe anything, much less time going reverse. Moreover, a singularity,
the black hole must be described by, makes anything including time
completely nonsensical. Learn your physics, before coming up with
conflicting statements as the you did above.

[Muddy Shoes]

john wrote:

> Black Holes as "singularities" resulting from gravitational collapse of
> matter ranks at about the same level as how a monkey thinks a car works.
>
> Galactic and atomic centers are vortices in sub-space and sub-sub-space,
> respectively.

Have no idea what you are talking about, my lovely friend John. In physics
you either are stating something clearly, or alternatively you are talking
nonsense. There is no middle talk in it, unless the interlocutor is trying
cheating, as for instance talking about Vectors, Tensors, changing it to
Tensor, Vector Fields at the time he feels cornered. The majority around
here are doing it.

[Thomas Heger]

a light-cone is a 2+1 simplification of a 3+1 spacetime-diagram. This is
meant as reduced representation of 3 space dimensions and on time
dimension.

Since spacetime is a combination of space and time, the light-cone is
actually part of a space, where this 2+1 space needs to be 'multiplied
by three'.

The two dimensions of 2+1 can come in three combinations (xy, yz, xz).
So we need to multiply this picture by three.

With this we would also multiply the axis of time.

This is a little tricky, but it is a hint, that our world of 3+1
dimensions is our own view on something of higher dimensionality.

Our view is kind of 'cut' and depending on our won state of movement.

Now guess you would move into another direction (than me): you still
would expect to see some sort of universe.

So to any timeline belongs a universe and this is actually a view an
arbitrary observer has onto something called 'spacetime'.

This timeline is unique for this specific observer, hence we have many
possible timeline, though in any particular case only one.

If now your timeline and mine have an angle in respect to each other, we
would not agree about the term 'space': Your space could shrink to
nothing, but I would not see anything interesting at all, because your
space is not mine and mine does not shrink.

Now time-revert 'to shrink' and you have 'to expand'. Time-revert a
black hole and you get a (the ?) big bang.

Now lets assume, that both ways are actually possible, thou only visible
under certain circumstance.

Than we could compare a black hole to a white hole and this to the big-bang.


TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/11/16 2/11/16 3:05 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]

Everything you wrote is a complete fabrication and has NOTHING WHATEVER to do
with rotation or light cones (ostensibly what you are attempting to write about).

Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?

Before attempting to write about a subject, your ought to LEARN something about it.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.02.2016 06:02, schrieb Tom Roberts:

> Everything you wrote is a complete fabrication and has NOTHING WHATEVER
> to do with rotation or light cones (ostensibly what you are attempting
> to write about).
>
> Why do you bother to just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's
> the point?

I did not write about light-cones, but about black holes.

I assume a physical reality of spacetime, where the axis of time could
turn in some regions into directions, which other observers regard as
spatial.

See from the back a timeline points into the future and drags the
observer and (everything else) with it.

This is a picture and similar to what the term 'black hole' means.

Seen from the other side (or: time-reverted) a black hole is similar to
what we call 'big bang'.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

It is this picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

What we see (as observers) is what is happening along our own past light
cone.

The cone itself is a reduction by one dimension, which we had to keep in
mind.

The cone has 2+1 dimension, meaning actually 3+1.

So we need to multiply it with three, since there are there combinations
of 2 out of 3 axis (xy, yz, xz).

Actually meant are nested spheres, which are nested in time (older the
further away).

This is actually what we call 'universe'.

The point 'here and now' is actually the observer.

So to any observer belongs his own universe, since that is actually his
view about a certain reality, we cannot see directly.

His view and his now and his here are in fact comoving (with him/her).

This view is - of course - not really real, but an impression someone
has. But everybody has one, but about a different universe.

Also the axis of time is unique to any observer, since it is actually
his own path through space and time, which is different for everybody.

Now we view upon regions, where time does not flow into the same
direction as our own timeline points, than we would also see the
corresponding space distorted.

In case of a black hole this space would shrink and the bent axis of
time would drag us with it, hence would let us see a different universe,
which belongs to that now different axis of time.

In the opposite case the axis of time points towards us, hence there
seem to pop things out of nowhere. There had been there before, but in
this invisible space, which is not along our own past light cone.

And that is the same as a black hole, but only with the axis of time
pointing towards us (a 'white hole').


TH

[RichD]

On February 10, tjrob137 wrote:
>> A black hole has angular momentum as one of its characteristic
>> parameters. Is it possible, in principle, to measure this,
>> for an observer inside?
>
> Measuring its magnitude is surely not possible, as an observer
> inside cannot possibly observe the whole thing.
>

> So let's consider the simpler question: can an observer inside
> determine whether the black hole is rotating at all? And in which
> direction around what axis? The black hole must be very massive
> (= very large) for this to make sense, so the observer has time
> to make observations.
>
> The usual standard for "no rotation" is a locally inertial frame,
> and any observer in freefall is at rest in one. How can such an
> observer observe the black hole "itself"? (to check if it is rotating
> wrt her locally inertial frame). The answer, of course, is that she
> cannot, because the black hole "itself" has no substance to observe.

But if no such substance, it raises the question of what
exactly is rotating, besides space itself, which is a
'thing', in GR, and so should be observable. Perhaps
'frame dragging' comes ino play (although I barely
understand that bit), which was recently onserved by
a Stanford team.
As another point, there appears to be a pardox here.
Free fall is supposedly an inertial frame, hence not
rotating, according to SR. But the infalling obserever
must be rotating with the black hole, as he falls toward
the center. Therefore this should be observable, as
rotation is absolute.
That is, the observer must 'spiral' as he falls, if
that makes sense, given the weird geometry inside.

> But a key aspect of a Kerr black hole (i.e. one with nonzero angular
> momentum) is that inside its horizon the locally inertial frames
> are rotating relative to distant locally-inertial frames. Assuming
> there are distant stars and galaxies in the universe being discussed,
> the observer inside the black hole can see the
> blue-shifted light from these distant objects. And she can observe the rotation
> of her locally-inertial frame relative to these light rays. Yes, the null
> geodesics they follow will pick up some of the rotation, but not all of it, and
> I'm pretty sure she could determine the axis and direction of that rotation,
> which necessarily corresponds to the overall rotation of the black hole.
>
>
> > Similarly for the entire universe - does it make sense
> > to speak of 'universal rotation', and possible to
> > measure this? Or at least observe a non-zero rotation?
>
> It does make sense to consider an overall rotation of the entire
> universe. It is challenging, however, to construct the
> corresponding boundary conditions "at infinity", and they seem
> rather unphysical.

We know the universe isn't infinite, though it may
expand forever.

However, if it is rotating, there must be an
axis of rotation, implying a preferred reference frame.
Which could be seen by an observer in some higher dimension.

Like the expanding balloon membrane analogy -
if the balloon is rotating, it occurs in the
3rd spatial dimension.

> For a compact universe (i.e. one with no boundary and thus
> no need for boundary conditions), I don't think there
> can be an overall rotation that is consistent with any possible
> topology.
> I'm not sure about a universe that is compact spatially but
> not temporally.

?

> The Kerr manifold is a universe with an overall rotation. It is
> quite complex.... It is not compact.

In math, compact means finite domain, so I'm not sure of your usage.

--
Rich

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/13/16 2/13/16 12:34 AM, RichD wrote:
> On February 10, tjrob137 wrote:
>> The usual standard for "no rotation" is a locally inertial frame,
>> and any observer in freefall is at rest in one. How can such an
>> observer observe the black hole "itself"? (to check if it is rotating
>> wrt her locally inertial frame). The answer, of course, is that she
>> cannot, because the black hole "itself" has no substance to observe.
> But if no such substance, it raises the question of what
> exactly is rotating, besides space itself, which is a
> 'thing', in GR, and so should be observable.

No. You need to distinguish between world and model. GR is a MODEL of the world.
Space is part of the MODEL, not the world, and is not at all a 'thing", and is
not ITSELF "observable". Ditto for spacetime.

But the structure of spacetime can be observed indirectly via
its effect on the motions of objects (e.g. the geodesic paths
followed by small freefalling objects).

> Perhaps
> 'frame dragging' comes ino play (although I barely
> understand that bit), which was recently onserved by
> a Stanford team.

Yes. A rotating black hole "drags nearby frames" vastly more than the earth.

> As another point, there appears to be a pardox here.

Only due to your misunderstandings.

> Free fall is supposedly an inertial frame, hence not
> rotating, according to SR.

And GR, locally.

> But the infalling obserever
> must be rotating with the black hole, as he falls toward
> the center. Therefore this should be observable, as
> rotation is absolute.

But in GR rotation is not "absolute" in the sense you mean.

For any LOCAL observation, a locally inertial frame is the standard relative to
which rotation can be measured. But for NON-local observations, there is no such
standard. But one can, in some circumstances including this one, observe signals
sent from a distant inertial frame and measure one's own inertial frame's
rotation relative to the distant one.

> That is, the observer must 'spiral' as he falls, if
> that makes sense, given the weird geometry inside.

For a Kerr black hole this just so happens to be true, but your approach to it
is wrong. Near the black hole's horizon, locally inertial frames rotate relative
to distant (locally out there) inertial frames.

> We know the universe isn't infinite, though it may
> expand forever.

One must be more precise. We know the universe is not infinite in the past
temporal direction. But we have no knowledge whether it is infinite or finite
spatially, or in the future temporal direction.

> However, if it is rotating, there must be an
> axis of rotation, implying a preferred reference frame.
> Which could be seen by an observer in some higher dimension.

Perhaps. But WE are not such observers, so this is useless speculation outside
of physics.

Moreover, there can be regions in which the rotation is different from that of
other regions, so this "preferred frame" need not be universal or global (e.g. a
universe containing multiple Kerr black holes orientated differently).

>> For a compact universe (i.e. one with no boundary and thus
>> no need for boundary conditions), I don't think there
>> can be an overall rotation that is consistent with any possible
>> topology.
>> I'm not sure about a universe that is compact spatially but
>> not temporally.
>
> ?
>
>> The Kerr manifold is a universe with an overall rotation. It is
>> quite complex.... It is not compact.
>
> In math, compact means finite domain, so I'm not sure of your usage.

I use it in the usual topological sense: a compact manifold is closed (i.e.
contains all its limit points), and thus has no boundary. In the geometry of
physics this implies that it has finite volume (though there are unphysical
mathematical manifolds for which this is not true).


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Since I have made extensive use of this interpretation of relativity, I
would like to add a link to my 'book' about this subject.

I regard it as important, since my interpretation would also allow a
different understanding of matter and fields.

My 'book' is (still) not really a book, but a google.doc.presentation.
You find it here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I have stopped working on it in 2009, since nobody took any notice and I
had failed to convince someone, even if I still believe, my ideas are
actually correct.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

> VERY interesting model! I love the development of cones, white holes,
> zero point and the rest. However the chances of discussing a model of
> complex valued four-vector quaternions with anyone posting here is
> well....ZERO.
>
> Your assumption of a GR continuum is I believe only an approximation.
> Math is not more real than reality.
>
> Hey, never give up.
>

Well, in a way I do not want to continue to work on this subject. It is
a problem to maintain the ability, if you have no feedback or support.

So I have changed my 'research' and do other stuff now. Mainly I try to
learn some more electronics and develop 'conspiracy theories'.

But maybe you like to continue to develop the concept a little further.
You may, if you like.

Thanks anyhow, since I didn't had many readers so far.


TH

[David Fuller]

Both gravity and speed of light are mediated by the vacuum impedance

[David Fuller]

Both gravity and (speed of light / energy) are mediated by the vacuum impedance

http://i68.tinypic.com/296nkf8.jpg

If light utilizes alpha
Inside the event horizon, the strong force would apply instead

(Surface area 137 meters^2) / (Volume 137 meters^3) = 1/137

Toroid
At the event horizon, the vacuum impedance would be zero, over riding the electromagnetic force, light would have no energy to escape.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.02.2016 05:57, schrieb benj:

...

>>> Now we view upon regions, where time does not flow into the same
>>> direction as our own timeline points, than we would also see the
>>> corresponding space distorted.
>>>
>>> In case of a black hole this space would shrink and the bent axis of
>>> time would drag us with it, hence would let us see a different universe,
>>> which belongs to that now different axis of time.
>>>
>>> In the opposite case the axis of time points towards us, hence there
>>> seem to pop things out of nowhere. There had been there before, but in
>>> this invisible space, which is not along our own past light cone.
>>>
>>> And that is the same as a black hole, but only with the axis of time
>>> pointing towards us (a 'white hole').
>>>
>>
>> Since I have made extensive use of this interpretation of relativity, I
>> would like to add a link to my 'book' about this subject.
>>
>> I regard it as important, since my interpretation would also allow a
>> different understanding of matter and fields.
>>
>> My 'book' is (still) not really a book, but a google.doc.presentation.
>> You find it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I have stopped working on it in 2009, since nobody took any notice and I
>> had failed to convince someone, even if I still believe, my ideas are
>> actually correct.
>

> VERY interesting model! I love the development of cones, white holes,
> zero point and the rest. However the chances of discussing a model of
> complex valued four-vector quaternions with anyone posting here is
> well....ZERO.
>

The electrical engineers use complex numbers to model waves.

You could think about a wave as something spinning in the complex plane.

But, apparently, our world is not flat. So how do we model spherical waves?

Well: the trick is, to 'multiply by three'. This means, you need to
multiply the complex plane by three and have three pointers rotating
over three interlocking planes.

Now: how does THAT look like.

Answer: depends on the wave.

One wave could be kind of fixed in place. Such waves are candidates for
what we call 'matter'.

Such a wave could be turned into other waves, which behave more like
radiation, by external forces.

If we apply relativity to such radiation and base the FoR on that wave,
the wave seems to stand still and is matter again.

With this change of the FoR we also change the timeline, since in one
FoR the movement is in space, while in the other in time.

Now apply this concept to black holes, than the black hole is a region,
where time 'points away' (into the future).

Now that arrow of time is reverted, hence we see something in the past,
coming towards us. This would be a 'white hole' and similar to the big bang.


To really model this behaviour mathematically we need a certain type of
quaternions: so called bi-quaternions, (also called complex
valued-four-vectors).

To actually use these things I'm a little too lazy. But I can draw quite
well, so I have made a lot of illustrations, which show how these things
work.

A very good paper in a more mathematical fashion stems from Jonathan Scott:

http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf


TH