Black Holes and suction of space

[chiragrav]

Who would need to stop thinking about this particular phenomenon of gravitational collapse!
Any body have any ideas/thoughts about Hawking Radiation>?

[neilzero]

Perhaps a little light, dark matter, dark energy, zero point energy, random fluctuations and other buzz words fall inside the event horizon of black holes = why not? Apparently the scientific community doesn't like "suck", even though not entirely wrong. Likely even issolated black holes have a very thin accretion disk. The orbits of objects orbiting a blackhole (or any body with an accretion disk) tend to decay at each pass though the accreation disc = more like falling than being sucked. Neil

[publiusr]

Frankly I'd be more afraid of a magnetar than a black hole were I in some kind of spaceship. A black Hole could be orbited. The magnetic field of a magnetar would actually behave more like the popular notion of a black holes gravity I would imagine. That would reach out and grab you.

[Strange]

Apparently the scientific community doesn't like "suck", even though not entirely wrong.

Would you say that we are held down on earth by "suction"?

[Ara Pacis]

Perhaps a little light, dark matter, dark energy, zero point energy, random fluctuations and other buzz words fall inside the event horizon of black holes = why not? Apparently the scientific community doesn't like "suck", even though not entirely wrong. Likely even issolated black holes have a very thin accretion disk. The orbits of objects orbiting a blackhole (or any body with an accretion disk) tend to decay at each pass though the accreation disc = more like falling than being sucked. Neil

More like aerocapture/aerobraking.

[pogono]

Space isn't "stuff" that can be sucked into a black hole. Gravity can be described in terms of geometry: as the curvature of space time. This curvature changes the path of objects and causes the force of gravity. At the horizon of a black hole this curvature becomes so great that light cannot escape.

But there isn't any actual space-time "stuff" being curved; it is just a mathematical description.

I can not agree with this statement.
I would like to support "sucking space-time" as correct explanation.

In my article (please, notice, it is part of mainstream science, now) I prove, utilizing Rindler's transformation for spherically symmetric case, there is a way to consider curved space-time as locally accelerated photons!

I show, that by trying to accelerate photons we do not change its velocity, but instead, at the end of all calculations we obtain space-time curvature increase, while photons still move with constant speed of light!

It means, that we may try to reverse Einstein's reasoning as follows:

1. Gravity acts as attracting photons
2. Trying to accelerate photons we obtain space-time curvature increase
3. Space-time curvature change paths of material bodies

Therefore, it may be explained as space-time sucking situation.

[Brad2064994]

After reading this message BH attracts me.I like to know about them more.

[Ara Pacis]

I can not agree with this statement.
I would like to support "sucking space-time" as correct explanation.

In my article (please, notice, it is part of mainstream science, now) I prove, utilizing Rindler's transformation for spherically symmetric case, there is a way to consider curved space-time as locally accelerated photons!

I show, that by trying to accelerate photons we do not change its velocity, but instead, at the end of all calculations we obtain space-time curvature increase, while photons still move with constant speed of light!

It means, that we may try to reverse Einstein's reasoning as follows:

1. Gravity acts as attracting photons
2. Trying to accelerate photons we obtain space-time curvature increase
3. Space-time curvature change paths of material bodies

Therefore, it may be explained as space-time sucking situation.

I'm trying to visualize that. From what I surmise, you've just given us a good definition of suck, but by doing so, you've defined it such that the gas-pressure concept of suction should more appropriately be termed "blow". (cue Spaceballs reference) So, if I understand correctly, this would still argue against the OP.

[Strange]

It means, that we may try to reverse Einstein's reasoning as follows:

1. Gravity acts as attracting photons
2. Trying to accelerate photons we obtain space-time curvature increase
3. Space-time curvature change paths of material bodies

Therefore, it may be explained as space-time sucking situation.

You have just reversed the math and swapped cause and effect. Gravity works in the absence of photons so I don't see the point.

[pzkpfw]

... (please, notice, it is part of mainstream science, now) ...

Please clarify that comment. e.g. Has your paper been "approved" by a recognised peer review committee? Has its content be "accepted" (as distinct from published)?

[pogono]

You have just reversed the math and swapped cause and effect. Gravity works in the absence of photons so I don't see the point.

Strange, please show me any place in space without photons ;-)
At least you find there micro-wave background.

Please clarify that comment. e.g. Has your paper been "approved" by a recognized peer review committee? Has its content be "accepted" (as distinct from published)?

pzkpfw, I do not want to hijack the thread talking about my paper, here.
I put below some short explanation. If you expected more, show me right place to do it.

1. My paper was reviewed by 2 professional reviewers and accepted by Editorial Office. It was regular peer-review process. Maybe JMP just use less censorious peers then other Journals.

2. Moreover, here, on BAUT, user Kuroneko already generalized my equations confirming its correctness (covariant and Tensor based). You may see there, exactly what I mention above - we may model curved space-time as locally accelerated photons. It is hard to argue with math!

3. Up to now, I got responses from at least 10 professional physicists from the world confirming my equations. If you wish I send you names and emails (I have to ask them, before). They were mostly shocked, but did not find any mistake in my reasoning. With 3 of them I prepare next publication in GR&G Journal. One of them is going to say few words about my approach at conference: Relativity and Gravitation 100 Years after Einstein in Prague.

I understand, that most of you have problem with my paper. It begun in ATM section and many of you was fighting against my idea. But, please notice two facts:
- present shape of my article is far from first shape of the paper presented in ATM.
- math says, that I have found a way to consider photon acceleration even if you judge it is ridiculous.

ETA:
For those, who do not want to follow Kuroneko reasoning, here are final Conclusions:

We've just seen that the following are all related:
gravitational acceleration ⇄ gravitational gamma or redshift ⇐ timelike Killing field, and similar but more complicated situation applies to stationary spacetime.
(...) we can do a backwards derivation of Schwarzschild spacetime using an additional free-falling velocity v_r = sqrt(r_s/r) (...)

Conclusion: The gravitational action of a static spacetime is equivalent to the action of a 3-dimensional spacelike manifold minimally coupled to a scalar field.

It means exactly, what I mention here.

[KhashayarShatti]

You clearly have an idea which you are trying to promote (using questions) through this thread. Like most of your threads, this is ATM by stealth. Infraction given.

I was banned up to now to say: Honestly not true, no intention of ATM by stealth.

[Swift]

I was banned up to now to say: Honestly not true, no intention of ATM by stealth.

KhashayarShatti

Let me make something clear. It doesn't really matter if it was by stealth or not. It is fine to ask a question or ask a question about an idea you might have. But when you are given the mainstream answer, when you are told that your idea is not correct by mainstream science, and then you continue to argue that idea or question the mainstream answer you are given, then you have crossed the line and are advocating ATM. If you do this, you will be infracted.

Now please, do not post further about our moderation or your infractions in this thread.

[KhashayarShatti]

I have one more question to ask. Obviously i do not presume that there must definitely be an answer for my question. This forum is really fine to get updated in mainstream science which is otherwise difficult to get up to date by just reading web sites.
My question is:
Could there be correlation between the position of objects and the curvature of space-time around them? To make it more clear, I assume two cases:
1- If gravity acts as a kind of force and it is said to be related to the curvature of space, does it mean that if curvature of space could hypothetically change at once, the position of the object would change accordingly to obtain a new position that fits the curvature around it?
2- If properties of an object(speed) hypothetically change at once, does the object try to find a new position or curvature of space-time to suit its new properties?

[KhashayarShatti]

You have just reversed the math and swapped cause and effect......

Generally , force doesn't seem to have an understandable microscopic meaning. If we think about it, energy in a peculiar way causes force, but sometimes perhaps it would be more understandable to say that acceleration appears first which gives the feeling of force. In this case we could say a*m =F rather than F=a*m.
When we pin point on the true nature of motion, it seems to me that when some sort of space-time change occurs, it produces acceleration which could be termed as force. As an example, when someone wants to start to walk, it is said that energy is used to create force, but when we deeply focus on how this force is generated, we realize that internally at microscopic scales some sort of change in space perhaps takes place which causes acceleration and accordingly a kind of motion by force. Sometimes we may have to swap cause and effect.
Another example: Electrostatic force and magnetic force, may have similar effects by causing a kind of change in space and hence, dx/dt and then d^2x/dt^2(Shaula thanks for your mentioning correct terminology). In this case all forces of nature may have similar definition and rising from change in space-time.

[cjameshuff]

Generally , force doesn't seem to have an understandable microscopic meaning.

What? It doesn't matter if you're looking at microscopic or macroscopic scales. Different forces may dominate, but the concept has the same meaning.

If we think about it, energy in a peculiar way causes force,

A misleading if not just wrong way to look at things. Energy is a conserved quantity with various relationships to force that depend on the system you are looking at.

but sometimes perhaps it would be more understandable to say that acceleration appears first which gives the feeling of force. In this case we could say a*m =F rather than F=a*m.

...those equations define a relationship between quantities. They don't imply any sort of sequential ordering or cause and effect relationship.

When we pin point on the true nature of motion, it seems to me that when some sort of space-time change occurs, it produces acceleration which could be termed as force. As an example, when someone wants to start to walk, it is said that energy is used to create force, but when we deeply focus on how this force is generated, we realize that internally at microscopic scales some sort of change in space perhaps takes place which causes acceleration and accordingly a kind of motion by force. Sometimes we may have to swap cause and effect.
Another example: Electrostatic force and magnetic force, may have similar effects by causing a kind of change in space and hence, dx/dt and then d^2x/dt^2(Shaula thanks for your mentioning correct terminology). In this case all forces of nature may have similar definition and rising from change in space-time.

What kind of "change in space-time"? How is this at all a useful way to look at things?

Your understanding of the fundamentals is incorrect, and your conclusions are variously either wrong or meaningless. I suggest learning more of basic physics before trying to redefine it.

[Strange]

Could there be correlation between the position of objects and the curvature of space-time around them?

Yes. Mass causes spacetime to curve. The curvature of spacetime determines hoe mass moves.

1- If gravity acts as a kind of force and it is said to be related to the curvature of space, does it mean that if curvature of space could hypothetically change at once, the position of the object would change accordingly to obtain a new position that fits the curvature around it?

I would suggest you consider gravity as either a force (the Newtonian model) or as curvature of spacetime (the GR model) but not both. Otherwise you will get hopelessly confused.

Also, nothing can change "at once" because nothing can move faster than light.

2- If properties of an object(speed) hypothetically change at once, does the object try to find a new position or curvature of space-time to suit its new properties?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. But if you change the mass of a planet, say, (but not "at once" it will take time) then the planet will move to a new orbit. You can consider this to be either because the forces have changed or, equivalently, because spacetime curvature has changed.

[ShinAce]

If all forces of nature arise from changing space-time, why does gravity not care about the material, but the other forces do? Why does gravity only attract, when electromagnetism can attract and repel? If that were true, why are some forces conservative and others are not?

Are we forgetting about the 'path of least resistance' and how potentials are linked to forces? Forces are not changes in spacetime, they are changes in potentials. The result of work being done.

[Ara Pacis]

Why does gravity only attract, when electromagnetism can attract and repel?

Figure that one out and you'll get a Nobel Prize and some schools named after you.

[Amber Robot]

Ah, true. I should have stated that I meant mechanical pressure as in a gas medium.

There's a lot of gas in space. So there's pressure there. Just not a lot compared to here on Earth.

[Ara Pacis]

There's a lot of gas in space. So there's pressure there. Just not a lot compared to here on Earth.

I'm not talking about space, I'm talking about vacuum.

[KhashayarShatti]

If all forces of nature arise from changing space-time, why does gravity not care about the material, but the other forces do? Why does gravity only attract, when electromagnetism can attract and repel? If that were true, why are some forces conservative and others are not?.....

These are kind of questions i mentioned earlier that may not have a mainstream answer, but when I think about the process that converts science to mainstream science, I find out that there should be some difference between ATM and this process. From mainstream point of view, there is some ability that causes the expansion of universe, I'm not sure if I could describe it this way without falling into ATM out of ATM. That is this: The universe, or lets say space-time generally may have the ability to expand without gravity or attractive forces present and naturally act as being repulsive. In this case there might be the ability of gravity to stabilise the universe(a sort of control mechanism). The key solution seems to exist in the controlled expansion of the universe. Now Any ability to intensify or weaken this or reverse this repulsive force may rise from some change in space-time.
If galaxies are receding from each other and have pull of gravity then there is bound to be a surface boundary around galaxies where gravity and expansion of space neutralize one another, and one goes from attraction effect to repulsion effect. Has anybody calculated this neutral boundary around galaxies? Perhaps two galaxies crossing this boundary could fall into attraction.
Conservation may rise from the ability to convert one form to another. Please note that I'm not trying to develop my idea, but more I'm thinking how science may then become mainstream science?

[Amber Robot]

I'm not talking about space, I'm talking about vacuum.

You said "There is no pressure in space." in an earlier post. So, I thought you were talking about space. My apologies. If you're talking about some theoretical vacuum, then yes, there would be no mechanical pressure there.

[Hornblower]

These are kind of questions i mentioned earlier that may not have a mainstream answer, but when I think about the process that converts science to mainstream science, I find out that there should be some difference between ATM and this process. From mainstream point of view, there is some ability that causes the expansion of universe, I'm not sure if I could describe it this way without falling into ATM out of ATM. That is this: The universe, or lets say space-time generally may have the ability to expand without gravity or attractive forces present and naturally act as being repulsive. In this case there might be the ability of gravity to stabilise the universe(a sort of control mechanism). The key solution seems to exist in the controlled expansion of the universe. Now Any ability to intensify or weaken this or reverse this repulsive force may rise from some change in space-time.
If galaxies are receding from each other and have pull of gravity then there is bound to be a surface boundary around galaxies where gravity and expansion of space neutralize one another, and one goes from attraction effect to repulsion effect. Has anybody calculated this neutral boundary around galaxies? Perhaps two galaxies crossing this boundary could fall into attraction.
Conservation may rise from the ability to convert one form to another. Please note that I'm not trying to develop my idea, but more I'm thinking how science may then become mainstream science?

My bold. Conservation of what? One form of what to another? Please clarify.

Any exercise in science becomes "mainstream" when a preponderance of qualified scientists are satisfied that there is good agreement between theory and observation. Whether or not most of the public at large believes it is beside the point. In the case of Copernicus' revival of a heliocentric theory of planetary orbits, it took well over a century to gain widespread acceptance because of the great difficulty in making the necessary observations. In the case of dark-energy-related cosmic expansion, powerful observing techniques enabled a mainstream acceptance within a few years starting in the 1990s.

As for gravity versus expansion, as I think I understand it, yes there are neutral zones around galaxy clusters. Gravity overpowers the expansion tendency in any volume of space in which there is a dense enough concentration of mass. We don't know the mass distribution well enough to draw sharp boundaries.

[KhashayarShatti]

.....
Also, nothing can change "at once" because nothing can move faster than light....

Good point you referred to. The speed of light. Once a photon is generated(I don't know how much time it takes for a photon to be generated), it has currently the limit of speed in the universe. In this case, light's property corresponds to a spacetime curvature the result of which is what we observe. If there could exist a kind of condensation of photon, perhaps light faces a new spacetime curvature. The question is: Could curvature be the inherent property of objects(case study:light)? In this case may be we could describe energy and force as follows:
1- Energy was created by a change in spacetime(may be from big bang).
2- Any initial force is created by this change of state in spacetime called acceleration.
3- Any motion was created and is created by a change in spacetime. Obviously it may be the result of energy but item 1 gives the answer.
4- Spacetime could be conservative resulting in conservation of energy. I think a non-moving force is generally referred to "energy balance" by conservation, i.e. energy being conservative.
5- Steady state motion could be a balance between spacetime curvature and object properties.
6- Any chemical, mechanical, electrical,... reactions could be the result of a change in spacetime. As an example; explosion by ignition. In this case the electric field of ignition, may change spacetime the result of which could be the release of chemical energy which has already been conserved by spacetime change.

Referring to the above cases, could it be possible to find the main reason that a motion change takes place, for example one can move his/her arm or start walking? Please don't blame me, because my argument is based upon spacetime.

[ShinAce]

You still haven't addressed my questions:

If all forces of nature arise from changing space-time, why does gravity not care about the material, but the other forces do? Why does gravity only attract, when electromagnetism can attract and repel? If that were true, why are some forces conservative and others are not?

Energy is conserved because of a time symmetry. Whether you boil a pot of water today or tomorrow or yesterday(on the same stove, blah blah blah), it will take the same amount of energy.

If I take a single electron and put it in a box, there is a chance it will escape within X seconds. How does spacetime curvature explain quantum tunelling? It doesn't, and it fails in many other places too. How does spacetime curvature explain the vastly different halflives of different isotopes?

[KhashayarShatti]

As for gravity versus expansion, as I think I understand it, yes there are neutral zones around galaxy clusters. Gravity overpowers the expansion tendency in any volume of space in which there is a dense enough concentration of mass. We don't know the mass distribution well enough to draw sharp boundaries.

What is supposed to happen to light at this boundary? Light under different spacetime curvatures, changes speed, but in this case curvature change dramatically at this boundary. Could it be that we may get a change in the speed of light at this boundary?

[Strange]

In this case, light's property corresponds to a spacetime curvature the result of which is what we observe.

Spacetime curvature only determines the path of the photon. t doesn't define its properties.

If there could exist a kind of condensation of photon,

There isn't.

The question is: Could curvature be the inherent property of objects(case study:light)?

No. Curvature is a property of spacetime and is modified by the presence of mass or energy.

In this case may be we could describe energy and force as follows:

1- No
2- No.
3- No.
4- No.
5- No.
6- No.

Referring to the above cases, could it be possible to find the main reason that a motion change takes place, for example one can move his/her arm or start walking?

No.

Please don't blame me, because my argument is based upon spacetime.

I think it is based on your misunderstanding of spacetime. There are some good introductory books that I'm sure someone here could recommend.

[ShinAce]

No, you would get no increase in the speed of light.

If you say that spacetime curvature changes the velocity of light, then the same curvature changes it both ways. Light escaping the sun would be slowed down by the sun's gravity, whereas the cosmic background radiation picks up speed as it falls onto the sun. Changing direction would go from increasing/decreasing. It's not a special place in the universe that would do it. That's only "If you say that spacetime curvature changes the velocity of light", which not many people are going to be comfortable with unless you can show good knowledge of general relativity. The same theory that fails to incorporate all forces as curvature.

Why do you persist on always taking a tangent? How do you learn anything by asking more questions before figuring out any of the previous answers? Everytime I try that, I learn nothing and feel hopelessly lost.

[Strange]

Light under different spacetime curvatures, changes speed

No, it just changes direction.

but in this case curvature change dramatically at this boundary.

There is no sharp boundary. Gravity gradually diminishes with distance (inverse square law). At some point it is not strong enough to overcome the expansion. But the gravity is still there and just carries on reducing by the inverse square law. The bending of light by gravity is quite a small effect and is only visible when light passes very close to a massive object. I assume at the sort of distance from a galaxy cluster we are talking about, the effects on light would be minimal anyway.