Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #725642 > unrolled thread

Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:51 -0800
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 11:06 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-03 02:12 +0100
        Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 19:58 -0800
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-02-02 15:26 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-03 02:11 +0100
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 16:16 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-03 02:09 +0100
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2019-02-02 19:23 -0500
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-03 01:42 +0100
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-02 18:57 -0600
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 10:25 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:26 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 11:35 -0800
      Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2019-02-03 21:03 -0800
    13.8 billion years ago, The Known Universe was infinitely hot. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-05 22:53 -0800
      Re: 13.8 billion years ago, The Known Universe was infinitely hot. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 17:51 -0800
        100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-06 18:23 -0800
          Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 19:41 -0700
            Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-06 20:23 -0700
              Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 20:35 -0700
                Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-06 20:41 -0700
                  Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 19:59 -0800
                    Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 22:23 -0700
                      Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 20:47 -0800
          Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-06 22:04 -0500
            Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-02-06 22:20 -0600
            Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2019-02-06 22:40 -0800
              Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-07 08:10 -0500
            Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 13:40 -0800
          Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 20:25 -0800
          Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 04:27 -0500
          Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity". pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 10:31 -0800
    Re: Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 18:31 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#725642 — Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#725645

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

"... from the out-side."

The black holes have more properties on the inside, 
infinitely dense mass shells to the gravitic singularity.

Here the shells are "infinitely dense", the black holes 
in the black holes, where each black hole contains only 
one other black hole that contains another, the evaporation 
of for example the mass moment, is a surface eddy - 
the horizon eddy as it is from situations where for 
example it "loses" value here in the associated quantities.

The shells are infinitely dense, but infinitely thin, 
this is the area in space, the continuum of the event 
horizon as it is all the way through the black hole.

So, ..., what you said, "... from the outside, of the 
event horizon, of the black hole".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725731

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
> 
> "... from the out-side."
> 
> The black holes have more properties on the inside, 
> infinitely dense mass shells to the gravitic singularity.

Not even wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725743

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 5:12:15 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
> > 
> > "... from the out-side."
> > 
> > The black holes have more properties on the inside, 
> > infinitely dense mass shells to the gravitic singularity.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

We know there is more acceleration beneath the horizon.
This rules out a BH by a failing Gamma mathematics for time
motion and energy quantities.
Neutron stars are the only collapsars.
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725711

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.


Aren't you forgetting "blackness"?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725730

Double-A wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
> 
> Aren't you forgetting "blackness"?

What is that even supposed to mean?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725721

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

How about evaporation (Hawking) How about reaching critical mass(Me) How about making space warmer. How about inertia? How about its gravity force going to infinity,or to its twin universe? What charge is it in?Neutron stars have charge but BH I go with no charge since charges are created by photons.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725729

reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
> 
> How about evaporation (Hawking)

The Hawking radiation temperature and evaporation speed of a black hole
(according to Hawking’s theory) is directly related to its current mass M
and initial mass M_0 *only*:

   T_H ≈ ℏ c³∕(8π G M k_B)

  t_ev ≈ 5120π G² M_0³/(ℏ c³)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>

> How about reaching critical mass(Me)

A black hole is not an atomic bomb.

> How about making space warmer.

Pardon?

> How about inertia?

What about it?

> How about its gravity force going to infinity,

This not even popular-scientific description of black holes is wrong.

> or to its twin universe?

Only a rotating black hole can lead to another universe (whatever that may
be), so that possibility is fully described by the black hole’s angular
momentum and electric charge.

<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/penrose.html>

> What charge is it in?

What do you mean, what charge?

> Neutron stars have charge

No, they do not.  “A particle with zero electric charge” is what “neutron”
means.

A neutron star does not consist entirely of neutron gas: it has a thin
crystalline shell.  But it stands to reason that its total electric charge
is zero.

> but BH I go with no charge

Black holes with non-zero electric charge are entirely possible.

> since charges are created by photons.

No, electric charge is one of the conserved quantities.  It cannot be
created or destroyed, only transferred.

For example, when a neutron star is formed, the one-time positively charged
protons in the nucleus and the one-time negatively charged electrons in an
orbital around the nucleus combine each to form electrically neutral
neutrons (electron capture):

  p⁺ + e⁻ → n⁰ + ν_e

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725722

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 10:51:29 -0800 (PST), sam.wormley@gmail.com wrote:

>Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

The headers of your post do not indicate that this is in response to
anything.

You posted this out-of-nowhere (incorrect) factoid ... because?

To what context were you speaking?

Is the linear momentum of a black hole that is coming your way
unimportant?

To say a black hole **has** only three properties is different from
saying black hole **can be characterized** by three properties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
A black hole can be ***characterized*** by three (and only three)
quantities

So one might distinguish between types of black holes based on these
properties.

But its linear momentum distinguishes a particular black hole from
others that are not on a collision course with your kitchen table.

Is it a prerequisite for AGW alarmists to be sloppy in their language
so they can use "Repetition makes it true", "It's worse than we
thought", and "Our last ten 'tipping point' predictions were bollox,
but we're right this time ... trust us", "Be afraid, be very afraid"?

At what kind of gathering is an AGW alarmist "the life of the party?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725726

sam.wormley@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

This (Hawking’s no-hair theorem) is put into question by the holographic
principle (by Susskind and a few others, which is based on the Bekenstein
hypothesis) that suggests that the information of what once fell into the
black hole (BH) is stored in a garbled way on the event horizon of the BH.

The holographic principle solves the BH information paradox that the no-hair
theorem created, and since conservation of information is a key principle of
physics itself, is thus probably the better way to describe BHs.

IOW, the principle suggests that a BH has four properties instead:
mass, angular momentum, electric charge, and event horizon contents.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725727

On 2/2/2019 12:51 PM, sam.wormley@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
> 

how do you measure the charge of a black hole ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725778

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:51:32 AM UTC-8, sam.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.
      It was Bell who told me this.A neutron star was in reality a fast spinning "pulsar"  Look up the ways pulars give out radiation.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725783

Black holes are simply Space spinning at lightspeed, which includes all matter smaller than ours- of which there are many iterations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725785

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 10:25:09 AM UTC-8, reber G=emc^2 wrote:

>       It was Bell who told me this.A neutron star was in reality a fast spinning "pulsar"  Look up the ways pulars give out radiation.Bert

You have this backward, Bert. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars... at least, there is no conclusive evidence that they are, as of yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725837

homo-reber G=emc^2" <herbertgay-lazier0@gmail.com>
is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> and
a pervert Face-Shitter & a homeless bum who has a bucket
in his stinky old Van that SwineBert shits into, to prove
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> which is
very different from his phony, wrong & sanctimonious posts
about which SwineBert's respondents said:"Bert is Stupid" O ya

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726080 — 13.8 billion years ago, The Known Universe was infinitely hot.

> Black Holes have three (and only three) properties
>   -- mass, angular momentum, and charge.

Only if you completely ignore quantum physics, and thermodynamics.

The cosmic horizon is the best known singularity;
13.8 billion years ago, it was infinitely hot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726150 — Re: 13.8 billion years ago, The Known Universe was infinitely hot.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 10:53:25 PM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> 13.8 billion years ago, it was infinitely hot.

Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of 'infinite"... which is not actually a number...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726154 — 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity".

Paul Alsing replied:
> > 13.8 billion years ago, our Universe was infinitely hot.
> 
> Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of 'infinite"...
> which is not actually a number...

100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity"
the "Known" Universe was 10^13 degrees Kelvin.

Keep pounding physics down people's throat,
I'm sure it will work someday.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726158 — Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity".

On 2019-02-06 7:23 p.m., Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Paul Alsing replied:
>>> 13.8 billion years ago, our Universe was infinitely hot.
>>
>> Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of 'infinite"...
>> which is not actually a number...
> 
> 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity"
> the "Known" Universe was 10^13 degrees Kelvin.
> 
> Keep pounding physics down people's throat,
> I'm sure it will work someday.
> 
its a group about physics , what should we talk about , your failures

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#726170 — Re: 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity".

In article <bvcrdr.59h.19.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says...
>
>On 2019-02-06 7:23 p.m., Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> Paul Alsing replied:
>>>> 13.8 billion years ago, our Universe was infinitely hot.
>>>
>>> Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of 'infinite"...
>>> which is not actually a number...
>> 
>> 100 MicroSeconds after the Big Bang "singularity"
>> the "Known" Universe was 10^13 degrees Kelvin.
>> 
>> Keep pounding physics down people's throat,
>> I'm sure it will work someday.
>> 
>its a group about physics , what should we talk about , your failures

hi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web