We assume this to be true and this may be the reason why the rule,
[Two 3D bodies of different shapes cannot have the same volume to area ratio unless both have the same volume and area?]
applies to half-spheres but not full spheres.
Amrit Šorli
I think the important thing to understand about black holes is that they are caused by a mass of sufficient magnitude and density to result in an event horizon.If you consider neutron stars of a range of possible sizes you find that an event horizon will form around a neutron star of more than 3.4 solar masses. Because the maximum possible matter density corresponds to a neutron there can be no black holes smaller than 3.4 solar masses.
Black holes do not contain a singularity, they contain a neutron star of the corresponding mass.
Data Black Holes
Richard
A black hole or any spherical mass is surrounded by a gravitational field with a negative energy density. If we assume that the spherical mass is concentrated on a sphere with radius r0, and if we then consider the energy density E of the gravitational field given by: E = -g²/(8πG) then we get a difference between the central mass m at r=r0 and the mass M we notice at radius r. This difference is caused by the mass equivalent of the negative energy density of the gravitational field.
We get M(r)=m/mcf(r). The radius dependent mass correction factor mcf is:
mcf(r) = (1+rs(r-r0)/(4rr0)), with the Schwarzschild radius rs. At an infinite radius we get M/mcf(∞)-> M=m/(1+rs/(4r0)). At r0 we get M=m.
A remarkable point is, that a small mass, which falls to the central mass m at r=r0, gains just kinetic energy with the inverse factor mcf(r) as additional mass equivalent. But this gain is exactly compensated by an according gain of negative gravitational energy.
It is important to notice that there is no potential energy involved. If the small mass x is added, at a large distance, with zero speed, finally m increases by x*mcf(∞) and the rest mass of x is added to M.
The relation between the radius dependent mass M(r), gravitational field energy, and central mass m, given with mcf(r), perfectly implements the rule that inertial mass with its energy equivalent is equal to gravitational mass with its gravitational field.
Unfortunately, the radius dependent mass correction factor mcf(r), quantized above, has not yet been considered in the Schwarzschild solution.
Amrit Šorli
The gravitational field energy is negative because it provides energy by becoming stronger.
If two bodies attract each other, they gain kinetic energy and they increase the strength of their common gravitational field. Energy conservation requires that the gains in the two body system in kinetic and field energy add up to zero.
The problem is...we must observe a back hole first, then get tp know it with your theory.
Amrit Šorli
" negative gravitational energy is nonense"If you withdraw some money from your bank account and the absolute value of your bank balance increases, then your bank balance must have been negative.
This is the same with the energy stored in the common gravitational field of two bodies. If the bodies fall, they withdraw kinetic energy from the gravitational field and the field becomes stronger.
The energy density E of the gravitational field is E=-g²/(8πG). g is the gravitational acceleration, G is the gravitational constant.
Amrit Šorli
"Bank account is not gravity"Energy is the money of nature.
x>0, |x||A|->A
Amrit Šorli
Ok, you do not understand analogies and you do not like facts, which do not match to your convictions. In your understanding those things do not make sense. I am sorry for that, but I cannot provide further support for your understanding.
But instead of claiming nonsense, nonsense,... you could try to disprove the formula for the energy density of the gravitational field: E = -g²/(8πG).
The general rule is that all force fields have an energy density proportional to the square of the field strength. The proportionality constant of the gravitational field is -1/(8πG). In the electrical case it is vacuum permittivity / 2. In the magnetic case it is 1/(2* vacuum permeability).
Gravity is a made up things.
The earth's gravity u=is working with Pressure, temperature and mass, and Newtonian gravity is working with weight.
everyone is saying non-scientific
https://www.academia.edu/41384898/What_is_Gravity
Amrit Šorli
"Please understand that negative gravitational field cannot exist. It is fata morgana."Please understand that negative gravitational field energy density exists. A negative gravitational field indeed would be strange, because the field strength g of the gravitational field is a vector. And a negative vector does not make sense. The energy density E is E = -g²/(8πG).
The gravitational field gets stronger if we extract energy from it.
Two equal masses provide kinetic energy if they come closer and the common gravitational field becomes stronger.
Amrit Šorli
Do you accept/understand the following scenario:
Two masses in space gain kinetic energy if they come closer and the common gravitational field becomes stronger.
Javad Fardaei "The science of physics proves it, when an atom or molecule gets cooler, it shrinks." (From "What is Gravity")
Sorry, but this is the most stupid nonsese about physics, that I have ever read.
The truth is, when something gets cooler, its atoms or molecules move or oscillate slower. Individual atoms or molecules cannot have a temperature.
The disturbing aspect is, that this basic knowledege is undergraduate stuff. If your physics knowledge is not up to date on undergraduate level, why do you try to teach physics even on graduate level domains?
For a phycisist, all your claims are obviously wrong and show that there is not at all physical knowledge behind them. In fact your trials to explain things are on pre-school level.
You should stop telling such nonsense, because this could destroy the confidence in science, of people without basic founded knowledge. But it seems that it is your intention to destroy such confidence, wherever it seems to be weak.
But what you overlook is that your nonsense claims mentally shift uninformed people deeper into uncertainty and make them more susceptible for charlatans of any kind.
Dear all,
Wolfgang Konle
Javad Fardaei "The science of physics proves that when an atom or a molecule cools, it shrinks." (Excerpt from "What is Gravity")
For me, the atoms that have really shrunk are the exotic muonic hydrogen and muonic deuterium atoms compared to the normal (natural) hydrogen and deuterium atoms. I made an explanation related to this question see DOI:10.1504/IJDSSS.2021.10044735
DOI:10.1504/IJDSSS.2021.10044735
In these exotic experiments, I explained that the muonic proton from muonic hydrogen was reduced from 0.8758fm (radius of the regular proton measured before 2010) to 0.8409fm (measurement of the Randoplph Pohl team CREMA collaboration) I also explained that the muonic proton of the muonic deuterium has been reduced from 0.8758fm (radius of the regular proton measured before 2010) to 0.8356fm (measurement of the Randoplph Pohl CREMA collaboration team). I specified that the two new values (0.8409fm and 0.8356fm) are the result of artificial manipulations in the laboratories on the natural atoms of hydrogen and deuterium. These "unnatural" artificial manipulations using muons led to the shrinkage of the regular (natural) proton in the two cases of experiments I have just mentioned.
Jamil Kooli "For me, the atoms that have really shrunk are the exotic muonic hydrogen and muonic deuterium atoms compared to the normal (natural) hydrogen and deuterium atoms."
You can't be serious in discussing this in terms provided by JF.
[Two 3D bodies of different shapes cannot have the same volume to area ratio unless both have the same volume and area?]
This simple geometric rule has at least three rigorous i-iii proofs, none of them mathematical.
A. Einstein once said that solid geometry is nothing but physics .
Brief:
i- A thermodynamic proof provided by the zero law of thermodynamics which was explained in the previous answer.
ii- Experimental evidence from plotting experimental results of cooling curves for different metals in different forms [1].
iii- A physical statistical vision which results from the theoretical analysis of the results of the cooling curves via the statistical chains of the chains of the B-transition matrix [1].
In ref 1 it was stated in full letters:
[i-Perform the experimental results of the temperature cooling curve at the center of mass CM of the tested object and thus find the half-time decay value in real time, i.e. T1/2 , T1/4, T1/8. . etc [1,2].
ii- Calculate the statistical characteristic length of the tested object Lc via the semi-imperial formula (2), [1,2]Lc = {6*Volume of the object V / Area of the object A}. . . .(2)The statistical factor f derives from another semi-imperial formula, f = Pie /2. = 1.571 In fact, the characteristic length in itself is of great importance since the experimental temperature of the real-time cooling curve at the center of mass CM is described by,
T(t)=T(0).Exp (-D.t/Lc^2) . . . . . (3)
Equation 3 is simply a consequence of defining the exponent of the cooling curve as the heat left per second dU/dt divided by the heat stored U.
Equations 2 and 3 suggest an important geometric physical rule,
[two 3D bodies of different shapes cannot have the same volume-to-area (V/A) ratio unless both have exactly the same volume and area]}.
Ref 1:
I. Abbas, Researchgate / IJISRT review .A Rigorous Experimental Technique to Measure the Thermal Diffusivity of Metals in Different 3D Forms, August 2022