Charles Wohl I don’t agree with the statement about the event horizon rotating at the speed of light. I think of the event horizon not as a physical entity but as a location in space where the mass located within the event horizon causes the event horizon to exist at the Schwarzschild radius. It doesn’t make sense to me to talk about the event horizon rotating.

If the mass located within the event horizon is rotating then this may result in an event horizon which is open at the axis of rotation.

Data Black Holes

Richard

Few things...

Black hole is a theory, it never been observed. All the pictures of past, were computerized. Secondly, speed of sunlight is not constituent.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

regards

Richard Lewis I didn't say the EH was rotating at the speed of light, I said 'close to the speed of light.' My question aims at theorizing about the dynamics of matter as it approaches and reaches the spinning EH of a black hole.

I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to black holes. I had done some research and found that many believe that black holes and their associated event horizons rotate rapidly and some believe those speeds are over half the speed of light and more, which disagrees with your statement about event horizons not rotating. I've cited several excerpts from various articles below...

1) "When the black hole rotates, the space both outside and inside the event horizon rotates, too: this is the effect of frame-dragging, which can be enormous for black holes."

"2) The event horizon is rotating as though it were a solid body, so can be characterized by an angular velocity or rotation rate in RPM. For a 10 solar mass black hole rotating at the maximal rate, it is rotating at about 10^4 radians/second or about 10^5 RPM. Larger black holes will rotate at lower RPM rates, but at the maximal rotation rate, a point on the equator of the event horizon is always rotating at 1/2 the speed of light."

3) "The event horizon, or surface of no-return, lies inside the static limit. Between the two surfaces, in the region known as the ergosphere, all trajectories must rotate in the same sense as the black hole."

Kindly see the article on 'Black hole' at

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0195v2.pdf

Thanks,

Nainan

A black hole is an object on the surface of which the observable time stops (from the point of view of an external observer). Its surface is not a physical (material) surface like a skin, but a geometric surface on which the observable time has a maximum concetration (being registered by an external observer). It is the stopped time is the "primordial material" that is the basis of all objects of the observed universe.

Larissa Borissova - I agree fully with what you said in your post. I must admit that 'Skin' was somewhat of a facetious metaphor.

What I was trying to get at, as I mentioned to Richard, was a discussion about the dynamics at the location of the event horizon. Many claim the EH is rapidly spinning at relativistic speeds, while at the same time, inbound material reaching the hole from the outside is theoretically traveling at the speed of light. What I was aiming at was a discussion of the potential effects of frame grabbing and centripetal force due to the hole's core spinning at near-light speeds.

Is it possible that energy and matter are being flung out from the center of the hole and rotating at what we call the event horizon? Is it possible this region we generally refer to as a demarcation surface from where no traveler returns is but an intensely compacted shell, a skin spinning at relativistic speeds?

Charles Wohl When we talk about the event horizon moving at half the speed of light we have to be clear about what is moving. The event horizon is not made of matter particles. The event horizon is there because of the mass located within the event horizon.

The book by Paul Dirac on General Relativity is a very good reference for understanding the event horizon.

If the mass inside the event horizon is rotating then the gravitational field lines are no longer radial. But I don’t think this means that there is anything physical associated with the event horizon that is rotating.

This is my understanding of black holes.

Richard

Charles Wohl

I think you will be interested in the reading of our book "Inside Stars" wherein in Chapter 6 we give a detailed description of black holes (gravitational collapsars). In particular, Section 6.7 -- The Boundary Conditions of a Liquid Collapsar -- may answer your question. Section 6.9 -- Conclusions -- gives a brief survey of the results we have obtained on this topic.

Borissova L. and Rabounski D. Inside Stars: A Theory of the Internal Constitution of Stars, and the Sources of Stellar Energy According to General Relativity. 2nd expanded edition, American Research Press, Rehoboth (NM), 2014

http://www.ptep-online.com/books/stars2014.pdf

Prediction, modeling, postulation is not science. The Black hole is a just postulation of someone mind...nothing else.

Nothing in the universe is working with push/pull, as we think on gravity.

Also, our perception of the speed of light is locked to electromagnetism light, which it has no scientific evaluation.

Sunlight does not have constant speed., we are fooling ourselves.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Richard Lewis yes, I'm aware the event horizon is not typically considered to be composed of matter particles, but rather a demarcation surface where incoming substance exceeds c and is no longer observable from a relatively neutral gravitational domain far away from the black hole. And, yes, the EH's surface is what it is because of the accumulation of condensed mass at the BH's center.

Yet, when we add a relativistic spin into the mix, it's possible to view the black hole and its surrounding horizon from a different perspective.

Say we have an extraordinarily condensed mass spinning at close to the speed of light. Actually, one source I came across cited a mass rotating at 2.4c, but let's ignore that; we can just say the mass is spinning at relativistic speeds. Well, the surrounding space, which is composed of matter of various sizes along with various radiative elements, is also being spun around at near relativistic speeds - at least from what I can determine from numerous sources.

And remember that this phenomenon of spin we are referring to is not limited only to the event horizon itself, but to all the various concentrations of energy and matter from inside the horizon, through the horizon, and extending far out into space, velocity of the spin decelerating as we reach farther out. The closer we are to the core, the greater concentration of energy and matter. The ever-condensing frames of the matter-energy soup swirl at faster speeds the closer they are to the center. This frame-grabbing process begins far outside the event horizon. So, essentially, we end up with a tornado of swirling material, material following the contours of curved space all the way out to where the gravitation effects of the black hole reach.

I wonder if, at some radius from the center mass of the hole where the velocity of the relativistically-spinning material is equal to the gravitational pull exerted by the center mass of the hole? If there is, such a surface would dictate the skin of a black hole.

Charles Wohl I think the best way to visualise the problem is this. All black holes contain a neutron star. If the neutron star is spinning it has an effect on the black hole.

There are various sizes of neutron star from solar mass size or smaller up to billions of solar masses. If the neutron star is greater than 3.4 solar masses an event horizon forms outside the surface of the neutron star. In the case of 3.4 solar masses this will be at radius 10km. For a neutron star of 3.4 million solar masses the radius of the star will be 1,000 km and the Schwarzschild radius to the event horizon will be 10 million km.

For a neutron star of 3.4 billion solar masses the radius of the star will be 10.000 km and the event horizon at 10 billion km. These supermassive black holes are formed at the centre of a galaxy from the aggregation of dark matter (bound neutrons).

You can see that there is a great amount of empty space within these supermassive black holes.

I am trying to figure out whether a spinning neutron star actually spins (drags) the medium of space. I have heard about frame dragging and I am not totally clear about the effect. It would be good to analyse the observations of spinning neutron stars rather then black holes because neutron stars are actually visible.

The question becomes, does the light from a spinning neutron star come straight out in a radial direction? Hard to observe but that is what we want to know to figure out what is going on with the medium of space.

Richard

Larissa Borissova , I spent some time reviewing Chapter 6 in your paper. You speak about a non-spinning perfect fluid. This example, though it works for your thesis, doesn't correlate with how black holes are typically characterized, which is by rapidly spinning entities with graduated densities that are punctuated by the types of elements they are feeding upon.

I don't concur with your example of time in collapsars flowing from the future to the past. Regardless of how people interpret relativity, time flows at the same rate everywhere. Our perception of the rate of the flow of time changes though. In the case of a very distant observer attempting to fathom the time at an EH, their perception would be that time at the horizon had frozen. Time beneath the EH's veil for this observer would simply be unmeasurable; It would have left the observer's light cone. Yet, someone's watch behind the light cone's curtain would be ticking at the same rate locally for them as a local watch would be for the distant observer. It is easy to confuse the concept of absolute time with perceptions based on rapidly receding or approaching objects - regardless of their velocities.

Your statement that "all the stars and galaxies, including us, exist within a huge black hole" was certainly food for thought.

Richard Lewis I agree with what you wrote in the first part of your post.

As far as frame dragging is concerned, Wiki has a pretty good explanation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

The curvature of space-time and the associated matter it contains is curved in a spinning star. Light and associated matter approaching the star and that being emitted from the star follow the paths of the dragged frames. Discussing this particular phenomenon of the spiral repositioning of frames due to the dragging of spacetime was what I wanted to have a discussion about.

Here are a couple of links you might check out...

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3488.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole#:~:text=A%20rotating%20black%20hole%20is,galaxies%2C%20black%20holes%20%E2%80%93%20spin.

https://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity04.htm

https://medium.com/swlh/spinning-neutron-star-white-dwarf-binary-drags-spacetime-along-with-it-793b7ad00dd

Charles Wohl I think the important point is that it is the neutron star inside the black hole that is rotating and doing the frame dragging. This is an important distinction because if you think about the 3.4 million solar mass case the radius of the star is 1,000 km whereas the radius to the event horizon is 10 million km.

The speed at the surface of the star is orders of magnitude below the speed of light. Transferring the angular rotation to the radius of the event horizon might produce a velocity close to the speed of light but the frame dragging is not coming from the event horizon, it is coming from the star.

So I think the references in your earlier post to space being dragged at speeds close to c cannot be right.

I think this is the problem.

Richard

Charles Wohl I think there is a problem with the original statement: “Incoming material approaching the event horizon of a black hole when viewed from a stationary object somewhere outside the hole travels at the speed of light.”

The material falling into the black hole is being accelerated by gravity and its velocity can be orders of magnitude below the speed of light as it crosses the event horizon. I don’t understand why you need to involve a stationary observer and why he would conclude that the material was travelling at the speed of light?

Richard

Richard Lewis you wrote,

"I think the important point is that it is the neutron star inside the black hole that is rotating and doing the frame dragging."

I agree with you here Richard. I don't see how you could have determined that anything I wrote contradicted this.

RH "The speed at the surface of the star is orders of magnitude below the speed of light."

This statement is contrdicted by most sources I've come across. Some black holes (at their surface) spin at speeds approaching the speed of light. Though studies produce varying results, most I have seen predict rotational velocities approaching c. Here's one link...

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-fast-black-holes.html

The video in the link by Fraser Cain is reasonable.

RH "I don’t understand why you need to involve a stationary observer and why he would conclude that the material was travelling at the speed of light?"

CW I previously wrote, “Incoming material approaching the event horizon of a black hole when viewed from a stationary object somewhere outside the hole travels at the speed of light.”

The observer needs to be stationary with respect to the EH, far away from the EH to be making the observation that would not be affected by the gravitational signature of the hole. Frequently people speak about a stationary observer making observations just ouside the black hole. That's impossible. There is no propulsion system that would ever allow this.

If an observer was making an observation and was traveleing with the gravitational flow and nearing the EH, the apparent EH would be different for this observer than one that was stationed far outside the gravitational flow. The demarcation line of the EH changes depending where in the gravitaional well a measurement is made.

The above example is related to a stationary (non-spinning) BH, a type similar (not the same) that Larissa was referring to. Things become more complicated if we consider that the BH's surface and associated EH are twirling at relativistic speeds or close to. The hole's spiraled gravitational signature would reach far beyond the event horizon. Incoming matter and energy would be swept in the direction of the swirling tendrils and the angle that which matter pierced the EH would depend upon the rotational speed of the EH.

Something I had thought about was that depending on the rotational speed of the EH, there might be some location where the rotational velocity of incoming matter and gravitational pull cancels - an extended skin around a black hole.

Charles Wohl Very interesting link. 84% of the speed of light which is around 252,000 km/sec. I am not clear what they think is moving at this speed. Is it at the surface of the neutron star inside the black hole?

Looking at the link and other links related to the same galaxy black hole I am sceptical about their conclusion of 84% of the speed of light.

We know that it is possible for objects like stars to orbit a black hole. That is how the Milky Way galaxy black hole was found. This is a bit like what you were proposing where rotational velocity and gravitational pull cancels. But is not in a particular place like a skin because it depends on the rotational velocity.

They do talk about an ergosphere around a black hole. I find it difficult to distinguish in some of these articles between speculation and solid science but it is all most interesting.

I think we still haven’t resolved the question of why matter should be falling into a black hole at the speed of light. Do you think this is correct and necessarily so in all cases?

Richard

The site is not actual picture of anything (as the artist stated) Black hole is prediction only it never been observed up to this date. , and Neutron star is a theory as well.

On the other hand, science is wrong on speed of sunlight. Sunlight cannot have constant speed, but a flashlight on vacuum does.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

most regards

Dear Richard Lewis ,

RL: I am not clear what they think is moving at this speed. Is it at the surface of the neutron star inside the black hole?

The singularity is a small ring spinning about the black hole's axis of rotation. It is this singularity that spins at a very rapid rate, and as we discussed, due to frame-dragging, the flow of matter and energy is also being rapidly twirled in the direction of rotation.

Here's an article about spin rates derived from an article by G. Risaliti et al. Nature 494, 449–451; 2013.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nature.com/articles/500135a.pdf?origin=ppub#:~:text=The%20calculations%20suggest%20that%2C%20at,of%20the%20speed%20of%20light.

Massive black holes consume neutron stars.

RH: This is a bit like what you were proposing where rotational velocity and gravitational pull cancels. But is not in a particular place like a skin because it depends on the rotational velocity.

I agree, it depends upon rotational velocity.

RH: I find it difficult to distinguish in some of these articles between speculation and solid science but it is all most interesting.

Again, I agree. It is unclear what actually is going on beneath the horizon of a black hole and speculation abounds.

RH: I think we still haven’t resolved the question of why matter should be falling into a black hole at the speed of light. Do you think this is correct and necessarily so in all cases?

A primary concept of the black hole is that the event horizon is a curtain where light being emitted from the singularity (or elsewhere beneath the horizon) is unable to pierce the horizon because it can't overcome the force of gravity generated by the singularity. Light comes to a halt at the horizon.

Likewise, the incoming flow of matter and energy being drawn into the hole travels at the speed of light at the horizon - again, with respect to a distant stationary observer beyond the gravitational pull of the black hole.

Charles Wohl There are a couple of points in your post that don’t quite make sense to me. My understanding of the nature of a singularity is that it is a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. I have never before heard of it being described as a ring. As I mentioned before, I don’t believe a black hole contains a singularity but rather a neutron star which has sufficient mass to form the event horizon outside the surface.

Then the point about the matter flowing into the event horizon at the speed of light. I imagine an object being accelerated towards the black hole and moving faster as it approaches the event horizon. As its speed increases so does its mass. If the object were to accelerate to the speed of light as it crosses the event horizon then it would have infinite mass. So my conclusion is that any matter falling into a black hole will do so without reaching the speed of light.

This is just my understanding from my own particular world view but I could be wrong as black holes are quite a difficult concept.

Best wishes

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis ,

RL: a singularity is that it is a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. I have never before heard of it being described as a ring.

A singularity, theoretically, is a location where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point. This is a prediction of GR and is based on the concept that the black hole is stationary (non-spinning).

In rotating black holes, Kerr black holes, which are the norm, the singularity is thought to be "a ring with zero thickness but non-zero radius, and this is referred to as a ringularity or Kerr singularity."

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

RL: I don’t believe a black hole contains a singularity but rather a neutron star which has sufficient mass to form the event horizon outside the surface.

At the end of a massive star's life, it collapses under its own gravity. There is runaway fusion and at some point, there will be a spectacular explosion of a supernova. What is left behind is a neutron star. If this neutron star is large enough it will collapse again to form a black hole. If a neutron star below the mass limit continues to accrete enough mass, it will eventually cross the threshold, go through another collapse and become a black hole. The neutron star is not a black hole; it is a transitional element in the process of becoming a black hole. Not all neutron stars become black holes.

RL: If the object were to accelerate to the speed of light as it crosses the event horizon then it would have infinite mass. So my conclusion is that any matter falling into a black hole will do so without reaching the speed of light.

This is wrong. Regardless of what speed at which an object is moving, it will always have a definable mass. A black hole is a phenomenon in which a vortex is so massively compressed, its gravitational signature is intense enough to draw objects toward the singularity at light speed. Actually, I think it's theoretically possible for objects to be accelerated at multiples of the speed of light - but that's not really pertinent to this discussion. It's just from our perspective, outside the gravitational influence of a particular BH, the gravitational pull from the hole's singularity accelerates objects to light speed, and because of this, we're unable to see past the event horizon. This is the definition of a black hole.

Another example of objects moving at or faster than the speed of light is brought about by the expansion of our universe, which expands at greater and greater rates depending on how far objects (galaxies) are separated from us. The farther away they are, the faster they move away from us. The outer edge we can view is departing from us at c. And, if you compare the receding edge above us with the one below us, they are separating from one another at 2c. Who knows how fast they are receding at more distant locations?

Richard Lewis ,

Lawrence Krauss speaks about traveling faster than c.

https://youtu.be/WGSYKoUqvps