Black Hole Verses Graviton. - an Astronomy Net Blackholes Forum Message

Blackholes Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Blackholes I \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Black Hole Verses Graviton.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Duane Eddy on April 4, 2003 05:09:28 UTC

A black hole has an event horizon, a barrier from which light or any energy wave form can not escape.

If gravity is transmitted by a form of energy wave,
then the physical attraction of mass in a black hole can not be transmitted to an object beyond the event horizon.
Gravitational attraction to an object would vanish as the object disappeared behind an event horizon.
Black holes would have no detectable gravity and no detectable mass.

This leads to the following two conclusions.

If black holes exist then gravity is not conveyed by an energy wave.
If gravity is conveyed by an energy wave then black holes do not exist.

Which of the two conclusions do you think is true and why?

Follow Ups:

Time effect - mathman - April 4, 2003 - 23:43 UTC
- Gravity waves and visual waves weaken together. - duordi - April 5, 2003 - 01:53 UTC
  - No waves - honk_my_dooser - May 1, 2003 - 22:50 UTC
    - Has a black hole been identified for sure? - duordi - May 4, 2003 - 19:16 UTC
      - Cygnus X-1 - lysithea - June 11, 2003 - 19:33 UTC
Black hole an unfortunate term - jetty - April 5, 2003 - 18:34 UTC
- Is gravity push or pull. - duordi - April 7, 2003 - 17:36 UTC
  - The physics of party baloons - aurino_c_souza - April 8, 2003 - 14:42 UTC
    - Gravity vs acceleration - jetty - April 8, 2003 - 20:37 UTC
      - So... - aurino_c_souza - April 8, 2003 - 20:41 UTC
        
        ay, there's the rub - jetty - April 8, 2003 - 21:10 UTC
        
        Oh, but they can be proven! - duordi - April 9, 2003 - 00:16 UTC
        
        Predictions are not necessarily proof - jetty - April 9, 2003 - 04:39 UTC
        
        I thought, I thought, a thought experiment. - duordi - April 9, 2003 - 19:37 UTC
        
        Assumptions about electromagnetic radiation - jetty - April 10, 2003 - 14:40 UTC
        
        Please define "action at a distance". - duordi - April 11, 2003 - 03:14 UTC
        
        Action at a distance - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 20:41 UTC
        
        Instantaniously? - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 00:23 UTC
        
        Opposing hypotheses - jetty - April 24, 2003 - 06:16 UTC
        
        The velocity of gravity has been measured. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 16:49 UTC
        
        Gravitational displacement - jetty - April 26, 2003 - 05:37 UTC
        
        The infinite gravity velocity game. - duordi - April 26, 2003 - 18:58 UTC
        
        Thought experiments can be checked with logic - aurino_c_souza - April 9, 2003 - 13:05 UTC
        
        The speed of Murray (t.e.) - jetty - April 9, 2003 - 16:01 UTC
        
        the curvature of space-time - sagefr0g - April 14, 2003 - 01:13 UTC
      - the equivalency principle - sagefr0g - April 13, 2003 - 23:58 UTC
        
        Distinguishability - jetty - April 14, 2003 - 04:31 UTC
        
        measurement of force vector - sagefr0g - April 14, 2003 - 09:36 UTC
        
        Foci of forces - jetty - April 14, 2003 - 19:42 UTC
        
        center of gravity is an ambiguous term - sagefr0g - April 16, 2003 - 04:39 UTC
        
        Gravity unambiguous - jetty - April 16, 2003 - 20:08 UTC
        
        a plumb bob.... heh heh - sagefr0g - April 17, 2003 - 03:41 UTC
        
        It’s a magic plumb bob. - duordi - April 17, 2003 - 17:00 UTC
        
        Universal gravity - jetty - April 17, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
        
        So gravity is not quantumized like other waves? - duordi - April 21, 2003 - 03:47 UTC
        
        Eternity - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 22:27 UTC
        
        Smaller is not simpler. - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 01:22 UTC
        
        Infinite and eternal - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
        
        Interesting... - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 22:28 UTC
        
        Doubt - jetty - April 24, 2003 - 06:19 UTC
        
        Good approach - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:10 UTC
        
        Einstein - jetty - April 26, 2003 - 05:41 UTC
        
        Having a theory which matches known data is not a sin. - duordi - April 26, 2003 - 19:30 UTC
        
        eternity still possible with black holes - sagefr0g - April 26, 2003 - 14:49 UTC
        
        The unwritten assumption. - duordi - April 26, 2003 - 20:59 UTC
        
        Quantized but not discrete - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 22:38 UTC
        
        Does mass have an undividable particle? - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 01:31 UTC
        
        considering the particle "zoo" - sagefr0g - April 23, 2003 - 09:51 UTC
        
        How about a mind bender. - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 23:12 UTC
        
        thats not only a mind bender - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 22:16 UTC
        
        Electron and positron - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:23 UTC
        
        Are you saying gravity has no indivisible unit while mass does? - duordi - April 23, 2003 - 23:38 UTC
        
        Coexistent - jetty - April 24, 2003 - 06:24 UTC
        
        Do your ideas include any massless particles? - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:57 UTC
        
        No massless matter - jetty - April 26, 2003 - 05:45 UTC
        
        Sophisticated machinery - jetty - April 17, 2003 - 22:25 UTC
        
        sophisticated machinery is fine - sagefr0g - April 21, 2003 - 01:34 UTC
        
        You have a point - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 03:00 UTC
        
        and you have a point also - sagefr0g - April 22, 2003 - 02:15 UTC
        
        Other points - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:26 UTC
        
        alternative views.... hmm - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 02:31 UTC
        
        Heaver objects do fall faster. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 03:45 UTC
        
        perhaps in a universe with only two objects - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 15:40 UTC
        
        Other objects pull both ways. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:30 UTC
        
        those other massive objects "out there" - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 19:44 UTC
        
        Inertia is the attraction of a mass to its own gravity field. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:49 UTC
        
        basketballs do not fall consistently - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 03:52 UTC
        
        my bad - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 02:32 UTC
        
        still digging at your equation... - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 18:31 UTC
        
        I think I have a solution you will like. - duordi - April 25, 2003 - 20:49 UTC
        
        another wrinkle is that - sagefr0g - April 27, 2003 - 14:20 UTC
        
        You lost me on that one. - duordi - April 27, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
        
        drop a basketball from height X - sagefr0g - April 28, 2003 - 01:18 UTC
        
        So your saying.... - duordi - April 29, 2003 - 01:53 UTC
        
        uhmm - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 22:15 UTC
        
        Concentric vectors - aurino_c_souza - April 14, 2003 - 14:08 UTC
        
        Independent forces - jetty - April 14, 2003 - 19:45 UTC
        
        Perhaps, but still... - aurino_c_souza - April 15, 2003 - 12:50 UTC
        
        floor of elevator as gravitational source - sagefr0g - April 17, 2003 - 14:15 UTC
        
        Well stated - duordi - April 15, 2003 - 00:29 UTC
        
        Infinite gravity source? - jetty - April 15, 2003 - 04:15 UTC
        
        Infinite gravity source - jetty - April 15, 2003 - 10:33 UTC
        
        The total universe mass fits that discription. - duordi - April 15, 2003 - 22:34 UTC
        
        What description? - jetty - April 16, 2003 - 02:36 UTC
        
        My error - jetty - April 16, 2003 - 13:52 UTC
        
        Wrong universe - duordi - April 16, 2003 - 21:41 UTC
        
        Another difference between gravity and inertia. - duordi - April 17, 2003 - 17:14 UTC
        
        Good point - jetty - April 17, 2003 - 22:32 UTC
        
        A dizzy question? - duordi - April 18, 2003 - 03:42 UTC
        
        No outward force - jetty - April 19, 2003 - 05:09 UTC
    - Just for the fun of it. - duordi - April 10, 2003 - 01:46 UTC
    - Oops - Just for the fun of it - duordi - April 10, 2003 - 01:50 UTC
      - Good point! - aurino_c_souza - April 10, 2003 - 13:58 UTC
        
        A definition of inertia. - duordi - April 11, 2003 - 02:48 UTC
        
        Inertia and gravity - aurino_c_souza - April 11, 2003 - 13:35 UTC
        
        Ghost Gravity - at intended post location - duordi - April 13, 2003 - 17:17 UTC
        
        Interesting idea - aurino_c_souza - April 14, 2003 - 13:54 UTC
        
        Why are faster then light speeds needed? - duordi - April 15, 2003 - 00:13 UTC
        
        So that you can "catch up with yourself" - aurino_c_souza - April 15, 2003 - 13:10 UTC
        
        Sub light speeds are fine. - duordi - April 15, 2003 - 23:24 UTC
        
        It's not right. It's not even wrong! - aurino_c_souza - April 16, 2003 - 12:53 UTC
        
        weight - sagefr0g - April 14, 2003 - 00:27 UTC
        
        So what is weight really? - aurino_c_souza - April 14, 2003 - 13:07 UTC
        
        weight = kmg - sagefr0g - April 16, 2003 - 04:08 UTC
        
        Weight = inertia - aurino_c_souza - April 16, 2003 - 13:10 UTC
        
        a free falling body - sagefr0g - April 17, 2003 - 04:02 UTC
        
        Ghost Gravity - duordi - April 12, 2003 - 15:31 UTC
      - Oops - "Good Point?" - Maybe not! - aurino_c_souza - April 14, 2003 - 13:30 UTC
        
        Take your time this isn't a race. - duordi - April 15, 2003 - 01:03 UTC
        
        I gave up already - aurino_c_souza - April 15, 2003 - 12:57 UTC
  - Or gravity is an attribute of matter - jetty - April 8, 2003 - 20:58 UTC
    - This idea can be tested, good job. - duordi - April 9, 2003 - 00:33 UTC
    - the electro magnetic force - sagefr0g - April 14, 2003 - 09:49 UTC
      - Charge v. Mass - jetty - April 15, 2003 - 04:18 UTC
        
        mass vs charge - sagefr0g - April 16, 2003 - 05:00 UTC
    - There is no GRAVITY? - tarajee - December 4, 2004 - 12:47 UTC
  - There is no GRAVITY? - tarajee - December 4, 2004 - 12:43 UTC
Infinity - markhopper - April 11, 2003 - 06:04 UTC
- Are you saying the universe is closed? - duordi - April 12, 2003 - 23:28 UTC
Infinity - markhopper - April 11, 2003 - 06:04 UTC
The Shannon Paradox re(in)stated - elihu - August 27, 2003 - 18:47 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins