PDA

View Full Version : Atomic Theory of Subatomic Particles in Black Holes.

S. Dalal
04-02-02, 11:19 AM
Ever since the discovery of Black holes scientists have wondered what happens to the matter that is absorbed by the Black Hole. One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste". Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy. Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump. Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter. Below is my equation.

(md+gf) - (m^2+c^2)
{ ----------------------------- }
(pi)r^2

md=mass of Black hole
gf= gravitational force of black hole
m^2=mass of object absorbed
c^2=speed of light
pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7

I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.

Stephan S. Dalal

04-02-02, 11:27 AM
Too tired to think about it now, and it might be beyond me even if I could. But welcome to sciforums. :)

04-02-02, 11:29 AM
Are you sure you don't want (md*gf)?

04-02-02, 11:31 AM
I don't like the "-" in the middle of the top either. *scratches head*

(Q)
04-02-02, 12:06 PM
S Dalal

Ever since the discovery of Black holes

When did this happen? Who discovered them? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste".

What is the "waste?"

Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy.

Yes, very puzzling indeed. What is "invisible energy?"

Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump.

Really. Can you provide some evidence to support this claim?

Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter.

I see the emergence of a crackpot forthcoming.

(md+gf) - md=mass of Black hole - gf= gravitational force of black hole

You're adding together apples and oranges. This makes no sense.

(m^2+c^2) - m^2=mass of object absorbed - c^2=speed of light

Again, apples and oranges. This makes no sense.

(pi)r^2 - pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7 - r^2=radious of black hole

Isn't this the equation to calculate the circumference of a circle?

I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.

Complete gibberish. Back to the drawing board.

04-02-02, 12:17 PM
Well, if we knew anything about black holes, I can see how radius might come into it as a general indicator of the black hole's power.

I suspect by "invisible power" he may have been referring to that zero point energy stuff.

As for waste, well, I suspect he may be referring to the things seen in space which are suspected black holes which shoot out huge amounts of matter and energy to the poles.

As for apples and oranges, well, it's not a problem to do that if you do it right. We multiply mass (an apple) by velocity (an orange) all the time. It just depends on what you do with your fruits. You just have to work it out and make sure there is actually some correlation. Which has not been done in this case.

S. Dalal
04-02-02, 12:48 PM
I thank you very much for your response to my Equation, but I am sad to inform you that your knowledge base of Astro Physics is quite at low level, although my theory is quite intricate there are some basic principles that are involved, "(pi)r^2 thats the formula for circumfrence of a circle" well I am sorry to inform you but that is the formula for area of a circle, 2(pi)r is the formula for circumfrence. In other response to your remarks on apples and oranges I am sorry I did indeed made a mistake the formula should read:

(md)(gf) - (m^2)(c^2)
---------------------------------
(pi)r^2

In end one would need to use the formula for area of a circle to find a black holes advreage size. So once again you are wrong. I do want to thank you for reading my Equation and for your comments.

(Q)
04-02-02, 01:56 PM
S. Dalal

I thank you very much for your response to my Equation, but I am sad to inform you that your knowledge base of Astro Physics is quite at low level,

If you say so. Your knowledge however is non-existent.

my theory is quite intricate there are some basic principles that are involved,

In end one would need to use the formula for area of a circle to find a black holes advreage size.

The size of a black hole is the size of the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius is where even the kinetic energy of a photon is not sufficient to escape from the black hole.

R = 2*G*M / c^2

G is the Gravitational Constant
M is the mass of the black hole
c is the speed of light

So once again you are wrong.

Actually you are implying Schwarzschild was wrong. Of course, only a crackpot would say that. :)

btw - Black holes have not been discovered.

thed
04-03-02, 08:55 AM
[i]Originally posted by S. Dalal
Ever since the discovery of Black holes scientists have wondered what happens to the matter that is absorbed by the Black Hole.

Which type of Black Hole are we considering here, Schwarzschild, Nordstr&ouml;m or Kerr metric varieties? You are aware there are several types, aren't you?

Either way, once mass enters the event horizon it does not escape. General thought is that it vanishes, permanently, into a singularity.

BTW, they have not been discovered, they are a theoretical construct with many objects observed that conform to the predictions of the theory. The semantical difference is important.

One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste".

It does grow in mass, the radius of the event horizon increases and the tidal forces decreases. I also refer you to the No Hair Conjecture for further details.

Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy.

Invisible Energy? Enlighten this sophont please.

I've heard of Dark Energy, a possible candidate for the cosmological constant, &lambda; and Zero Point Energy. But not Invisible Energy.

Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space

This is the logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. What scientists, where? Your evidence that your statement is true and the past 400 years of expermintal Physics is wrong is?

this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump.

Nope. No force is needed for quantum tunneling.

Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter.

There is no invisible force (sic) a black hole produces when it absorbs matter. Only it's gravitational field increases.

Below is my equation.

(md)(gf) - (m^2+c^2)
{ ----------------------------- }
(pi)r^2

md=mass of Black hole
gf= gravitational force of black hole
m^2=mass of object absorbed
c^2=speed of light
pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7

There are many things wrong with this analysis.

1. What gravitational force g<sub>f</sub>? g is a function of the mass of a body as in g=F/m. (edited to add, or GM/r^2). But this is Newtonian and does not apply to Black Holes. You have to use General Relativity in any analysis. You also have to stipulate which metric for which type of hole you are analysing.

Actualy if you substitute g=Gm<sub>d</sub>/r^2 in you get,

{ (m_d) ( Gm_d / r^2) -m^2c^2) / &pi;r^2)

=> &pi; ( Gm_d^2 - m^2c^2/r^2)

Which is very, very wrong as the mass increase depends on the radius of the hole. If we apply the Schwarzschild Radius it gets worse.

2. Why &pi;r^2 . These objects are 3 dimensional and non-euclidean. You have to apply Reimannian geometry to the analyis and in 4-d spacetime.

In fact, that is the main problem with the original, the equation depends on the area of the hole. Where are you taking the area? This means the formula depends on angle of incidence. A major problem when some holes are not even spherical, more toroidal.

3. (m^2+c^2)? Again, a classical result ignoring relativistic affects. If the hole absorbs mass it will follow the equation E( &gamma; )=m( &gamma; )c^2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add, I just realised the equation above is wrong anyway. S. Dolal meant m<sub>d</sub>g<sub>f</sub>-m^2C-^2 which is better, a little. But this ignores the fact that g changes as m increases. This equation should be iterative.

What happens when two Black Holes collide? The resulting body will be vastly different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.
Stephan S. Dalal

So, apart from the hypothesis being based on made up physics and the analysis being totally wrong it was not a bad first attempt for some one doing GCSE Physics.

A grudging 1/10.

James R
04-03-02, 07:56 PM
Your formula is dimensionally incorrect and therefore cannot be right.

Back to the drawing board...

Dinosaur
04-04-02, 12:03 PM
James R: Not sure he will understand your comment about dimensional incorrect.

BTW: Hawking claims that Black Holes evaporate, with small ones disappearing very fast. So mass lost beyond the event horizon is not lost forever, as posted above somewhere.

James R
04-04-02, 07:23 PM
If he understands black holes, he should understand "dimensionally incorrect". On the other hand, if he doesn't understand it, he can always ask and I'll explain it.

GRO\$\$
04-05-02, 01:03 AM
Welcome to Sciforums, Delal, nice formula, dont know enough to judge it :-P What is the difference between different black holes? I for one, thought there was only 1 kind... something big, heavy, black, and hole-like...

thed
04-05-02, 02:18 AM
Can be read on treasure-troves.com (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html)

If S. Dalal is perchance still reading he would do well to read that site. He might see just how complex the solutions of Black Holes really are.

Long and short of the above is the 'Black Holes have no hair' conjecture. This says you can only know 3 things about black holes, their mass M, angular momentum J and charge Q. This leads to 4 cases (not 3 as I said originally)

M>0, J=0, Q=0 you get the Schwarzschild solution (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchwarzschildBlackHole.html)

M>0, J=0, Q !=0, You get the Nordstrom-Reissner solution (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Reissner-NordstroemBlackHole.html)

M>0, J>0, Q = 0, you get the Kerr solution (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KerrBlackHole.html)

M>0, J>0, Q !=0 you get the Kerr-Newman solution (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Kerr-NewmanBlackHole.html)

It's a sure sign some one is clue challenged when they say 'Hey, I've discovered a new property of Black Holes' and do not present a new solution of the Einstein Field equations and a new metric or property but rather a classical equation to a relativistic problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meant to add. The thread is entitled Atomic Theory of subatomic particles in black holes. If you are doing sub-atomic physics you would do well to learn Lie Group theory and understand what SU(3)U(1) is. A background in Gauge theories and String Theories wouldn't go amiss either. I'll freely admit Gauge theories are over my head.

Applying them to relativity is the Holy Grail of modern physics.

thed
04-05-02, 02:37 AM

Notice that the life time of the smallest and most luminous black holes is about the lifetime of the Universe. The lifetime of the biggest holes is massively above the lifetime of the Universe. For all practible purposes mass loss in to a hole is permanent.

John Devers
04-05-02, 03:47 AM
This paper might be of some interest.

It is proposed that the event horizon of a black hole is a quantum phase transition of the vacuum of space-time analogous to the liquid-vapor critical point of a bose fluid. The equations of classical general relativity remain valid arbitrarily close to the horizon yet fail there through the divergence of a characteristic coherence length. The integrity of global time, required for conventional quantum mechanics to be defined, is maintained. The metric inside the event horizon is different from that predicted by classical general relativity and may be de Sitter space. The deviations from classical behavior lead to distinct spectroscopic and bolometric signatures that can, in principle, be observed at large distances from the black hole.

More here

<A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012094" target=new><FONT COLOR=ff009 size=+1> Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity
</FONT></A>

LaidBack
10-02-06, 08:35 PM
Ever since the discovery of Black holes scientists have wondered what happens to the matter that is absorbed by the Black Hole. One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste". Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy. Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump. Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter. Below is my equation.

(md+gf) - (m^2+c^2)
{ ----------------------------- }
(pi)r^2

md=mass of Black hole
gf= gravitational force of black hole
m^2=mass of object absorbed
c^2=speed of light
pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7

I thank you for reading my new theory and equation, I hope some one will leave me some feed back of this equation.

Stephan S. Dalal
Abstracts.

Throughout the universe mass exists.
Around 80~90% of mass is at near unity. "Cold/Dark matter" Mass that is not compressed to a solid state.
Around 10~20% of mass is compressed via the above 80~90% of mass."Particles and or solids".

Protons by science has been defined as the compressed areas.

If Areas of the universe were allowed they would gain a velocity towards Unity and in doing so its area will increase while its potentail towards unity will decrease.

The Containing force that contains every other Proton has been defined by science as the Electron/s. example being a protons "positive" force is towards unity while neighboring Proton/s would oppose the outward force and thus is defined as the inward and or containing "negative" *Note* Elecrtrons are only theoretical particles.

Where the respective forces "expressed as Positive and negative charge" meet science has defined as the areas of neutral charge. *Note* Neutrons are only theoretical particles.

The combined force of Cold/Dark Matter exerts gravity, because attraction simply is impossible!

Black Holes exist in the core of every galaxy.

Black Holes do not pull, rather they are stuffed to the point where mass is exerted and released at great velocities via the poles. "Hawkings radiation?"

Quantum jump/s are based on the premise of a given potential towards unity equals the fields mass by its maximum area with no potential towards unity, I.e. E=MC^2 or the more mass that is compressed the more potential towards unity "outward Nm".

If we consider function where if a proton is exerted with a negative charge for example a Proton that is more compressed by another force to a higher potential and therefore it is exerting force to other protons with a lower potential to unity, so therefore those protons are squeezed to a higher positive potential passing it on to other nieghboring protons ,so that its force exerts this force via its surfaces changing the forces trajectory noting science treats such force as transference of this negative force and or charge or if this force is exerted via a circuit "electron flow", or if these forces were being applied within areas that are near vacuum where each mass is treated as huge fields spanning mc^2 and hence we would be describing the functions of Light and or electromagnetic waves transmitted in a sphericle fashion through space.

Now Within a Black Hole we have areas of mass that is highly compressed and in fact we can prove that our local area of the universe is already partly compressed if we measure velocities and mass that is as far away from our local area, and the further we should look and or measure Redshift the more of an impression we should get that out universe must be expanding and whats more this expansion is accelerating!

So getting back to the Black Hole and comparing the speed of light in a solid "electron flow" we should expect the opposite of redshift and that would be frequencies dealing beyond the gamma spectrum !? :eek: Hello! we are now infringing what String theorists are messing around with "The Gamma Function"

TREELAW45
10-04-06, 07:21 PM
(pi)r^2 I beleive is the area of a circle Which is a 2 dimentional equation. 1/3(pi)r^3 is the 3 dimentional equation for the volume of a sphere or cubic value. Take the dirivative of this equation gives the original equation going from 3 dimentions to 2 dimention value or area of a circle and taking the derivative of this equation will give a 1 dimentional value of a circle or linear value or the circumference of a circle. I havent been to school in a while but I do a lot of math. Can anyone explain the relavence Of the 2 part numerator and if they are standard equations to give the value of something? (md+gf)= what? and (m^2+c^2) = what? answers to these questions
might help me see a conection. like right now I see the numerator divided by the area of a circle, r being relavent as the distance of some matter being assumed to be an ammount of mass. I don't know maybe it makes no sense at all, but i would like to under things completely.

LaidBack
10-04-06, 10:46 PM
(pi)r^2 I beleive is the area of a circle Which is a 2 dimentional equation. 1/3(pi)r^3 is the 3 dimentional equation for the volume of a sphere or cubic value. Take the dirivative of this equation gives the original equation going from 3 dimentions to 2 dimention value or area of a circle and taking the derivative of this equation will give a 1 dimentional value of a circle or linear value or the circumference of a circle. I havent been to school in a while but I do a lot of math. Can anyone explain the relavence Of the 2 part numerator and if they are standard equations to give the value of something? (md+gf)= what? and (m^2+c^2) = what? answers to these questions
might help me see a conection. like right now I see the numerator divided by the area of a circle, r being relavent as the distance of some matter being assumed to be an ammount of mass. I don't know maybe it makes no sense at all, but i would like to under things completely.

M X C^2 = E or commonly known as E=MC^2

E/C^2 = M or M=E/C^2

E/M = C^2 or C^2=E/M

The aforementioned suggests we are messing around with a given area equal to "c^2" with a given theoretical potential, of course if an area should be equal to zero potential it would truly be nothing, so near vacuum and or near unity is just being realistic, "c" is the the constant with respects to the maximum speed of light, which suggests a maximum distance {and or area if it is squared for any given field with zero potential} so therefore we should concede we are limited by it, in the real world Space or near vacuum is the closest to near unity for a given mass and or field of which is near a zero potential towards Unity "Unity" is just an equilibrium outward force for a given area.

Lets say we begin with a field with an area of C^2 and over time the Universe stuffed this mass into a black hole and on examining it we find it is compressed to a smaller area so that its outward force is exerting 1 Nm of force or via electromotive force we could define it as 1 joule of energy, now because C^2 is compressed it would take on a smaller area and E would increase and should we exerted more force to it the area would recede even more inward and in doing so we would increase its potential "E" further, Now lets say this exertion was an increasing exertion that rose to a peak of one volt after we converted joules to Ev and lets say we could watch this force being exerted outward from itself just as we would observe an electromagnetic wave being propagated in a spherical manner so that we would see the area compressed but at the same time the force experienced is transferred to where ever there is the least resistance and or lower potential is so it therefore is exerted outwardly..

In a solid where the fields are compressed the transfer of force and or charge from A to B is no where near as fast when we are dealing with fields that are as vast as C^2 with near zero potential towards unity, the massive fields in question still rise and fall with potential as they are compressed only to extert this force outwardly where it is further passed on.. but for each exchange the area covered per exchange is massive compared to solid mass with a high potential to unity., which is why the speed of light is percieved as slower in a solid than space and or near vacuum.

Billy T
10-07-06, 01:32 PM
It is easy to demonstrate that your equation is non-sense:

(md)(gf) - (m^2)(c^2)
and both terms have mass factor. I will define a dimension pure number K = m/ (md) and then re write your numerator as:
(md){gf - K m(c^2)}
but as you know mc^2 is energy and you defined "gf " as force.

You can not meaningfully take the difference between force and energy and more than you can take the difference A - F, where A is Apples and F is Fish. (Usually O for Oranges, instead of F for Fish is used when stating this, but I like to be a little different.)

As I said, your formula is nonsense (unless you know how to subtract Fish from Apples.) :D

PS - I did not bother to vote, probably I did not need to prove your formula is nonsense, because most who have voted already recognized this, but as it was so easy and obvious, I did so anyway.

LaidBack
10-07-06, 06:08 PM
It is easy to demonstrate that your equation is non-sense:

(md)(gf) - (m^2)(c^2)
and both terms have mass factor. I will define a dimension pure number K = m/ (md) and then re write your numerator as:
(md){gf - K m(c^2)}
but as you know mc^2 is energy and you defined "gf " as force.

You can not meaningfully take the difference between force and energy and more than you can take the difference A - F, where A is Apples and F is Fish. (Usually O for Oranges, instead of F for Fish is used when stating this, but I like to be a little different.)

As I said, your formula is nonsense (unless you know how to subtract Fish from Apples.) :D

PS - I did not bother to vote, probably I did not need to prove your formula is nonsense, because most who have voted already recognized this, but as it was so easy and obvious, I did so anyway.
Abstracts

Force can only be possible if an equal or greater opposing force can be exerted to.

Attractive force/s are impossible therefore are null and void.

Perceived attractive forces such as North and South poles and or Positive and Negative charge/s are the result of differing velocities and or speed.

Gravity is the result of an exertion and not via attraction.

The whole universe consists of the same mass throughout it.

The universe consists of differing areas.

Differing areas are defined as fields.

Compressed areas are defined as mass via their high outward potential towards unity and or stored energy to do work.

Cold and or Dark Matter is mass that has gained a near unity state and hence are treated as fields with very little potential and or outward exertion towards unity.

If mass and or a field are allowed a state of complete rest and or zero potential it becomes No-Thing and the universes constants must change, hence the universe is a closed system.

Amassed is a collection of fields and or solids, which are near a given potential close to each other within given “amassed medium”

All given and or defined mass/Amassed has a maximum area it can occupy when it is near rest or near Unity.

All Mass including, near unity Mass exerts an outward force; else it is No-thing or theoretically zero.

When a defined given Mass occupies its maximum area, its potential to do work is near depleted hence it is considered as Near Unity.

When Mass is compressed its increase in potential “energy” towards unity is considered as an increasing outward force or as an increasing positive charge.

When force is exerted upon a proton compressing it, it increases its potential, the compressing force is considered as inward and or as Negative charge, so for theoretical purposes and or for extremely basic physics such as quantum mechanics and or Particle Physics this is treated as an Electron.

Where two opposing charges and or forces meet, the respective charge or force where they enmesh and or meet is neutralized and or again is considered as a neutron for theoretical purposes and or for extremely basic physics such as quantum mechanics and or Particle Physics.

All Electromotive forces must be converted to Newton-meters and the electron and neutrons are to be disbanded and only used for basic theoretical purposes.

Constructs

E=MC^2
Where E equals the potential towards unity.
Where M equals the mass and or Amassed.
Where C^2 is the maximum area a mass treated as a single field can occupy realistically.

Gravity
90~99% of the universe is amassed that is near unity and this amassed force exerts upon solid mass and or Amassed solids as Gravity.

If we treat the whole universe as above the only thing we need really do is to acknowledge gravity is not via attraction and the model of the Atom is overly complicated, so before one proceeds into the basics of how and why Gravitational and Electromotive forces have been reconfigured let me refer to the basis of my reasoning and necessary calculus so that one may also be enlightened by ones very own calculus.

Previously, one had worked with five functional equations, which dealt with 11 variables with respects to the gamma function, now to those that have and are still playing around with such calculus, may have instantly recognized what one has referred to, and had one mentioned 5 representations and or flavours leading to M Theory; which involves those
11 dimensions, Most String Theorists would now be hooked with keen interest with out considering why one has termed Variables over Dimensions.

Read one’s previous statement again noting the switches made as obviously the way one has expressed it was for a very good reason as one may find it difficult to comprehend such a concept possible, Err~ Let’s hope one has clarified some concerns without confusing anyone by ones constructs thus far.

Before proceeding any further we need to get the rest of the scientific community up to speed with what one may have been grappling with, and in doing so perhaps shed some electromagnetic waves Err~ Light on what is yet another problem to most if not correctly addressed as to how and why “c” the constant that refers to the maximum speed of electromagnetic propagation, commonly referred to as the speed of Light and note one has deliberately preceded with ones wording for good reason here as well, as there are individuals out there that are still dealing with Light in an extremely basic construct via massless photons with a high velocity to them.

And no! It’s not because of the current contradiction to some ever increasing expansion of our universe, although if one considers how “c” is derived, the obvious should be that our universe is not expanding at an ever-increasing rate, and in fact is NOT expanding at all! And this will be Err~ expanded on and clarified by further reading or perhaps via familiarity with theories entailing Basic Electromagnetic Transmissions.

FORWARD.

Let us draw two large circles and define to them a set quantum.
We also should state the circles drawn represent spheres that are the same "field" in dimension to each other.
Further more let us state these spheres are equal in quanta to our universe or should we choose to, to a given portion or percentage of the Universe. Noting the Universe may not be currently pertaining to a spherical shape let alone a flattened one, although messing around with these spherical dimensions based on Physical laws gives for some really interesting results in where a flattened sphere just may be the case!

Moving on let us state that the first quantum or sphere defines moment one. Imagine one has the power to encapsulate and freeze Area/time and being able to apply means of calculus to it by divvying or dividing it to areas and or fields.

Let us state that the second sphere and or quantum defines moment two. Noting if this sphere and or quanta is a partial component "field" or portion of the universe, Time reference or data is a little more involved and therefore the snapshot of Area/time may not be relative to our observation point of time “unrelative” pronounced “un-re-late-ive” that’s if the Time rates are different, to which this second sphere should then reflect what data was availed to a given time reference and hence should be defined accordingly and proportionally smaller noting those extra considerations and or calculus to the basic E=MC^2 , via taking also into careful consideration the rate of data availed to time at our observing locality which is also governed by the same rules with respects to time frames and or references.

So for simplicities sake, for now this exercise will conform to current constructs of time used in current calculus used in every day science, so it will remain the same quanta as the first moments data availed to time because we have remained relative to the sphere or to the whole Universes time reference or moments. Whew what a mouth full! And if not fully understood one may need re reading it!

So lets proceed to encapsulating and freezing Area/time dimension without considering Times accruing data and its rate of data being availed back to the universe.

Let us now proceed to portion or define each of the two snap shots of time references into some components “fields”, portions and or dimensions of whatever variables one wishes to work with, keeping in mind we are dealing with more than just two dimensions if we treat the Circles as Spheres and or as real time.

For those individuals that have dealt with String Theory and or the Gamma function one may wish to Portion Variables to ones spheres or Universe accordingly to proceed ones calculus using your favoured equation to both moments by giving some indication of change or momentum to the plotting points that define ones current string/s and or a peak to peak of an electromagnetic wave.

Having allowed String theorist the luxury of partial first glory, the rest of the scientific community may also define portions and or variables to each snapshot of our universe pertaining to changes of state from area to area, via the use of E=MC^2 and if we are to express changes, the portions "fields" from the first instance must then be different to the second moment of our universe. In doing so we must do two things and note that these changes suggest movement and or momentum or shifting of force with some unity to all momentum, and hence a set amount of time frames or references may need to be considered “more spheres or snap shots!” just in order to express this movement and or propagation of Light via calculus more accurately, It is my hope this brings some insight gained from ones earlier inference of time being variable via given velocity to given mass.

But what has all this to do with the THEORY OF EVERYTHING?
The new dimension or rigid quanta introduced via the aforementioned into String theory is part of the key. But not the whole key of what we are dealing with, it only gives rise to a finite and an unchanging dimension for our Universe.
That along with depicting the universe at the very least in two moments as to why and how everything works, importantly we now can do calculus that gives rise to momentum representing change which is about to lead us to question if we are truly adhering to a rigid rule that concerns Time? Re-read ones earlier statements with respect to relativity and how important this is when one reasons what the speed of Light and or better expressed as charge and or force transference infers.

So far we have implied the universe is finite and what’s more, influences beyond it cannot change it, besides there is nothing left or beyond as its zero and or No-Thing - Because everything has been assumed as part of the Universe, including time via electromagnetic propagation! Should we discover more to the universe all we need do is add yet more dimensions and or divisions to our current Model.

Hence we exist in a closed system and what’s more no matter how many variables and or dimensions we work with we can still precisely predict and apply calculus to it all, as long as we apply a rigid rule in that,

If time is to accrue Data in order the Universe may exist by some record, All dimensions or “variables” that we define on what truly does exist, all must avail a portion “%” “or small image of its changing states” to the time reference and this suggests, as the Time reference accrues this Data “or images” of changes, The time references “image” involved must also avail or communicate back to the universe an image, and it is this reason why a Klein Bottle plotting is used to express these changes to our universe in order to simplify all the dynamics!

Read the previous paragraph in bold a few times keeping in mind “E” and or a given fields potential is what stores time and or change, and this takes some getting use to, and if it is not fully understood when we are to work with the fringes of our universe we may never understand why unity and or zero is impossible, one also highly recommends one study Klein Bottle plotting if one really needs to understand the universes full dynamics and forces that pertains to "fields" that define mass and or force/s and even why gravity is really the result of mass that is almost undetectable.

Getting back to our circles or Spheres that represent our universe with the respective portions that we have defined via known physical laws, Has any one noticed the implications with respects to times portion and the various possible implications if we apply the rule that all variables or dimensions MUST avail information to time, including time itself must avail data of its accruing changes back to the universe? Some serious shrinking or compression is implied.

In the real world, time goes by and as changes occur, times quanta or data accrues and hence must increase times quanta or record taking up a greater and greater portion of the Universe, but this implies every portion or dimension must concede to times increasing quanta or portion “Amassed”, but if we are to truly deal with a finite quantum or quanta to the Universe as a closed system, this would be problematic if we don’t concede that time must portion itself back or avail its information or data back to the Universe so that equilibrium is maintained, so if we apply the same rigid Rule to Time but rather Time avails its data back to the universe we complete and now adhere in the end to the strict rule where energy is not gained nor lost but rather is exchanged via momentum from area to area and or fields leading to our perception of Mass, Force, Gravity, Charge, Time Ect.

Perhaps some insight may be gained if we are to concede that our local area is availing to time due to data being dependant on change and hence local rate of data availed to Time being of a differing ratio to where we may be observing, and to prove this we need to observe beyond our local area and the further away from our Black Hole as our given time reference the more dramatic the ratio should be, to where a result of an increasing rate of expansion seems to be occurring the further we observe from our area, when in fact our local area has availed much more data “increase in Potential” to the time reference "Black hole” and or in real terms our galaxies centre than what the observed area other than in our galaxy has, hence it is proportionally with less momentum and or velocity to our time reference because of its exertion as gravity, now let us apply some plots to our Klein Bottle model to better understand this involving reasoning before we make fools out of our selves, or we may simply envision to be situated as such in real time to such a momentum or velocity where it seems we are indeed being stuffed and compressed into a neck of a Klein Bottle or to some inward momentum of our galaxy, which interestingly so happens we do have a Black Hole conforming perfectly to ones plotting points of a Klein Bottle neck, Err~ to which you may have to resort to calculus anyway if curious of its functional form pertaining to a Black Holes dynamics as being our current time reference.

LaidBack
10-07-06, 07:10 PM
Ever since the discovery of Black holes scientists have wondered what happens to the matter that is absorbed by the Black Hole. One would say that the Black hole grows in mass, and that indeed does happen yet how does a black hole get rid of its "waste". Another puzling thing that exsists in space is something called invisible energy. Scientists think that this so called invisible energy is what powers things to move in space, this force if you will is what enables a particle to take a Quantum Jump. Although my formula may be wrong I have spent long and hard on it developing a formula that will equate the amount of invisible energy that a black hole exserts when it has absorbed matter. Below is my equation.

(md+gf) - (m^2+c^2)
{ ----------------------------- }
(pi)r^2

md=mass of Black hole
gf= gravitational force of black hole
m^2=mass of object absorbed
c^2=speed of light
pi=3.1415...etc or 22/7