Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

[Write4U]

Who says?
If you aim a particle at the dead centre of a black hole, why would it deviate?

That's the point, it doesn't. But not because there is a presence of a black hole at Cern.

Note that I understood the analogy. But the analogy actually holds only if spacetime is flat (as it is at Cern). A black hole is the very opposite of flat, it is curved (warped) and there are no opposites, it's all one direction, down, aimed at the center of the vortex.

I mentioned it only as a qualifier of Nebel's example of Cern, which uses a destructive collision method to look at potential smaller particles than are known to exist.
But to my knowledge none of the Cern experiments are designed to simulate behavior inside a black hole singularity. How could one possibly identify such a thing, let alone create it and then study it...

The (minor) point is that regardless of direction, all infalling paths (directions) in a black hole are aimed at the dead center, but not at each other as they would be in a "head-on" collision trajectory. The BH singularity itself stands between impacts from all possible directions.

The paths of infalling stuff in a black hole run from angular at the horizon to near parallel at the bottom of the vortex. But regardless of direction the particle would land at the singularity first and stay there, no?

 

[DaveC426913]

Note that I understood the analogy. But the analogy actually holds only if spacetime is flat (as it is at Cern). A black hole is the very opposite of flat, it is curved (warped) and there are no opposites, it's all one direction, down, aimed at the center of the vortex.

There is no vortex in a black hole. This term does not apply.

I mentioned it only as a qualifier of Nebel's example of Cern, which uses a destructive collision method to look at potential smaller particles than are known to exist.

I am not sure that what they are doing at CERN is about creating the conditions in a black hole.

Nonetheless, the idea would that, as matter falls toward the centre of a BH under gravity, it gets smashed together under inconceivable forces. We can't simulate that with gravity, but we might get some idea of what happens next by smashing them together after accelerating them (gravity/acceleration equivalence).

The (minor) point is that regardless of direction, all infalling paths (directions) in a black hole are aimed at the dead center, but not at each other as they would be in a "head-on" collision trajectory.

Don't see how direction has any bearing on the matter. The question is simply: what happens when particles are smashed together so hard that they overcome the repulsive forces at the proton level.

The BH singularity itself stands between impacts from all possible directions.

How can the singularity "stand between" anything if it's at the centre?

The paths of infalling stuff in a black hole run from angular at the horizon to near parallel at the bottom of the vortex.

Why?
There are 360 degrees around a zero-sized object, just like there are 360 degrees around a macro-sized object.

If 360 equally-spaced objects hit the Earth, they are all 1 degree apart. If 360 equally-spaced objects hit a point of zero size, they are still 1 degree apart.

 

[Write4U]

There is no vortex in a black hole. This term does not apply.

I got the term from here;

Black Hole Vortex
Like the whirlpool created by stirring a cup of coffee with one of those tiny straws, a spinning black hole creates a “gravitational vortex” in the space-time around it. ... The plasma inner flow around black hole H1743-322 completes a precession cycle in 4 seconds because of the much stronger gravitational field.Gravitational vortex detected around black hole | Astronomy.comAstronomy Magazine

• Gravitational vortex detected around black hole

Allen Zeyher | Published: Monday, July 25, 2016


http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/07/gravitational-vortex-detected-around-black-hole

 

[Write4U]

How can the singularity "stand between" anything if it's at the centre?

Because all in-falling stuff has to pass through the center if it can pass at all.

 

[Write4U]

Don't see how direction has any bearing on the matter. The question is simply: what happens when particles are smashed together so hard that they overcome the repulsive forces at the proton level.

Seems to me this cannot be achieved by destructive collision. I see it more as a slower non-violent compression of particles to ever smaller proportions and becoming ever more densely packed in a limited space.

 

[nebel]

Seems to me this cannot be achieved by destructive collision. I see it more as a slower non-violent compression of particles to ever smaller proportions and becoming ever more densely packed in a limited space.

What my query was about, that apart from the Python like squeeze of gravity, there is the pressure generated from the energy (and added relativistic mass) of the infalling material, swirling or not.
One way or another, to get from the "pull of gravity" on one side of the singularity -- to the opposite side's "pull", - for want of a better term,-- there has to be a zero, reversing point somewhere. Therefore there has to be zero, hence less effective gravity on the inside, even of a BH. thank you both for illuminating.

 

[nebel]

I am coming back to this post by Janus, of Sirius and a neutron star, not a black hole, but showing the same principle, with less curvature to the slope. This mainstream depiction is at variance with the correct diagram of origin, that shows the well of the gravity potential at the surface to be at maximum, and returning to zero at the center.
I believe the below depiction of the effective gravity measurable is wrong, the gravity well should be a gravity ditch, with a cone, a peak in the center. ( turning it upside down to match origin's)

Here's a the cross sections of the gravity wells of Sirius, compared to the a equal mass neutron star. It is plotted as gravitational potential along the vertical and distance from the center along the horizontal. The black vertical line marks the center for both bodies and the green lines where the surface of Sirius would be.

Note that outside of the green lines, the wells are identical. It is inside the lines where they differ. The well for Sirius begins to level out again as you pass beneath its surface. The well for the neutron star gets steeper and plunges a lot deeper (once below its surface, it will also start to flatten out.)
The slope of the lines are representative of the local field strength (strength of gravity) at that point. Horizontal =0, Vertical would be infinite. For Sirius, it increases as you get closer to the star, but then decreases after you pass below the surface and

 

[nebel]

You would be able to detect the time dilation by simply having a very accurate clock at that position and see how it has changed relative to a clock outside, the clock on the inside would run slower showing less time had passed there.

here is a quote, that shows Gravity truly decreasing, clocks running faster toward the center. sorry.
"--We take two atomic clocks. One clock we put beside photon clock on the surface and second beside clock that is 4200 meters deep. According to the relativistic gravitational effect second atom clock will in 30 days “tick” faster as the atom clock on the surface for t s 6 23,1 10 − ∆ = ∗ (2). --"
Amrit Sorli Scientific Research Centre BISTRA (Microsoft Word)

 

[origin]

I believe the below depiction of the effective gravity measurable is wrong, the gravity well should be a gravity ditch, with a cone, a peak in the center. ( turning it upside down to match origin's)

Your understanding is wrong, I am not sure why write4u likes your wrong beliefs.

 

[nebel]

Your understanding is wrong, I am not sure why write4u likes your wrong beliefs.

You provided this thread with the illustration I could not come up with, showing the drooping dropping of the measurable gravity to zero at the centre of an entity. thank you for that. It has been said, that in a hypothetical bore hole through the Earth, an object falling through the center would not experience acceleration right there, only deceleration in measure as it would approach the other surface on the way up.
No acceleration at the center, because there is no gravity there, as your sketch showed. So,
My belief is more mainstream as appears, and there really is more gravity on the outside than ever could be on the inside. imho.
See also my link above, post248 from google. could not find any actual results of time dilation effects in bore holes.

 

[Write4U]

The well for Sirius begins to level out again as you pass beneath its surface. The well for the neutron star gets steeper and plunges a lot deeper (once below its surface, it will also start to flatten out.)

Question; If the well eventually ends in a singularity, what is left to flatten out? The singularity? The well never returns back to mean spacetime (before the well crossed the event horizon). It can't.
Not even light can get back! Is this the point where matter is returned to pure energy and individual or even block time-lines end. Can all of this energy spew out as (Hawking) radiation? If not, where does the matter and energy go over time?
The more one thinks about it, the curioser it gets...

Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974. Hawking's work helped explain the results of Jacob Bekenstein, who had predicted that black holes should have a finite entropy.

How big can a black hole get?.....

 

[nebel]

The (minor) point is that regardless of direction, all infalling paths (directions) in a black hole are aimed at the dead center, but not at each other as they would be in a "head-on" collision trajectory. The BH singularity itself stands between impacts from all possible directions.

"The paths of infalling stuff in a black hole run from angular at the horizon to near parallel at the bottom of the vortex. But regardless of direction the particle would land at the singularity first and stay there, no

Quoted from: 14.6667px;">www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920115537.htm> :
"This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole."

There is, in a black hole singularity no slope to a pinpoint, but all lines lead to the center, where the direction of the gravitational pull is reversed, going through a zero value. All that gravity on the outside leads to the described chaotic collisions, the energetic radiation we detect.

 

[nebel]

The Observer
Astronomy
Robin McKie from the article in The Guardian science:

Sat 20 Oct 2018 21.37 BST:
"--Vast haloes of material that cannot be detected by traditional methods must be surrounding galaxies and are holding them together, say astronomers. These are believed to be made up --"

Nebel says: If these halos are surrounding galaxies (as the article says), they will do nothing to reduce orbital, escape velocities;-- if the shell theorem is correct, because then, here is more gravity inside than out.

 

[nebel]

I am coming back to this post by Janus, of Sirius and a neutron star, not a black hole, but showing the same principle, with less curvature to the slope. This mainstream depiction is at variance with the correct diagram of origin, that shows the well of the gravity potential at the surface to be at maximum, and returning to zero at the center.
I believe the below depiction of the effective gravity measurable is wrong, the gravity well should be a gravity ditch, with a cone, a peak in the center. ( turning it upside down to match origin's)[/QUOTE

Nebel said now:
Here is an image .from Free icons pvc.net or physics stackexchange that, although from a different subject matter, roughly illustrates the depth of a gravity well at the surface of any entity, including the area surrounding a black hole. Notice: no gravity at the centre. back to neutral.

 

[nebel]

I am reposting this image, from the "Polar/equatorial gravity" thread, (credits there) to show, that gravity, even for enclosed bodies, like the Earth's core, is mostly an outside or surface phenomenon. Look at the massive volume containing the gravitational field enclosed by the blue line, which admittedly includes the mantle mass, but goes from R 3.5 k km to infinity to the right, but falls to zero, left at the center. not much gravity left there.
While tracking it's strength from the surface of the core outward you can see, that the gravity external to the core would actually increases a constant density sphere's internal gravity gradient, shown in the green line. so:
let it be resolved, there is more gravity at the outside then the inside.

 

[nebel]

I think this graph will clearly answer your question:

thank you origin, below is the amended "more gravity" situation.
In the image below, the red lines represent the increased gravity added, as an entity shrinks (smaller R), and we all live in entities that shrank from a larger cloud, made of elements cooked, forget in shrinking novae. so, just by being here we are living proof, that there is more gravity outside than in, because new gravity was created outside as the inside shrank.
Gravity is an outside phenomenon, one reason is, that the outside gets bigger, as the shrinking starts and continues.

 

[nebel]

The origin is the center of the body and gs is the force felt from gravity or gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body.

Yes. There is no gravity but surface gravity, projected out.
The tiniest entities, say of Plank size, when coming near each other, drawn by their mutual surface gravity, when joined, have zero gravity between them, because the gravity has migrated to the mutual outside. Repeat that process to any size, then, what is shown in your graph's inside slope, is the sum of many surface gravities. or Newtons' shells in that so named theorem.

thank you.

 

[origin]

The tiniest entities, say of Plank size, when coming near each other, drawn by their mutual surface gravity, when joined, have zero gravity between them, because the gravity has migrated to the mutual outside.

Please stop posting your pseudoscience in the science section.
Reported.

 

[Write4U]

nebel said:
The tiniest entities, say of Plank size, when coming near each other, drawn by their mutual surface gravity, when joined, have zero gravity between them, because the gravity has migrated to the mutual outside.

Please stop posting your pseudoscience in the science section.
Reported.

May I ask what you are objecting to as being pseudoscience. The statement was somewhat akwardly constructed, but I could not prima facie see any pseudo-science in the content, so I am really curious. Can you explain further?

Is gravity relevant at that level? Is it more of an attractive force between inherent positive to negative attributes, i.e. electro-magnetic attractive forces.

 

[nebel]

Please stop posting your pseudoscience in the science section.

It is evident that my writing does not meet your exacting standards, but must be understandable for readers of my level. I was merely trying to show that if surface gravity is the sum of all the interior mass gravity fields, (sometimes hyperbole can emphasize a point)
Gravity has to start at the tiniest level, no matter how small that may be, and how insignificant gravity is , compared to the other forces active in that sub atomic domain. Central Interior gravity forces cancel, and only surface gravity is projected out from an entity.
Here is another of your original graph's adaptations that shows how surface gravity increases, in the vacated volume, as the enclosed contributing particles are pressed closer together. and
How more gravity ends up on the outside, to the detriment of the inside , in entities who's material has contracted, ( most that are around here .-- have), -- from galaxies to Ultima Thule. Ps: The diagram below, how, in the process of forming an entity through contraction, a little internal gravity becomes a lot of gravity on the outside, question of the OP.