(Old Physics) wrote in message . com...
BH circular and parabolic velocity

As I understand it, the circular orbital velocity at a given
radius will be the escape velocity at twice that radius. How is it
determined that the circular orbit for light is 1.5 times the radius
of event horizen?
If viewed from far away, would the light running in a circle
around a BH appear to be slower than c?

Stephen Kearney

xxein: "M" is mass expressed as meters of mass: kg*G/c^2. I.e. m of
Earth in kg = 5.9788594286477E+24. That mass in kg*G/c^2 is meters of
mass (M = 4.43886003015173E-03 meters).

Pick and choose:
g = M*c^2/R^2 | g = escape velocity^2/2R
Escape velocity = (2*G*m/R)^.5 meters | =(2*M/R)^.5 as v/c |
=(2*M*c^2/R)^.5 meters
Circular orbit velocity = escape velocity at R* .5^.5 |
=(g*2*R)^.5*(.5^.5)

My methodology is that circular orbit velocity squared + escape
velocity squared cannot exceed c^2. If the circular orbit velocity
always equals the escape velocity/sqrt(2), then a constraint is made
that determines R for light in a ~stable circular orbit around a BH.
That is R=3M or 1.5* the event horizon (2M = Schwartzchild radius).

Second part: Yes, but you cannot see it. Picture an event that
occurs every time light makes an orbit. If you know m or M of the BH
and the radial distance of the event, then you can determine that
light is orbiting at a velocity of 173085256.327319 m/s or
c*sqrt(3)/3.

The geometric relations of all the above (so simple and immutable)
should suggest to you that the timerate of the far-away observer is
|1|. This means that there is an absolute timerate one step higher in
the pecking order than SR or GR can suggest or fathom. The parameter
on this is universal expansion and whether it will affect c for dx/dt
in this higher realm.

The short order on this is that free-falling clocks get their timerate
from their "apparent velocity" biased to their positional escape
velocity. An example of this is a clock falling so that its velocity
just before impact on Earth's surface is 1000 m/s. The escape
velocity is 11185 m/s. Its timerate will come from 11185 - 1000 =
10185 m/s for that particular instant. But it is not "so" simple:
just more realistic as an empiric rather than widening error bars to
include measured results that differ from "favorite" theories.

I would like to discuss this whole matter (cosmology) with you. Can
you email me?

(xxein) wrote in message om...
(Old Physics) wrote in message . com...
BH circular and parabolic velocity

As I understand it, the circular orbital velocity at a given
radius will be the escape velocity at twice that radius. How is it
determined that the circular orbit for light is 1.5 times the radius
of event horizen?
If viewed from far away, would the light running in a circle
around a BH appear to be slower than c?

Stephen Kearney

xxein: "M" is mass expressed as meters of mass: kg*G/c^2. I.e. m of
Earth in kg = 5.9788594286477E+24. That mass in kg*G/c^2 is meters of
mass (M = 4.43886003015173E-03 meters).

Pick and choose:
g = M*c^2/R^2 | g = escape velocity^2/2R
Escape velocity = (2*G*m/R)^.5 meters | =(2*M/R)^.5 as v/c |
=(2*M*c^2/R)^.5 meters
Circular orbit velocity = escape velocity at R* .5^.5 |
=(g*2*R)^.5*(.5^.5)

My methodology is that circular orbit velocity squared + escape
velocity squared cannot exceed c^2. If the circular orbit velocity
always equals the escape velocity/sqrt(2), then a constraint is made
that determines R for light in a ~stable circular orbit around a BH.
That is R=3M or 1.5* the event horizon (2M = Schwartzchild radius).

Second part: Yes, but you cannot see it. Picture an event that
occurs every time light makes an orbit. If you know m or M of the BH
and the radial distance of the event, then you can determine that
light is orbiting at a velocity of 173085256.327319 m/s or
c*sqrt(3)/3.

The geometric relations of all the above (so simple and immutable)
should suggest to you that the timerate of the far-away observer is
|1|. This means that there is an absolute timerate one step higher in
the pecking order than SR or GR can suggest or fathom. The parameter
on this is universal expansion and whether it will affect c for dx/dt
in this higher realm.

The short order on this is that free-falling clocks get their timerate
from their "apparent velocity" biased to their positional escape
velocity. An example of this is a clock falling so that its velocity
just before impact on Earth's surface is 1000 m/s. The escape
velocity is 11185 m/s. Its timerate will come from 11185 - 1000 =
10185 m/s for that particular instant. But it is not "so" simple:
just more realistic as an empiric rather than widening error bars to
include measured results that differ from "favorite" theories.

I would like to discuss this whole matter (cosmology) with you. Can
you email me?

Xxein,

I am very impressed. I made a printout to go over your post
carefully. I can email you late saturday but most of my ideas I have
already posted. You may not get kudos for your posts from this NG,
but it is where they are of the most value.

With admiration,
Stephen Kearney

"Old Physics" wrote in message om...
(xxein) wrote in message om...
(Old Physics) wrote in message . com...
BH circular and parabolic velocity

As I understand it, the circular orbital velocity at a given
radius will be the escape velocity at twice that radius. How is it
determined that the circular orbit for light is 1.5 times the radius
of event horizen?
If viewed from far away, would the light running in a circle
around a BH appear to be slower than c?

Stephen Kearney

xxein: "M" is mass expressed as meters of mass: kg*G/c^2. I.e. m of
Earth in kg = 5.9788594286477E+24. That mass in kg*G/c^2 is meters of
mass (M = 4.43886003015173E-03 meters).

Pick and choose:
g = M*c^2/R^2 | g = escape velocity^2/2R
Escape velocity = (2*G*m/R)^.5 meters | =(2*M/R)^.5 as v/c |
=(2*M*c^2/R)^.5 meters
Circular orbit velocity = escape velocity at R* .5^.5 |
=(g*2*R)^.5*(.5^.5)

My methodology is that circular orbit velocity squared + escape
velocity squared cannot exceed c^2. If the circular orbit velocity
always equals the escape velocity/sqrt(2), then a constraint is made
that determines R for light in a ~stable circular orbit around a BH.
That is R=3M or 1.5* the event horizon (2M = Schwartzchild radius).

Second part: Yes, but you cannot see it. Picture an event that
occurs every time light makes an orbit. If you know m or M of the BH
and the radial distance of the event, then you can determine that
light is orbiting at a velocity of 173085256.327319 m/s or
c*sqrt(3)/3.

The geometric relations of all the above (so simple and immutable)
should suggest to you that the timerate of the far-away observer is
|1|. This means that there is an absolute timerate one step higher in
the pecking order than SR or GR can suggest or fathom. The parameter
on this is universal expansion and whether it will affect c for dx/dt
in this higher realm.

The short order on this is that free-falling clocks get their timerate
from their "apparent velocity" biased to their positional escape
velocity. An example of this is a clock falling so that its velocity
just before impact on Earth's surface is 1000 m/s. The escape
velocity is 11185 m/s. Its timerate will come from 11185 - 1000 =
10185 m/s for that particular instant. But it is not "so" simple:
just more realistic as an empiric rather than widening error bars to
include measured results that differ from "favorite" theories.

I would like to discuss this whole matter (cosmology) with you. Can
you email me?

Xxein,

I am very impressed. I made a printout to go over your post
carefully. I can email you late saturday but most of my ideas I have
already posted. You may not get kudos for your posts from this NG,
but it is where they are of the most value.

With admiration,
Stephen Kearney

The two of you sound like two little kids who are playing
King and Prince.
So sweet :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Old Physics" wrote in message om...

[snip]

I am very impressed. I made a printout to go over your post
carefully. I can email you late saturday but most of my ideas I have
already posted. You may not get kudos for your posts from this NG,
but it is where they are of the most value.

With admiration,
Stephen Kearney

The two of you sound like two little kids who are playing
King and Prince.
So sweet :-)

Dirk Vdm

Tom Roberts post was more informative, but yours has more charm.
I'd call it teacher and student, but then there would be no wizards
like yourself.
In a Sciam article years back was a cover that that showed the
various paths light would take around a black hole if viewed from a
distance, so I think it is a fair to ask what its velocity would be.
For the earth's gravity the answer is nearly newtonian, it's speed
would be 4.76 trillionths slower.
Xxein's formula, c*sqrt(3)/3, is something I don't yet know how to
evaluate, but it atleast gives numbers I can put into a calculator.

You want numbers you can put in a calculator?
Why didn't you say that before?
Here are some more numbers you can put in a calculator:
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/.../C/pi10000.txt

That the rate of fall relative to the Ve gives the time dilation is
something I believe is correct.

I think you should learn to multiply first.

Do you have any problems with Xxein's
math? I may be a lost cause, but your words of wisdom might keep a
newbie away from my posts, except as entertainment.

Or better: start with addition.


With respect, sk

Without,

Dirk Vdm

"Old Physics" wrote in message m...

[snip]

In your posts on SR, you give a mathematical solution along with
the insults.

The insults depend on how and by whom the questions
are formulated. Surely you must have noticed that.

Does GR have you stumped?

GR is too long ago - I am trying to get into it again but
I'm afraid there won't be enough time to do it properly.

You could take Einstein's
advice to his wife Elsa: You know the answer but it is a secrete.

Still stumbling over gravity, sk

You could take my advice, and start with the simple things...
Enjoy :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Old Physics" wrote in message m...

[snip]

In your posts on SR, you give a mathematical solution along with
the insults.

The insults depend on how and by whom the questions
are formulated. Surely you must have noticed that.

So it's not just how the question is asked, it's who is asking it?
Yes I've noticed. From what the question is, you seem to quickly
assess the who.

Does GR have you stumped?

GR is too long ago - I am trying to get into it again but
I'm afraid there won't be enough time to do it properly.

If you can't, then my prospects are very dim.

You could take Einstein's
advice to his wife Elsa: You know the answer but it is a secrete.

Still stumbling over gravity, sk

You could take my advice, and start with the simple things...
Enjoy :-)

Dirk Vdm

I'm looking for a TOE. I start with simple and watch it get
ripped to shreads. As David Smith wrote to me: "simple is for
simpletons". I'm wainting for publication of the "Idiot's Guide to
Occam's Razor".
You can tell when I think an idea of mine is moronic because I
identify it with the word. The 100 LY egg has kenesetically decayed
into something around a LY in diameter...the "big bounce". Maybe
someday I will make your fumbles list. In relative terms it would be
good publicity.

With Great (unrequited) Respect, and disbelief (maybe there is a
God),
Stephen Kearney, thalean day 944984

PS, In Frank and Ernest 9/2/02: "It's not a zero sum game,
everyone can
have a good day" (!).

"Old Physics" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Old Physics" wrote in message m...

[snip]

In your posts on SR, you give a mathematical solution along with
the insults.

The insults depend on how and by whom the questions
are formulated. Surely you must have noticed that.

So it's not just how the question is asked, it's who is asking it?
Yes I've noticed. From what the question is, you seem to quickly
assess the who.

Of course.
It is called 'prejudice'. It is what makes life easy.


Does GR have you stumped?

GR is too long ago - I am trying to get into it again but
I'm afraid there won't be enough time to do it properly.

If you can't, then my prospects are very dim.

Extremely so.


You could take Einstein's
advice to his wife Elsa: You know the answer but it is a secrete.

Still stumbling over gravity, sk

You could take my advice, and start with the simple things...
Enjoy :-)

Dirk Vdm

I'm looking for a TOE.

Start with the tip of your NOSE :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Old Physics" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Old Physics" wrote in message m...

[snip]

In your posts on SR, you give a mathematical solution along with
the insults.

The insults depend on how and by whom the questions
are formulated. Surely you must have noticed that.

So it's not just how the question is asked, it's who is asking it?
Yes I've noticed. From what the question is, you seem to quickly
assess the who.

Of course.
It is called 'prejudice'. It is what makes life easy.


Does GR have you stumped?

GR is too long ago - I am trying to get into it again but
I'm afraid there won't be enough time to do it properly.

If you can't, then my prospects are very dim.

Extremely so.


You could take Einstein's
advice to his wife Elsa: You know the answer but it is a secrete.

Still stumbling over gravity, sk

You could take my advice, and start with the simple things...
Enjoy :-)

Dirk Vdm

I'm looking for a TOE.

Start with the tip of your NOSE :-)

Dirk Vdm

Nature Of Stuff Everywhere. Give me time, I can do better.
Good to see you back in form, Groucho, I thought the world was
going to end. And have a nice day. sk

"Old Physics" wrote in message om...

[snip]


Nature Of Stuff Everywhere. Give me time, I can do better.
Good to see you back in form, Groucho, I thought the world was
going to end. And have a nice day. sk

Before you follow Tom Roberts' excellent advice to read
Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics", have a go at
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part3.html
but do not - I repeat, DO NOT - even look at part 4.
Enjoy. Seriously.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Old Physics" wrote in message om...

[snip]


Nature Of Stuff Everywhere. Give me time, I can do better.
Good to see you back in form, Groucho, I thought the world was
going to end. And have a nice day. sk

Before you follow Tom Roberts' excellent advice to read
Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics", have a go at
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part3.html
but do not - I repeat, DO NOT - even look at part 4.
Enjoy. Seriously.

Dirk Vdm

Excellent tutorial, good advice. It might be called relativity
for trekies, sort of a bait and switch approach. Part 3 on GR
manifolds and tensors is especially important to understand the state
of the art. Even the clearest explanation is a job to get down. Do
you like giving peanut butter to dogs?
I'd call you fair and balanced, but that phrase is copywrited.

Stephen Kearney