Light Waves..WTF????

[uscitizen]

Gravity does effect light. Or did i misunderstand someone saying it did not?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Thanks Robert. I appreciate your input. I wasn't really mystified by Google's answer. Where I was hoping this thread would go is in an entirely different place. I am most probably wrong but I've been kicking this problem around for several years and what I came up with recently was that we have been looking at gravity in the wrong way.

I keep hearing about 90 plus percent of "what is" is missing and that is really what this thread is about. I used light waves as a loss leader to elicit some interest in this area. The real direction is way too unbelievable to start a thread on.

I'm obviously not a scientist or a current student or any kind of expert other than having seen just about everything covering astronomy to super colliders on the educational and public TV. Read many articles in the scientific mags also.

So what if this missing stuff commonly known as anti matter is really the true fabric of the universe. It is undetectable to us because we are only capable of measuring matter and some forms of energy. This "stuff/fabric" gets displaced by "matter". But this fabric wants to be at an equilibrium like water finding level. Wherever there is displacement it resists and attempts to force the matter out of its space and fabric. * ** So what I am saying is that the "mass" of "matter" we normally attribute to gravity really doesn't have any pull at all other than onto itself. Or no more so than steal or Iron is stuck together with anything more than the natural adhesion of it's atoms. I'm suggesting gravity is this other stuff or a by product/force of this other stuff trying to fill the space occupied by matter. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all the planets and stars are round? ALL OF THEM? It seems to me that if it was just the mass of the elements sucking other elements in by "our normal version of gravity" that there would be a lot of random shapes. If this other stuff is acting universally from the outside in.. it would be shaping and sorting elements making balls the same way but exactly opposite and in three dimensions as water makes perfect rings when disturbed.

* This also explains the acceleration of the expansion of our known universal matter. This "stuff" is racing in behind the moving matter speeding it up.

** This stuff is what light waves react to that keeps it going at "light speed". It also accounts for why light doesn't slow down after it travels through water or other elements..

OK...I'm crazy...It still makes sense my way.. at least to me.

Lots to answer there but here is a shot, by point and topic herein:

First, Antimatter: Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages--so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

In order to answer this question, we need to better understand that tiny part of the laws of physics that differ for matter and antimatter; without such a difference, there would be no way for an imbalance to occur. This distinction is the subject of study in a number of experiments around the world that focus on differences in the decays of particles called B-mesons and their antiparticle partners. These experiments will be done both at electron-positron collider facilities called B factories and at high-energy hadron colliders, because each type of facility offers different capabilities to contribute to the study of this detail of the laws of physics--a detail that is responsible for such an important property of the universe as the fact that there is anything there at all!

Round Planets: This is actually pretty straight forward without getting too technical. Most planetary bodies down to about 900 miles in diameter have liquid cores of metal of some sort. This is heat. Along with this, they spin, or revolved about their center in some fashion, either on their own axis or around their own center, like Earth. This creates gravity, the weak force. Thus, all orbital body will be round in some fashion.

* This also explains the acceleration of the expansion of our known universal matter. This "stuff" is racing in behind the moving matter speeding it up.
Forgive me, I did not understand the question.

** This stuff is what light waves react to that keeps it going at "light speed". It also accounts for why light doesn't slow down after it travels through water or other elements.
This is fairly accurate, missing only the equation that is a given: E=Mc2. Suffice to say there are 2 constants in the cosmos: Speed of Light (SoL) and the Weak Force. The latter is gravity, the first is the absolute constant for speed. The variable is that light can and does bend, like the distortion of looking into a clear pond of water. Its speed remains the same, however.

So, you must then consider that rotation, gravity, orbiting, mass, and inherent velocity through space defines the condition of everything, including us as a life form.

I welcome any input as this is great query.

Thanks,

Robert

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Gravity does effect light. Or did i misunderstand someone saying it did not?

Yes, it does. So much so that if it is powerful enough, it will keep light itself from escaping. Such as a thing known in modern physics and astronomcs as a "Black Hole".

Thank you.

Robert

 

[Ropey]

So, you must then consider that rotation, gravity, orbiting, mass, and inherent velocity through space defines the condition of everything, including us as a life form.

All form is in constant state of transition, so all energy is part of that transitional movement.

Your qualifier of "in the cosmos" brings to mind a question that I have wondered. When we accelerate light beyond the constant in the (collider) which mimics the state of a Cosmos beginning, where does the resultant portion (lost) of material shown by the decay pattern exist?

I've always wondered this.

 

[HUGGY]

Gravity does effect light. Or did i misunderstand someone saying it did not?

Yes, it does. So much so that if it is powerful enough, it will keep light itself from escaping. Such as a thing known in modern physics and astronomcs as a "Black Hole".

Thank you.

Robert

OK...further exploring my theory.. Do black holes change their position in space? If they do, then if formed by collapsing "matter" they should be traveling in the same direction as the rest of the matter as it expands. If they do not move the same as the other matter in their general vicinity or stationary or are going in the opposite direction then they are really just eddys in the fabric of anti matter. Has anyone tracked black hole position?

 

[Ropey]

Gravity does effect light. Or did i misunderstand someone saying it did not?

Yes, it does. So much so that if it is powerful enough, it will keep light itself from escaping. Such as a thing known in modern physics and astronomcs as a "Black Hole".

Thank you.

Robert

OK...further exploring my theory.. Do black holes change their position in space? If they do, then if formed by collapsing "matter" they should be traveling in the same direction as the rest of the matter as it expands. If they do not move the same as the other matter in their general vicinity or stationary or are going in the opposite direction then they are really just eddys in the fabric of anti matter. Has anyone tracked black hole position?

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in a Large Hadron Collider. Skeptics are saying that we might swallow the Earth.

The Atomic bomb skeptics said that it would set off a chain reaction and take the entire Universe with it.

 

[HUGGY]

Yes, it does. So much so that if it is powerful enough, it will keep light itself from escaping. Such as a thing known in modern physics and astronomcs as a "Black Hole".

Thank you.

Robert

OK...further exploring my theory.. Do black holes change their position in space? If they do, then if formed by collapsing "matter" they should be traveling in the same direction as the rest of the matter as it expands. If they do not move the same as the other matter in their general vicinity or stationary or are going in the opposite direction then they are really just eddys in the fabric of anti matter. Has anyone tracked black hole position?

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in colliders.

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

 

[Ropey]

OK...further exploring my theory.. Do black holes change their position in space? If they do, then if formed by collapsing "matter" they should be traveling in the same direction as the rest of the matter as it expands. If they do not move the same as the other matter in their general vicinity or stationary or are going in the opposite direction then they are really just eddys in the fabric of anti matter. Has anyone tracked black hole position?

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in colliders.

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

You aren't looking for concrete answers are you Huggy? Seriously?

There are prevailing theories and the generally accepted views, but that's about it. Our measurement in a controlled environment is not even good enough to answer the great, "Where Does It Go" questions. But we get there so far. We answered the question of "Where do we go when we fall off the end of the Earth"?

The general prevailing view is that such pressure points are necessary to maintain equilibrium and black holes are the method to transfer anti-matter/matter in order for this maintenance.

In the same way that the particle waveform transition maintains stability by the very nature of being in transition.

 

[HUGGY]

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in colliders.

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

You aren't looking for concrete answers are you Huggy? Seriously?

There are prevailing theories and the generally accepted views, but that's about it. Our measurement in a controlled environment is not even good enough to answer the great, "Where Does It Go" questions.

The general prevailing view is that such pressure points are necessary to maintain equilibrium and black holes are the method to transfer anti-matter/matter in order for this maintenance.

In the same way that the particle waveform transition maintains stability by the very nature of being in transition.

See !!! We are on the same wavelength!!! My whole gig is about the equilibrium!! My big picture suggests that "matter" is just the garbage that didn't get consumed by anti matter in the bang... and the anti matter is heading back to the void created in the bang. As it heads back from whence it came the pressure is greater in the center therefore the pressure of the fabric/anti matter is lower at the edges of the expansion thus the acceleration.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

So, you must then consider that rotation, gravity, orbiting, mass, and inherent velocity through space defines the condition of everything, including us as a life form.

All form is in constant state of transition, so all energy is part of that transitional movement.

Your qualifier of "in the cosmos" brings to mind a question that I have wondered. When we accelerate light beyond the constant in the (collider) which mimics the state of a Cosmos beginning, where does the resultant portion (lost) of material shown by the decay pattern exist?

I've always wondered this.

The collider environment does not exceed SoL. It collides molecules of elements to then study effect and affect. "Cosmos" is everything, including us. The BB origined from a singularity. Its method is now under 4 different theories, none of them confirmed...yet.....

Robert

 

[Ropey]

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

You aren't looking for concrete answers are you Huggy? Seriously?

There are prevailing theories and the generally accepted views, but that's about it. Our measurement in a controlled environment is not even good enough to answer the great, "Where Does It Go" questions.

The general prevailing view is that such pressure points are necessary to maintain equilibrium and black holes are the method to transfer anti-matter/matter in order for this maintenance.

In the same way that the particle waveform transition maintains stability by the very nature of being in transition.

See !!! We are on the same wavelength!!! My whole gig is about the equilibrium!! My big picture suggests that "matter" is just the garbage that didn't get consumed by anti matter in the bang... and the anti matter is heading back to the void created in the bang. As it heads back from whence it came the pressure is greater in the center therefore the pressure of the fabric/anti matter is lower at the edges of the expansion thus the acceleration.

Transition demands equilibrium for maintenance (read control of function).

It's turtles, all the way down.

 

[Ropey]

So, you must then consider that rotation, gravity, orbiting, mass, and inherent velocity through space defines the condition of everything, including us as a life form.

All form is in constant state of transition, so all energy is part of that transitional movement.

Your qualifier of "in the cosmos" brings to mind a question that I have wondered. When we accelerate light beyond the constant in the (collider) which mimics the state of a Cosmos beginning, where does the resultant portion (lost) of material shown by the decay pattern exist?

I've always wondered this.

The collider environment does not exceed SoL. It collides molecules of elements to then study effect and affect. "Cosmos" is everything, including us. The BB origined from a singularity. Its method is now under 4 different theories, none of them confirmed...yet.....

Robert

Protons have not been collided at slightly faster than the speed of light?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

OK...further exploring my theory.. Do black holes change their position in space? If they do, then if formed by collapsing "matter" they should be traveling in the same direction as the rest of the matter as it expands. If they do not move the same as the other matter in their general vicinity or stationary or are going in the opposite direction then they are really just eddys in the fabric of anti matter. Has anyone tracked black hole position?

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in colliders.

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

Answering both above, BHs do not move per se. They are a singularity that eventually collapse and begin the star forming cycle again. It is still much conjectured the actual mechanic involved--I know, I've wasted untold time on the Mac crunching this stuff to no avail--

The matter that is absorbed by BHs including photons (light), is eventually compressed to a level of density we have no models for yet. At the center of an atom is a very dense core called the nucleus. It’s composed of protons and neutrons (held very tightly together)--this nucleus in somewhat of a cloud are the electrons. Atomically speaking, the electrons are very far apart and far from the nucleus. Consider this: the entire atom composed of an electron cloud surrounding the nucleus is about 99.9% empty space. The electrons are negatively charged and repel anything else negatively charged with a very strong electromagnetic force, or EMF. Now imagine a force strong enough to overcome this EMF and compress atoms to a much greater density. This is what happens in old and dying stars– the compressing force of gravity starts to overcome this electromagnetic force. The atoms start squeezing together resulting in what’s called degenerate matter. Stars involved in this process are called white dwarfs and the matter in them can reach a density of one million times that of water.

While this is very dense, it is not the densest state that matter can reach. If the dying star is massive enough, its gravitational force can be powerful enough to overcome the repelling force in the degenerate matter. The center of this body is now called neutronic fluid and these stars are now called neutron stars or pulsars. Now we’re getting pretty dense. A 1cm cube of neutron star material would weigh 100 million tons and if dropped would fall straight through to the center of the earth.

Now for even bigger stars (more than three times the mass of our sun), it can have a gravitational force strong enough to break down even this neutronic matter. After this, there will be no barrier left. The matter can not compress any further and it is basically a single point called a singularity. A star that has collapsed into itself to this point is called a black hole.

Since there is no way to measure anything of this magnitude, estimates are made by estimating the matter outside and near this singularity. If we use matter on Earth as a first order of magnitude, degenerate matter (inside white dwarfs) is about one million times as dense. Neutronium (inside neutron stars) is about one trillion times as dense. And finally, black holes, which are about ten trillion times as dense.

Hope this helps a little in this most vexing topic.

Robert

 

[HUGGY]

Thanks Robert. I appreciate your input. I wasn't really mystified by Google's answer. Where I was hoping this thread would go is in an entirely different place. I am most probably wrong but I've been kicking this problem around for several years and what I came up with recently was that we have been looking at gravity in the wrong way.

I keep hearing about 90 plus percent of "what is" is missing and that is really what this thread is about. I used light waves as a loss leader to elicit some interest in this area. The real direction is way too unbelievable to start a thread on.

I'm obviously not a scientist or a current student or any kind of expert other than having seen just about everything covering astronomy to super colliders on the educational and public TV. Read many articles in the scientific mags also.

So what if this missing stuff commonly known as anti matter is really the true fabric of the universe. It is undetectable to us because we are only capable of measuring matter and some forms of energy. This "stuff/fabric" gets displaced by "matter". But this fabric wants to be at an equilibrium like water finding level. Wherever there is displacement it resists and attempts to force the matter out of its space and fabric. * ** So what I am saying is that the "mass" of "matter" we normally attribute to gravity really doesn't have any pull at all other than onto itself. Or no more so than steal or Iron is stuck together with anything more than the natural adhesion of it's atoms. I'm suggesting gravity is this other stuff or a by product/force of this other stuff trying to fill the space occupied by matter. Doesn't it strike you as odd that all the planets and stars are round? ALL OF THEM? It seems to me that if it was just the mass of the elements sucking other elements in by "our normal version of gravity" that there would be a lot of random shapes. If this other stuff is acting universally from the outside in.. it would be shaping and sorting elements making balls the same way but exactly opposite and in three dimensions as water makes perfect rings when disturbed.

* This also explains the acceleration of the expansion of our known universal matter. This "stuff" is racing in behind the moving matter speeding it up.

** This stuff is what light waves react to that keeps it going at "light speed". It also accounts for why light doesn't slow down after it travels through water or other elements..

OK...I'm crazy...It still makes sense my way.. at least to me.

Lots to answer there but here is a shot, by point and topic herein:

First, Antimatter: Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages--so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

In order to answer this question, we need to better understand that tiny part of the laws of physics that differ for matter and antimatter; without such a difference, there would be no way for an imbalance to occur. This distinction is the subject of study in a number of experiments around the world that focus on differences in the decays of particles called B-mesons and their antiparticle partners. These experiments will be done both at electron-positron collider facilities called B factories and at high-energy hadron colliders, because each type of facility offers different capabilities to contribute to the study of this detail of the laws of physics--a detail that is responsible for such an important property of the universe as the fact that there is anything there at all!

Round Planets: This is actually pretty straight forward without getting too technical. Most planetary bodies down to about 900 miles in diameter have liquid cores of metal of some sort. This is heat. Along with this, they spin, or revolved about their center in some fashion, either on their own axis or around their own center, like Earth. This creates gravity, the weak force. Thus, all orbital body will be round in some fashion.

* This also explains the acceleration of the expansion of our known universal matter. This "stuff" is racing in behind the moving matter speeding it up.
Forgive me, I did not understand the question.

** This stuff is what light waves react to that keeps it going at "light speed". It also accounts for why light doesn't slow down after it travels through water or other elements.
This is fairly accurate, missing only the equation that is a given: E=Mc2. Suffice to say there are 2 constants in the cosmos: Speed of Light (SoL) and the Weak Force. The latter is gravity, the first is the absolute constant for speed. The variable is that light can and does bend, like the distortion of looking into a clear pond of water. Its speed remains the same, however.

So, you must then consider that rotation, gravity, orbiting, mass, and inherent velocity through space defines the condition of everything, including us as a life form.

I welcome any input as this is great query.

Thanks,

Robert

Ya..OK... Do you really think a blob of liquefied iron is going to generate it's own heat just by it's own weight and mass? Do you believe that scrawny little patch of nitrogen and oxygen is capturing enough heat to make ANY difference against the cold of outer space? It is a whole lot easier for me to believe that squeezing something creates heat more than just the over all size. I see gravity as a form of exterior pressure.

It should be easy enough to prove the molten mass heat generation theory. Even on a smaller scale there should be measurable heat definition that supports generation on a 900 mile diameter.

 

[Ropey]

It has been my understanding that the small ones simply pop in and out of existence. Like sticking a pintube through self-healing rubber.

Soon we hope to be creating micro black holes in colliders.

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

Answering both above, BHs do not move per se. They are a singularity that eventually collapse and begin the star forming cycle again. It is still much conjectured the actual mechanic involved--I know, I've wasted untold time on the Mac crunching this stuff to no avail--

The matter that is absorbed by BHs including photons (light), is eventually compressed to a level of density we have no models for yet. At the center of an atom is a very dense core called the nucleus. It’s composed of protons and neutrons (held very tightly together)--this nucleus in somewhat of a cloud are the electrons. Atomically speaking, the electrons are very far apart and far from the nucleus. Consider this: the entire atom composed of an electron cloud surrounding the nucleus is about 99.9% empty space. The electrons are negatively charged and repel anything else negatively charged with a very strong electromagnetic force, or EMF. Now imagine a force strong enough to overcome this EMF and compress atoms to a much greater density. This is what happens in old and dying stars– the compressing force of gravity starts to overcome this electromagnetic force. The atoms start squeezing together resulting in what’s called degenerate matter. Stars involved in this process are called white dwarfs and the matter in them can reach a density of one million times that of water.

While this is very dense, it is not the densest state that matter can reach. If the dying star is massive enough, its gravitational force can be powerful enough to overcome the repelling force in the degenerate matter. The center of this body is now called neutronic fluid and these stars are now called neutron stars or pulsars. Now we’re getting pretty dense. A 1cm cube of neutron star material would weigh 100 million tons and if dropped would fall straight through to the center of the earth.

Now for even bigger stars (more than three times the mass of our sun), it can have a gravitational force strong enough to break down even this neutronic matter. After this, there will be no barrier left. The matter can not compress any further and it is basically a single point called a singularity. A star that has collapsed into itself to this point is called a black hole.

Since there is no way to measure anything of this magnitude, estimates are made by estimating the matter outside and near this singularity. If we use matter on Earth as a first order of magnitude, degenerate matter (inside white dwarfs) is about one million times as dense. Neutronium (inside neutron stars) is about one trillion times as dense. And finally, black holes, which are about ten trillion times as dense.

Hope this helps a little in this most vexing topic.

Robert

Beautifully written Robert. The theorized amount of energy contained in the singularity?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Protons have not been collided at slightly faster than the speed of light?

It took 16 years and $10 billion dollars, but on the day the Large Hadron Collider was supposed to begin trying to cross its high energy proton beams it didn’t take very long at all for researchers to create the highest-energy particle collisions ever witnessed in an experimental setting. At just after 1 p.m. local time beneath the French-Swiss border, CERN scientists smashed two proton beams moving at 99 percent of the speed of light together at total energies of 7 trillion electron volts.

The result was a soundless proton explosion that heralded a new period of scientific discovery as physicists from around the world try to recreate and study the conditions immediately after the Big Bang, understand the nature of dark energy and dark matter and determine whether the hypothetical Higgs boson really does exist.

99%--not SoL.......almost.....

And remember, these are photons, which the Higgs Boson equation covers well, are not inherent mass.

Robert

 

[Ropey]

Protons have not been collided at slightly faster than the speed of light?

It took 16 years and $10 billion dollars, but on the day the Large Hadron Collider was supposed to begin trying to cross its high energy proton beams it didn’t take very long at all for researchers to create the highest-energy particle collisions ever witnessed in an experimental setting. At just after 1 p.m. local time beneath the French-Swiss border, CERN scientists smashed two proton beams moving at 99 percent of the speed of light together at total energies of 7 trillion electron volts.

The result was a soundless proton explosion that heralded a new period of scientific discovery as physicists from around the world try to recreate and study the conditions immediately after the Big Bang, understand the nature of dark energy and dark matter and determine whether the hypothetical Higgs boson really does exist.

99%--not SoL.......almost.....

And remember, these are photons, which the Higgs Boson equation covers well, are not inherent mass.

Robert

Yes, they are not supposed to dance very well. No spin.

Thanks for clarification.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Ya..OK... Do you really think a blob of liquefied iron is going to generate it's own heat just by it's own weight and mass?

Yes, I do. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanical State.

Do you believe that scrawny little patch of nitrogen and oxygen is capturing enough heat to make ANY difference against the cold of outer space? It is a whole lot easier for me to believe that squeezing something creates heat more than just the over all size. I see gravity as a form of exterior pressure.

Yes, I do. And the source of heat is interior, by the laws above, not exterior. The rotation is what the source of the centric condition, and Celestial Dynamics, that govern how much that G force is: Earth is millions of times less than the surface of Jupiter, and it is a 1000 times the size of the Earth, for an example. The gravitational effect is much greater then.

It should be easy enough to prove the molten mass heat generation theory. Even on a smaller scale there should be measurable heat definition that supports generation on a 900 mile diameter object.

There is. That equation is (-P)+[Q= MCS( t+i)]≥V†∂/T=(åß)x900∑=N
N=thermal couple of fixed state mass.

The equation might be tough if you are not up on Differential Equations but it works exactly as surmised.

Hope this is a little helpful.

Robert

 

[Robert_Stephens]

They "pop in and out of existence"? Where does the stuff they swallow up go when they "pop out" ? Just exactly where or from what do they come from when they "pop in"?

Answering both above, BHs do not move per se. They are a singularity that eventually collapse and begin the star forming cycle again. It is still much conjectured the actual mechanic involved--I know, I've wasted untold time on the Mac crunching this stuff to no avail--

The matter that is absorbed by BHs including photons (light), is eventually compressed to a level of density we have no models for yet. At the center of an atom is a very dense core called the nucleus. It’s composed of protons and neutrons (held very tightly together)--this nucleus in somewhat of a cloud are the electrons. Atomically speaking, the electrons are very far apart and far from the nucleus. Consider this: the entire atom composed of an electron cloud surrounding the nucleus is about 99.9% empty space. The electrons are negatively charged and repel anything else negatively charged with a very strong electromagnetic force, or EMF. Now imagine a force strong enough to overcome this EMF and compress atoms to a much greater density. This is what happens in old and dying stars– the compressing force of gravity starts to overcome this electromagnetic force. The atoms start squeezing together resulting in what’s called degenerate matter. Stars involved in this process are called white dwarfs and the matter in them can reach a density of one million times that of water.

While this is very dense, it is not the densest state that matter can reach. If the dying star is massive enough, its gravitational force can be powerful enough to overcome the repelling force in the degenerate matter. The center of this body is now called neutronic fluid and these stars are now called neutron stars or pulsars. Now we’re getting pretty dense. A 1cm cube of neutron star material would weigh 100 million tons and if dropped would fall straight through to the center of the earth.

Now for even bigger stars (more than three times the mass of our sun), it can have a gravitational force strong enough to break down even this neutronic matter. After this, there will be no barrier left. The matter can not compress any further and it is basically a single point called a singularity. A star that has collapsed into itself to this point is called a black hole.

Since there is no way to measure anything of this magnitude, estimates are made by estimating the matter outside and near this singularity. If we use matter on Earth as a first order of magnitude, degenerate matter (inside white dwarfs) is about one million times as dense. Neutronium (inside neutron stars) is about one trillion times as dense. And finally, black holes, which are about ten trillion times as dense.

Hope this helps a little in this most vexing topic.

Robert

Beautifully written Robert. The theorized amount of energy contained in the singularity?

Thank you very much. I am trying to address this so we can all understand, including me, as it is so esoteric and inane in context and more so if you do not understand Quantum Mechanics. Tough one, but everyone is posing excellent questions. Thank you again. Most kind.

Robert

 

[Ropey]

I see gravity as a form of exterior pressure.

I see gravity as a characteristic in the control and maintenance of motion. Transition.

Gravity is an effect, not a motive...