[meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid (Black Holes, Gravity, Lightspeed...)

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:10:55 -0500
Message-ID: <181B88C44EF04F72A35EC84151EE92F3_at_ATARIENGINE2>

Hi, Steve, List,

> the event horizons are so small it would require speeds
> faster than light for them to suck any new matter in.

    The definition of the "event horizon" is that it is like
a "surface" whose escape velocity is equal to the speed
of light. (Actually, it's a leeetil more complicated if the
black hole is rotating or charged or both, creating an
ergosphere of multiple horizons, blah, blah, but we're
not going there.)

    It is gravity that creates the black hole. General
Relativity predicts, and the universe has demonstrated,
that gravity exerts a force on EVERYTHING, including
light. The Eddington 1919 proof of Relativity, the first
proof of the theory, showed that the powerful gravity
of the Sun bends light rays that pass near it.

    At the event horizon, the force of gravity is so
strong that a photon of light heading straight up
away from the black hole at the speed of light is
standing still ! If you find that hard to picture,
don't worry -- it's impossible to picture. So, let's
try.

    Ignoring the quadrillions of gee's tugging on
you, picture yourself standing on a big black ball
with a flashlight pointing up. You turn it on and
nothing happens. You look down into the flashlight;
there's a pool of photons in the bottom of the lamp
housing. You tilt it slightly and some photons pour
out. They drip down in an arc and fall back to the
surface like water.

    Of course, this is all physically impossible but
it's what the photons do. And -- just "above" the
event horizon -- time has come to a near standstill.
AT the event horizon, time IS standing still. Just
above the event horizon, a second lasts for a trillion
years... to an outside observer. All because of gravity.
And one final craziness -- not only does gravity exert
a force on light (and everything else), it even exerts
a force on ITSELF ! Now, that IS crazy. But true.

    About this time, you're saying "Heck! You're
crazier than those aliens I've been talking to. What
have you been drinking?" Nothing but water, friend.

    The "speed" of expansion, now, is only a speed
relative to us. You're mixing up old Newtonian
absolute space speed and Einsteinian speed of one
frame of reference relative to another frame of
reference. The "edge" of the Universe isn't an "edge"
at all -- it's a perfectly normal place -- if you were
there instead of here. And if you WERE there instead
of here, then "here" would be the edge of the expansion
of the universe. The "edge" is just the limit to the
portion of the universe that we can observe.

    All because the universe has a Speed Limit. We
don't need Relativity Cops -- this universal speed limit
enforces itself ! There are these signs everywhere:

            "Speed Limit:
            Speed of Light.
            It isn't just a good idea --
            IT'S THE LAW !"


 Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Dunklee" <sdunklee72520 at yahoo.com>
> To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid
>
>
> if my info gathered from my alien abduction exp is correct. mini black
> holes are atoms , they are stable because the event horizons are so
> small it would require speeds faster than light for them to suck any
> new matter in. larger black holes while theoretical are not possible
> because collisions with a large enough object cause them to go nova.
> which creates elements greater than iron. we measure the speed of
> light by the distance it travels in a specific amount of time. if time
> is the inverse of the universe wave then the farther you travel out
> from the center the slower time moves. if time stops at the speed of
> light so does the universe expansion. there is no possible way from
> our current vectors to determin universe expansion or contraction
> without taking into account the spin of the universe. the universe
> being a wave which is expanding at the speed of light will reach an
> equilibrium where the universe stops with time stopping. if time has
> stoopped
> at the edge limit of the universe then it can niether expand nor
> contract and will reach a steady state.where time stopping prevents it
> from expanding and it can't collapse for the same reason. the observed
> curve of the universe is because of the spin. which causes doppler
> shift. small particles in the universe bounce around like a beach ball
> in waves close to shore as large particles float smoothly by '
>
> befor you try to castrate me for making these claims i will apolagise
> in advance! brain tumors like i have in the temporal regions realy
> cause a lot of problems.
> have a great day
> Steve Dunklee
>
> --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid
>> To: "Chris Peterson" <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>,
>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 7:58 PM
>> Hi, Chris, List,
>>
>> Like all physicists, by minimum or
>> nomimal,
>> I mean whatever size is needed to make things
>> turn out just the way I said they would. Same
>> applies to the encounter velocity and all the other
>> parameters. I would choose exactly the right size
>> and velocity, according to the time-honored
>> "Goldilocks" Principle !
>>
>> Theoretically, there are still people
>> arguing
>> that a singularity is only mathematically possible
>> but not possible in reality and while there are
>> hyperdense objects there are no black holes (and
>> using the same math to prove that as those who
>> think they DO exist in reality). And in practicality,
>> no pictures of a black hole I know of. (Just the
>> idea of a picture of a black hole makes me laugh.)
>>
>> So, going with Hawking's Primordial Black
>> Holes
>> (not created by some later event), The PBH would
>> have to be at least 10^12 kg in mass when it was
>> created to survive this long. 10^12 kg is actually
>> quite small - the Earth has a mass of 6x10^24 kg -
>> so we are talking about a mass about equal to a
>> small mountain, like the Chicxulub impactor,
>> oddly enough.
>>
>> Of course, it's a black hole so it isn't
>> the SIZE
>> of a small mountain; it's more like the size of a proton.
>> It will zip through the Earth without disturbing it.
>> But it will leave a microscopic "tube" of radiatively
>> disturbed matter along its path, almost impossible
>> (and highly unlikely) to be detected. We would never
>> know that the event had happened.
>>
>> This has all been worked out in detail by
>> I. B.
>> Khriplovich, A. A. Pomeransky, N. Produit and C. Yu.
>> Ruban, in their paper: "Can one detect passage of
>> a small black hole through the Earth?"
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.3438v1.pdf
>>
>> There is no reason to expect such a
>> reasonable
>> result from a black hole with the mass of the Earth
>> itself. Such a monster would be HUGE, about as
>> big as a GOLF BALL! The gravitational consequences
>> would be catastrophic. Absurdly one tends to imagine
>> that if it were fast enough... (Equation 13; energy loss
>> is inversely proportional to velocity of the black hole
>> passing through the Earth, and who am I to doubt the
>> word of these fine gentlemen of Novosibirsk?.)
>>
>> Just to show there are no new ideas, it
>> has been
>> suggested that Tunguska was a black hole penetrator:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Black_hole
>> as well as it has been suggested it was antimatter.
>> Take your pick.
>>
>> And, mercifully, I did not discuss the
>> next best
>> alternatives for Whole Earth Penetrators. First, the
>> small chunk of degenerate matter or neutronium,
>> and second, the Antimatter Bullet. I think that it
>> would be harder to shoot right through the Earth
>> with them (although possibly just as easy to totally
>> destroy it).
>>
>> The question was: what would go right
>> through
>> the Earth? I still think the Black Hole Bullet is the
>> best choice for the job of going right through the Earth.
>>
>> Of course, if all you want to do is mine
>> the Earth
>> after reducing it to small chunks, I suggest injecting
>> a Neutronium Bullet and a Positronium Bullet to
>> spiral around until they meet each other at the
>> center of the Earth's core, combine, and distrupt
>> the entire planet for the easiest collection of the
>> raw materials by the waiting Alien Fleet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sterling K. Webb
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Peterson"
>> <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
>> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid
>>
>>
>> > The tricky bit is how you define a "minimum size black
>> hole". If you mean minimum in terms of the fundamental
>> physics, such a black hole could have been orbiting inside
>> the Earth since the Solar System formed, and it still would
>> not have consumed enough material to make its presence
>> known. If you mean minimum in terms of fundamental physics,
>> but make the thing big enough to be stable (to consume
>> material faster than it can evaporate)... I don't now how
>> long that would take to consume Earth. And if you mean
>> minimum in terms of how most theory (and all observation)
>> mean it- on the order of a stellar mass- well, clearly
>> things will get real bad, real fast if one intersects the
>> Earth, no matter how fast or slow it's going.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > *****************************************
>> > Chris L Peterson
>> > Cloudbait Observatory
>> > http://www.cloudbait.com
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sterling K. Webb"
>> <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
>> > To: "Carl 's" <carloselguapo1 at hotmail.com>;
>> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:52 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi, Carl, List,
>> >>
>> >> Two impactors of identical mass (not
>> size,
>> >> because density varies, but mass), hitting with
>> >> identical speeds and at identical angles produce
>> >> virtually identical craters.
>> >>
>> >> All that matters (if the object is
>> bigger than
>> >> 20-50 meters is kinetic energy. It could be iron,
>> >> it could be rock, it could be ice, it could be
>> highly
>> >> compressed chicken feathers or a ball of
>> fossilized
>> >> fast food --- all would have the same result.
>> >>
>> >> A porous carboneaous chondrite of 10
>> km diameter
>> >> and an iron ball of 5.85 km, weigh the same, and
>> at
>> >> 20 km/s and a 60-degree angle, both will produce
>> a
>> >> 65 mile crater 3/4 of a mile deep.
>> >>
>> >> There are high-iridium iron
>> meteorites as well as
>> >> stony ones, but an iron impact will leave other
>> traces
>> >> not found around Chicxulub.
>> >>
>> >> Now... the fun part! What WOULD go
>> right through
>> >> the Earth?! It would have to be very dense so that
>> its
>> >> area was very small for its huge mass. Number one
>> >> best candidate is a small fast black hole. I
>> specify "fast"
>> >> because if it was slow-moving, it might slow
>> enough to
>> >> stop inside the Earth or start orbiting around
>> inside
>> >> the planet, madly eating up mantle and core
>> material
>> >> as it went until...
>> >>
>> >> Wow! makes me want to drag that heavy
>> John
>> >> Wheeler book off the top shelf and start
>> scribbling.
>> >> Given a black-hole of minimum mass and size
>> >> m-sub-bh <<<< m-sub-earth, how long
>> would it take
>> >> to eat the entire Earth? Well, even without
>> numbers,
>> >> one can see that initially the mass consumption
>> of
>> >> the small black hole would be very modest, but as
>> it
>> >> grew and grew, the rate would increase by a power
>> >> curve following the exponent of the ratio of black
>> hole
>> >> surface to black hole mass until the black hole
>> reached
>> >> a certain fraction of the Earth's mass and then a
>> >> destructive deformation would occur in a
>> catastrophic
>> >> fashion... It could take thousands of years. There
>> could
>> >> be one there now. (Not true; we would hear it.)
>> >>
>> >> But if it was a FAST black hole, it
>> would go straight
>> >> through the Earth with only the equivalent of a
>> black
>> >> hole burp and perhaps produce a massive episode
>> of
>> >> basalt flood vulcanism as it exited. Silly notion.
>> We don't
>> >> have massive basalt flood vulcanism... What's
>> that?
>> >> We do? Every how often? Hmm. You don't
>> suppose...?
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wed 16 Sep 2009 01:10:55 PM PDT