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

From: Jerry Flaherty <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:29:38 -0400
Message-ID: <0032CAE26F614C7DAE1331F2BE768507_at_ASUS>

Awe shucks there goes my opportunity to get to Andromeda before dinner

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:10 PM
To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chicxulub Asteroid (Black Holes,
Gravity,Lightspeed...)

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 03:29:38 PM PDT