Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Penrose Process Discuss


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 03:40 AM

"The Penrose process (also called Penrose mechanism) is theorised by Roger Penrose as a means whereby energy can be extracted from a rotating black hole."

 

This is a discussion about the Penrose process, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think it is possible that future reactors could use this process as it relates to http://www.sciencefo...here-continued/ ?

 


Edited by VictorMedvil, 29 November 2019 - 03:48 AM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#2 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 03:47 AM

Yes. There are more than one ways to skin a cat.

Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 29 November 2019 - 03:48 AM.


#3 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 05:22 AM

It won't work, because a black hole is a place where the "coordinate" speed of light is zero, and it can't go lower than that. Which means Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are wrong.

 

Mind you, some people like to believe in the sort of things Penrose comes out with. They actively like the science-fiction stuff. Like the claim that black hole is a portal to some parallel antiverse:  

 

PenroseDiagram2.gif

          Penrose diagram from Andrew Hamilton's website

 

Trust me, it isn't. A furnace door is not the gateway to paradise, and a black hole is not a gateway to another universe. Or to a another place in this universe.   



#4 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 01:49 PM

I don't even accept his rotation view as providing a back end perception of a fast moving object. 

That's all we have today, cartoon physics. If we could only coax Aristotle out of retirement!



#5 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 09:08 AM

Anyone who is not a crank going to answer?, because crank answers are about as useful as dog ****.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 01 December 2019 - 09:17 AM.


#6 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1076 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 10:45 AM

Anyone who is not a crank going to answer?, because crank answers are about as useful as dog ****.

 

LoL



#7 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 07:17 AM

Anyone who is not a crank going to answer?, because crank answers are about as useful as dog ****.

So is the Penrose process. Google on Penrose crackpot



#8 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:10 AM

People get bent out of shape when they discover everyone doesn't think like they do. Welcome to the real world.

There are good animations on the internet of visual perceptions of the environment from the perspective of a fast moving observer.

Anyone with an algebra/geometry background can make them. The objects do not rotate. Expand your world.



#9 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:12 AM

So is the Penrose process. Google on Penrose crackpot

Relativistic Jets prove Penrose is correct to the point of that this process has actually been observed, now I cannot speak for his other theories but this one seems sound.

 

post-243927-0-95227000-1488060399.jpg

 

images.jpg


Edited by VictorMedvil, 02 December 2019 - 08:21 AM.


#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3150 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 08:32 AM

I have forgotten this stuff already... time to re-read again.



#11 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:56 PM

Relativistic Jets prove Penrose is correct to the point of that this process has actually been observed...

Relativistic jets have been observed. But that doesn't mean the Penrose process is correct. Have you ever actually read up on the Penrose process? Take a look at this: 

 

In the process, a lump of matter entering the ergosphere is triggered to split into two parts. For example, the matter might be made of two parts that separate by firing an explosive or rocket which pushes its halves apart. The momentum of the two pieces of matter when they separate can be arranged so that one piece escapes from the black hole (it "escapes to infinity"), whilst the other falls past the event horizon into the black hole. With careful arrangement, the escaping piece of matter can be made to have greater mass-energy than the original piece of matter, and the infalling piece has negative mass-energy. Although momentum is conserved the effect is that more energy can be extracted than was originally provided, the difference being provided by the black hole itself. 

 

It's total garbage. The infalling piece of matter doesn't have negative mass-energy. Yes, you can remove energy from a lump of matter by dropping it. Gravity converts potential energy into kinetic energy, and when you disperse the kinetic energy you're left with a mass deficit. But the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. You can't take more energy away from a body than it contains. 

 

Take a look at Penrose's 1964 paper on gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. He started by saying “the discovery of the quasi-stellar radio sources has stimulated renewed interest in the question of gravitational collapse”. He went on to say this: “it has been suggested by some authors [1] that the enormous amounts of energy that these objects apparently emit may result from the collapse of a mass of the order of (106 – 108)M to the neighborhood of its Schwarzschild radius”. 

 

The reason for this energy release is absolutely nothing to do with the Penrose process. It's due to something else. See this quote by Einstein: 

 

1920“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

 

A falling body falls faster and faster because the speed of light is getting slower and slower. Eventually the falling body would be falling faster than the local or "coordinate" speed of light. That can't happen because of the wave nature of matter. So something else happens. A gamma ray burst. See Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper gamma ray bursters and Lorentzian relativity. Friedwardt Winterberg was the guy who came up with the idea for GPS. 



#12 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 02 December 2019 - 05:04 PM

Relativistic jets have been observed. But that doesn't mean the Penrose process is correct. Have you ever actually read up on the Penrose process? Take a look at this: 

 

In the process, a lump of matter entering the ergosphere is triggered to split into two parts. For example, the matter might be made of two parts that separate by firing an explosive or rocket which pushes its halves apart. The momentum of the two pieces of matter when they separate can be arranged so that one piece escapes from the black hole (it "escapes to infinity"), whilst the other falls past the event horizon into the black hole. With careful arrangement, the escaping piece of matter can be made to have greater mass-energy than the original piece of matter, and the infalling piece has negative mass-energy. Although momentum is conserved the effect is that more energy can be extracted than was originally provided, the difference being provided by the black hole itself. 

 

It's total garbage. The infalling piece of matter doesn't have negative mass-energy. Yes, you can remove energy from a lump of matter by dropping it. Gravity converts potential energy into kinetic energy, and when you disperse the kinetic energy you're left with a mass deficit. But the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. You can't take more energy away from a body than it contains. 

 

Take a look at Penrose's 1964 paper on gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. He started by saying “the discovery of the quasi-stellar radio sources has stimulated renewed interest in the question of gravitational collapse”. He went on to say this: “it has been suggested by some authors [1] that the enormous amounts of energy that these objects apparently emit may result from the collapse of a mass of the order of (106 – 108)M to the neighborhood of its Schwarzschild radius”. 

 

The reason for this energy release is absolutely nothing to do with the Penrose process. It's due to something else. See this quote by Einstein: 

 

1920“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

 

A falling body falls faster and faster because the speed of light is getting slower and slower. Eventually the falling body would be falling faster than the local or "coordinate" speed of light. That can't happen because of the wave nature of matter. So something else happens. A gamma ray burst. See Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper gamma ray bursters and Lorentzian relativity. Friedwardt Winterberg was the guy who came up with the idea for GPS. 

 

You have surprised me now that's what I wanted to see, I would agree that Negative Energy-Mass upon falling into a black hole in nonsense too from this information it seems that Penrose could have been wrong about that section of his theory, but the part about the particles gaining energy from the black hole's rotation is the point I was making about Penrose being correct, on the other hand I highly doubt that Negative Energy-Mass is achieved beyond the event horizon.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 02 December 2019 - 05:07 PM.


#13 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 08:10 AM

You have surprised me now that's what I wanted to see, I would agree that Negative Energy-Mass upon falling into a black hole in nonsense too from this information it seems that Penrose could have been wrong about that section of his theory, but the part about the particles gaining energy from the black hole's rotation is the point I was making about Penrose being correct, on the other hand I highly doubt that Negative Energy-Mass is achieved beyond the event horizon.

Sorry Victor, but I don't think anything Penrose said about black holes is correct. I think Oppenheimer and Snyder's 1939 frozen star paper was largely correct. See their paper on continued gravitational contraction. The black hole is a frozen star where the speed of light is zero. And if the black hole is spinning at half the speed of light, well, half of zero is zero. 



#14 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1616 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:58 AM

Sorry Victor, but I don't think anything Penrose said about black holes is correct. I think Oppenheimer and Snyder's 1939 frozen star paper was largely correct. See their paper on continued gravitational contraction. The black hole is a frozen star where the speed of light is zero. And if the black hole is spinning at half the speed of light, well, half of zero is zero. 

Now that is incorrect as the speed of light does not vary, it is constant throughout the entire universe. So, it is a impossibility that it is a frozen star. If that is the case then how do you explain relativistic jets coming from black holes how do they gain the energy to move near the speed of light away from the black hole? In any case, the solution that I use is the Kerr-Newman Metric of a rotating and charged Super-Massive Black hole (https://en.wikipedia...r–Newman_metric), because the geometry matches the exact location of Relativistic jets unlike the other solutions for black holes which I tend towards being correct as relativistic jets have been observed from Super-Massive Black holes. To the point of the Kerr-Newman Metric explains Super-Massive Black Holes very well while maybe not smaller inactive black holes. The Inactive Black Holes maybe closer to the Schwarzchild Metric solution being uncharged and non-rotating.

 

Kerr-Newman BH Model.

 

Kerr-surfaces.png

 

 

Schwarzchild BH Model

3929337.jpg


Edited by VictorMedvil, 03 December 2019 - 10:47 AM.


#15 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3150 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 04:20 AM

It won't work, because a black hole is a place where the "coordinate" speed of light is zero,...


It will approach zero undercurrent models, my hope is for a new revolution in which light can never be at zero speeds as physics should not allow this.

#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3150 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 04:21 AM

Victor, no he is right. Light is a spatial variable and depends on the mediums geometry.

#17 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 07:53 AM

Now that is incorrect as the speed of light does not vary, it is constant throughout the entire universe. 

No, it varies in a gravitational field. This means pretty much everything Penrose ever said about black holes is wrong. Make sure you read what Einstein said:

 

1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.

1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”

1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

 

So, it is a impossibility that it is a frozen star. If that is the case then how do you explain relativistic jets coming from black holes how do they gain the energy to move near the speed of light away from the black hole?

Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, Victor. We call it gravitational time dilation. At the event horizon gravitational time dilation goes infinite, so the optical clock stops.

The relativistic jets get their energy from infalling matter erupting into a gamma ray burst as it approaches the event horizon. Again, see Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper. 

 

In any case, the solution that I use is the Kerr-Newman Metric of a rotating and charged Super-Massive Black hole (https://en.wikipedia...r–Newman_metric), because the geometry matches the exact location of Relativistic jets unlike the other solutions for black holes which I tend towards being correct as relativistic jets have been observed from Super-Massive Black holes. To the point of the Kerr-Newman Metric explains Super-Massive Black Holes very well while maybe not smaller inactive black holes. The Inactive Black Holes maybe closer to the Schwarzchild Metric solution being uncharged and non-rotating.

 

Make sure you read this: Kerr black holes as wormholes: "This second exterior is sometimes thought of as another universe. On the other hand, in the Kerr solution, the singularity is a ring, and the curve may pass through the center of this ring. The region beyond permits closed time-like curves. Since the trajectory of observers and particles in general relativity are described by time-like curves, it is possible for observers in this region to return to their past". It's all a load of baloney. It's science fiction. So is everything else about the Kerr-Newman metric. I've written an article about black holes if you're interested. See this.