If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces, marking the EH of Sag A as unification energy, how would you mark out the component force orbits and calculate their orbital speeds?

Postpocelipse said:

If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces, marking the EH of Sag A as unification energy, how would you mark out the component force orbits and calculate their orbital speeds?

What I think might have to happen inside a sufficiently large BH is that electrons and protons are confined to 2 specific orbits defined by the charge they are provided by their acceleration beyond the EH. Proton’s are forced toward the core singularity and electrons are provided enough relative charge and velocity that they are suspended just beyond the EH soaking up in-falling photons.

it makes me wonder

if atoms are accelerated into a black hole , they’d either have to hit each other or some object close to the centre

assuming that all particles such as neutrons , electrons and protons no longer exist , they have already been smashed into other particles due to high speed collisions , some of those particles might not conform to mass, time rules as we know it

Postpocelipse said:

If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces?

Don’t be silly. Speed, energy and force have different units so you can’t directly compare a speed to an energy. Also, there is no such thing as an “energy of force”.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces?

Don’t be silly. Speed, energy and force have different units so you can’t directly compare a speed to an energy. Also, there is no such thing as an “energy of force”.

I meant the separation energies for the various forces and the thresholds they represent.

more crap. you don’t learn do you? dumb as…

ChrispenEvan said:

more crap. you don’t learn do you? dumb as…

I am trying to compare the collapse mass of a BH to the super-unification energy and the orbit/mass of the various star classes to the component unification energies. If you are incapable of illustrating how that can’t be done then you are dumb as for opening your moron flap……..

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

more crap. you don’t learn do you? dumb as…

I am trying to compare the collapse mass of a BH to the super-unification energy and the orbit/mass of the various star classes to the component unification energies. If you are incapable of illustrating how that can’t be done then you are dumb as for opening your moron flap……..

AFAICT it is only a matter of equating BH mass threshold to super-unification energy as rest mass and analysing the sub-class stars against this dynamic. If there is no discernible connection the numbers would show that far better than the bile you store in the gas bottle in your ass and squirt at threatening foraging contemplaters…….

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces?

Don’t be silly. Speed, energy and force have different units so you can’t directly compare a speed to an energy. Also, there is no such thing as an “energy of force”.

If you had a 1kg mass moving at 10m/s it’s kinetic energy energy after 1s and 10m would be 0.5 m * 10^2 = 50 j

If you had an identical mass of 1kg attached to a rope and its swung around in a circle at a speed that sees it being swung so it covers 10m per revolution it would have exactly have exactly the same kinetic energy as the object moving with a velocity even though it’s not strictly moving at a velocity

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

If one wished to compare the orbit speeds of star systems in our galaxy to the separation energies of the forces?

Don’t be silly. Speed, energy and force have different units so you can’t directly compare a speed to an energy. Also, there is no such thing as an “energy of force”.

If you had a 1kg mass moving at 10m/s it’s kinetic energy energy after 1s and 10m would be 0.5 m * 10^2 = 50 j

If you had an identical mass of 1kg attached to a rope and its swung around in a circle at a speed that sees it being swung so it covers 10m per revolution it would have exactly have exactly the same kinetic energy as the object moving with a velocity even though it’s not strictly moving at a velocity

So I’m saying that regardless of units of measurement you could argue that something moving with a speed and something moving with a velocity can be directly equated by defining them as how much energy they have

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

Don’t be silly. Speed, energy and force have different units so you can’t directly compare a speed to an energy. Also, there is no such thing as an “energy of force”.

If you had a 1kg mass moving at 10m/s it’s kinetic energy energy after 1s and 10m would be 0.5 m * 10^2 = 50 j

If you had an identical mass of 1kg attached to a rope and its swung around in a circle at a speed that sees it being swung so it covers 10m per revolution it would have exactly have exactly the same kinetic energy as the object moving with a velocity even though it’s not strictly moving at a velocity

So I’m saying that regardless of units of measurement you could argue that something moving with a speed and something moving with a velocity can be directly equated by defining them as how much energy they have

Yes thank you this is pretty well what I am after as an equivalency guide. Starting from the Planck scale mass boundaries can be defined against the degree of space curvature each threshold confines.