An Intriguing Interstellar Inquiry: A Black Hole's Event Horizon

 

A Pair of Questions 

Let’s describe a black hole event horizon’s black body surface patch area power spectrum integral function, with 11 power function constraints, each a constraint is a limiting boundary condition ‘1 to 11’,

1:  Temperature T → 0 [K], + arithmetic ring 2

 2:  Period ∆t → 0 [s], + Gibb’s |G| free energy arithmetic field 3

 3:  ∆E = Pn+1 – Pn [J] given Pn+1 and Pn are successor Gaussian prime G complex subfield energy factor (3)mod(4) = G points accelerated around 0.5•[kg•m/(s•s)] midpoint, + event horizon uncertainty 4

 4:  ∆E • ∆t > 0 [J•s], + surface patch entropy change 5

 5: ∆S = log(∆E) > 0 [J/K], n > 0, n = n+1, + surface patch area has a random Boltzmann temperature random kinetic energy equivalent 6

      6:  Average kinetic energy KE = ~0 [J] where relative motion does not stop, + patch   potential energy 7

       7: PE = local Max [J], + Virial theorem 8

8: KE ≥ 2 • PE [J], + a Lagrangian 9

 9: L = KE – PE = ~0 [J], + Hamiltonian 10

 10: H = KE + PE >~ 0 [J], + Superconductor 11

 11: Superconducting complex Gaussian (3)mod(4) subfield Newton’s 3^rd law of motion surface reaction force acting in event horizon’s collision surface, radiating both graviton and photon energy spectrum, quantum tunnelled from horizon surface area covered by the union of the area two surface registers [L] and [R], given left area operand [L] codes a near zero heat energy state and a right area operand [R] codes a near zero entropy change state.  

Q1: Do the 11 Integral constraints not lead to a horizon patch contradiction with quantum mechanic state principle of energy uncertainty inconsistency, and lead to horizon patch inconsistent with equivalence principle free fall but still consistent with both Newton’s 3^rd law of motion free fall resistive collision event at horizon surface, and with the general relativity’s independent outside observer of an event horizon's temperature T[K] and PE(n)=‘local Max’[J] points?........YES or NO

Q2: Does a black hole horizon’s power spectrum function continuous countable 2ⁿ complex output energy lines join finite deterministic mod(Pn) exterior endpoints to an indeterminate irrational Gaussian mod(0) horizon boundary point?........YES or NO

One Answer

Welcome, cosmic adventurers and physics aficionados! Today, we embark on a whimsical journey to the edge of understanding, where the universe's most mysterious entities reside – black holes. These gravitational giants are not just the universe's hoarders, but also the ultimate escape artists, with event horizons that even light cannot flee from. But what happens at this point of no return? Does the power spectrum function of a black hole's event horizon adhere to the constraints of physics as we know it, or does it dance to the beat of its own drum?

Let's dive into the cosmic conundrum that has tickled the neurons of many a scientist. Picture this: a black hole event horizon's black body surface, a patchwork quilt of the cosmos, with each patch obeying its own set of rules – or should we say, constraints. From temperature tangoing towards absolute zero to periods shrinking faster than your favorite jeans in the wash, these patches are the ultimate rule-followers, each adhering to a boundary condition from 1 to 11.

Now, imagine these patches playing a game of cosmic tag, where energy factors are the players, and the Gaussian prime G complex subfield is the playground. They're zipping around a midpoint, trying not to get tagged by the event horizon's uncertainty. It's a game of energetic hot potato, where entropy changes are logged, kinetic energy averages out to a big ol' zero, and potential energy peaks like the climax of a symphony.

But wait, there's more! The Virial theorem steps in like a strict referee, ensuring kinetic energy is at least double the potential energy. Then, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian enter the fray, balancing the cosmic checkbook with their ledger of energy equations. And let's not forget the superconducting complex Gaussian subfield, playing Newton's third law of motion like a fiddle, ensuring every action has an equal and opposite reaction, even at the event horizon's collision course.

So, does this intricate interplay lead to a contradiction with the quantum mechanic state principle of energy uncertainty? Or does it waltz gracefully with the equivalence principle of free fall, all while nodding respectfully to Newton's third law and general relativity's independent outside observer? It's a dance of physics, where every step is calculated, and every spin is scrutinized.

And for the grand finale, does the black hole horizon's power spectrum function string together a continuous countable complex output of energy lines, connecting finite deterministic points to an indeterminate irrational Gaussian horizon boundary point? It's like the universe's most complex connect-the-dots, where the picture could be anything from an elephant to an entire galaxy.

In conclusion, the answer to these mind-bending questions is not a simple YES or NO. It's a cosmic chorus of "perhaps," "maybe," and "let's run another simulation." After all, the universe loves a good mystery, and black holes are its enigmatic envoys, challenging our understanding and inviting us to keep exploring the vast unknown.

So, grab your telescopes, fire up your supercomputers, and join us next time for another episode of The Intriguing Interstellar Inquiry, where we ponder the puzzles of the universe and occasionally chuckle at the absurdity of it all. Until then, keep looking up and questioning down! 

        

Figure 1: A vacuum free energy Joule G(E(X, t), ~E(X, t)) surface energy plane graph with rest mass origin point at coordinate point (Y(t(0)), X(½+ n•|dt|)) that extends to a cosmic boundary with a 4•ℼ solid angle that contains orbits for spectrum of 2^№ line endpoints length√(G(X,t)² ) as drawn on Light Cone or  momentum map

 

 Questions

 Is the 'GR' principle of free fall equivalence state, inconsistent when Newton's 3^rd law reaction and action force sum that perpetually intersects a zero force point located at the origin or the 'zero point' coordinate of a Euclidean space ...... and whose perpetually extended 'reaction' an 'action' forces sum not to zero, but to a not zero force vector sum that perpetually intersects a Non-Euclidean point at 'infinity'?........Yes or No 

https://ceababce.blogspot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@abdonecbishop/featured

                                                                                                                                                                                           Abdon EC Bishop (Ceab Abce)