Science > Physics > Are we sure that black holes contain singularities?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2007 04:45:18 AM |
| Object: |
Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
.... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
04 Aug 2007 12:53:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
What is the mechanism for stopping the collapse?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
04 Aug 2007 02:26:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Physicists, by and large, don't believe in physical singularities. So I
think most of them would say they're pretty sure that black holes *don't*
contain singularities. But the nature of what they might contain instead is
totally unknown. It's definitely not anything that can be described in terms
of known physics.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
07 Aug 2007 11:39:35 AM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 3:26 pm, Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276delet...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Kamil.S...@gmail.com wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Physicists, by and large, don't believe in physical singularities. So I
think most of them would say they're pretty sure that black holes *don't*
contain singularities. But the nature of what they might contain instead is
totally unknown. It's definitely not anything that can be described in terms
of known physics.
I suppose if be extrapolation of known physics you reach a
mathematical singularity, and if you do not accept the mathematical
singularity as a complete physical description, then by definition you
are invoking unknown physics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
04 Aug 2007 05:49:12 AM |
|
|
On 4 Sie, 11:45, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_limit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hannu Poropudas" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
04 Aug 2007 02:19:31 PM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4 Sie, 11:45, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.http://en.wik=
ipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_limit
I don't know how rotation and Pauli exclusion principle should
be taken into account in this case, but I think that those
quarks are those which prevent the full collapse.
Those quarks are PIECES of "neutrino star" (=3D"8/8-diamond")
as I have many times tried to explain in these sci-groups when
I have recalled again about those old H-M's drawings
and my old writings about them.
Hannu
Copy of your above mentioned wikipedia article:
" [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit is an upper bound to the
mass of stars composed of neutron-degenerate matter (neutron stars).
It is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars.
The limit was computed by Julius Robert Oppenheimer and George Michael
Volkoff in 1939, using work of Richard Chace Tolman. Oppenheimer and
Volkoff assumed that the neutrons in a neutron star formed a cold,
degenerate Fermi gas. This leads to a limiting mass of approximately
0=2E7 solar masses.[1],[2] Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5
to 3.0 solar masses.[3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact
that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well-
known.
In an neutron star lighter than the limit, the weight of the star is
supported by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions
mediated by the strong force and also the quantum degeneracy pressure
of neutrons. If a neutron star is heavier than the limit, it will
collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change
composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark
degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star).
Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate
matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate
matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into
a black hole.
Black holes formed by the collapse of individual stars have masses
ranging from 1.5-3.0 (TOV limit) to 10 solar masses.
References
1=2E ^ Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of
Fluid, Richard C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15,
1939), pp. 364-373.
2=2E ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff,
Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374-381.
3=2E ^ Bombaci, I. (1996). "The maximum mass of a neutron star".
Astronomy and Astrophysics 305: 871-877.
See also
=B7 Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation ]"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mathematician" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 09:40:26 AM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 10:19 pm, Hannu Poropudas <hapor...@luukku.com> wrote:
On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4 Sie, 11:45, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.http://en.w=
ikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_limit
I don't know how rotation and Pauli exclusion principle should
be taken into account in this case, but I think that those
quarks are those which prevent the full collapse.
Those quarks are PIECES of "neutrino star" (=3D"8/8-diamond")
as I have many times tried to explain in these sci-groups when
I have recalled again about those old H-M's drawings
and my old writings about them.
Hannu
If those quarks have also that "color electricity flame" around
them as "neutrino star" has then I would expect that huge
explosion would happen.
If quarks do not have that "color electricity flame" around
them then I would expect that "neutrino star" forms.
This is a matter which I don't know at the moment how it is
but I suspect that the first case would be right.
Hannu
Copy of your above mentioned wikipedia article:
" [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit is an upper bound to the
mass of stars composed of neutron-degenerate matter (neutron stars).
It is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars.
The limit was computed by Julius Robert Oppenheimer and George Michael
Volkoff in 1939, using work of Richard Chace Tolman. Oppenheimer and
Volkoff assumed that the neutrons in a neutron star formed a cold,
degenerate Fermi gas. This leads to a limiting mass of approximately
0.7 solar masses.[1],[2] Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5
to 3.0 solar masses.[3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact
that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well-
known.
In an neutron star lighter than the limit, the weight of the star is
supported by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions
mediated by the strong force and also the quantum degeneracy pressure
of neutrons. If a neutron star is heavier than the limit, it will
collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change
composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark
degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star).
Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate
matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate
matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into
a black hole.
Black holes formed by the collapse of individual stars have masses
ranging from 1.5-3.0 (TOV limit) to 10 solar masses.
References
1. ^ Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of
Fluid, Richard C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15,
1939), pp. 364-373.
2. ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff,
Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374-381.
3. ^ Bombaci, I. (1996). "The maximum mass of a neutron star".
Astronomy and Astrophysics 305: 871-877.
See also
=B7 Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation ]"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mathematician" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 12:54:05 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 5:40 pm, mathematician <hapor...@luukku.com> wrote:
On Aug 4, 10:19 pm, Hannu Poropudas <hapor...@luukku.com> wrote:
On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4 Sie, 11:45, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some signific=
ant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.http://en=
..wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_limit
I don't know how rotation and Pauli exclusion principle should
be taken into account in this case, but I think that those
quarks are those which prevent the full collapse.
Those quarks are PIECES of "neutrino star" (=3D"8/8-diamond")
as I have many times tried to explain in these sci-groups when
I have recalled again about those old H-M's drawings
and my old writings about them.
Hannu
If those quarks have also that "color electricity flame" around
them as "neutrino star" has then I would expect that huge
explosion would happen.
If quarks do not have that "color electricity flame" around
them then I would expect that "neutrino star" forms.
Oh no, it cannot be "neutrino star" in this case
due "neutrino star" is formed from one "radiation periphery".
I remember that in those old H-M's drawings
no "color electricity flame" was drawn around those quarks.
Quarks were drawn two ways: first was those 8-sided regular
polygons ("color electricity" colored and those two types of
"color electricity" scratches in two of them) and
second way was such that quarks have "light periphery" and
"color electricity spot" in center of that
(This last was in drawing of structure of proton and neutron,
I think that quark resembled "black-hole" in this last way).
I must admit that I don't really know what happens here,
but I know that those quarks have born in so extreme
conditions if I recall my old writings about H-M's old
drawings that in this case they cannot, I think, be compressed
to zero dimensions.
Sorry about my confusions. Try to figure out this from those
old H-M's drawings and my remarks on them due they are reliable.
Hannu
This is a matter which I don't know at the moment how it is
but I suspect that the first case would be right.
Hannu
Copy of your above mentioned wikipedia article:
" [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit is an upper bound to the
mass of stars composed of neutron-degenerate matter (neutron stars).
It is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars.
The limit was computed by Julius Robert Oppenheimer and George Michael
Volkoff in 1939, using work of Richard Chace Tolman. Oppenheimer and
Volkoff assumed that the neutrons in a neutron star formed a cold,
degenerate Fermi gas. This leads to a limiting mass of approximately
0.7 solar masses.[1],[2] Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5
to 3.0 solar masses.[3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact
that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well-
known.
In an neutron star lighter than the limit, the weight of the star is
supported by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions
mediated by the strong force and also the quantum degeneracy pressure
of neutrons. If a neutron star is heavier than the limit, it will
collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change
composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark
degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star).
Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate
matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate
matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into
a black hole.
Black holes formed by the collapse of individual stars have masses
ranging from 1.5-3.0 (TOV limit) to 10 solar masses.
References
1. ^ Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of
Fluid, Richard C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15,
1939), pp. 364-373.
2. ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff,
Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374-381.
3. ^ Bombaci, I. (1996). "The maximum mass of a neutron star".
Astronomy and Astrophysics 305: 871-877.
See also
=B7 Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation ]"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
04 Aug 2007 04:39:43 PM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 1:45 am, "Kamil.S...@gmail.com" <Kamil.S...@gmail.com>
wrote:
... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant
volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle?
The Pauli exclusion principle was the only thing propping up the
neutron star against gravity's crush. It wasn't enough.
Two things you have to keep in mind:
a) Singularities are an unavoidable consequence of general relativity.
To get rid of them, we need a new theory.
b) The singularity in a black hole which rotates is not a point but
rather a ring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 07:29:52 AM |
|
|
a) Singularities are an unavoidable consequence of general relativity.
To get rid of them, we need a new theory.
General relativity cannot predict behavior of very small objects so it
cannot claim anything about singularities since they are by definition
such objects, as I understand it. So I guess we really have no idea
what happens inside real black hole because neither general relativity
not quantum physics apply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 08:45:15 AM |
|
|
<Kamil.Szot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186316992.915992.283540@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
a) Singularities are an unavoidable consequence of general relativity.
To get rid of them, we need a new theory.
General relativity cannot predict behavior of very small objects so it
cannot claim anything about singularities since they are by definition
such objects, as I understand it. So I guess we really have no idea
what happens inside real black hole because neither general relativity
not quantum physics apply.
There's a whole lot of "inside" inside a black hole.
Schwarzchild radii for typical black holes are thought
to run from several kilometers solar mass black holes
to billions of kilometers for billion solar mass BHs.
GR should work just fine until very close proximity of
a singularity, perhaps within a few Planck lengths.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 10:45:05 AM |
|
|
There's a whole lot of "inside" inside a black hole.
Schwarzchild radii for typical black holes are thought
to run from several kilometers solar mass black holes
to billions of kilometers for billion solar mass BHs.
GR should work just fine until very close proximity of
a singularity, perhaps within a few Planck lengths.
And another thing ... Let's assume that black hole is built of
neutrons, and that they are evenly randomly distributed inside
Schwarzschild radius.
What would be the average distance between neutron and it's closest
neighbor?
How many neutrons there would be?
n=(r*c^2)/(2*G*m)
n - number of neutrons inside
m - mass of neutron
c - speed of light
r - shwarzishild radius (let's assume 10^6 meters)
G - gravitational constant
Volume of sphere is:
V = 4/3*(pi)*r^3
Let's think of this sphere as built of n cubes with edges of length a.
V = n * a^3
So if the neutrons were placed precisely in centers of these cubes
then the a is distance between to closest neutrons. Average distance
should be something of the same order of magnitude as a.
Fast calculation on the back of the envelope tells me it's something
around 10^-16 ... little slower calculation in OpenOffice Calc give
2,18E-014
It is quantum realm already, right? So general relativity shouldn't
claim anything about what happens inside. It maybe is even close
enough for strong force to kick in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 12:28:17 PM |
|
|
<Kamil.Szot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186328705.951158.143740@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There's a whole lot of "inside" inside a black hole.
Schwarzchild radii for typical black holes are thought
to run from several kilometers solar mass black holes
to billions of kilometers for billion solar mass BHs.
GR should work just fine until very close proximity of
a singularity, perhaps within a few Planck lengths.
And another thing ... Let's assume that black hole is built of
neutrons, and that they are evenly randomly distributed inside
Schwarzschild radius.
That assumption is patently false, as the gravity inside
the event horizon overwhelms degeneracy pressure -- the
black hole forms because the neutrons have already been
crushed together and collapsed.
Any conclusions drawn from a false premis cannot be
trusted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 06:46:34 AM |
|
|
And another thing ... Let's assume that black hole is built of
neutrons, and that they are evenly randomly distributed inside
Schwarzschild radius.
That assumption is patently false, as the gravity inside
the event horizon overwhelms degeneracy pressure -- the
black hole forms because the neutrons have already been
crushed together and collapsed.
Any conclusions drawn from a false premis cannot be
trusted.
I don't say that there are really neutrons inside or that they are
really evenly distributed.
I just wanted to roughly estimate distances between particles located
inside event horizon whatever they are, to find out if these distances
are small enough for quantum effects.
I might have taken protons, or electrons ... anything that has
"particle density" ... preferably I should use heaviest quarks for
this calculation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 07:36:26 AM |
|
|
<Kamil.Szot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186400794.989580.145370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
And another thing ... Let's assume that black hole is built of
neutrons, and that they are evenly randomly distributed inside
Schwarzschild radius.
That assumption is patently false, as the gravity inside
the event horizon overwhelms degeneracy pressure -- the
black hole forms because the neutrons have already been
crushed together and collapsed.
Any conclusions drawn from a false premis cannot be
trusted.
I don't say that there are really neutrons inside or that they are
really evenly distributed.
I just wanted to roughly estimate distances between particles located
inside event horizon whatever they are, to find out if these distances
are small enough for quantum effects.
I might have taken protons, or electrons ... anything that has
"particle density" ... preferably I should use heaviest quarks for
this calculation.
The problem is, suppose for the sake of argument that
the neutrons are crushed to pure quarks. The quarks
can take up a much smaller volume than the neutrons
did (in fact, in the standard model they are point
particles kept apart by the strong nuclear force and the
Pauli Exclusion Principle), but the event horizon stays
where it was since it's a gravitational effect depending
only upon the contained mass which doesn't change. So
already you'll have a lot of empty space surrounding the
matter in which standard GR can hold.
When gravity overcomes the quark degeneracy pressure,
there doesn't seem to be anything that can prevent all
those point particles from collapsing to a single point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 02:33:43 PM |
|
|
[...] The quarks
can take up a much smaller volume than the neutrons
did (in fact, in the standard model they are point
particles kept apart by the strong nuclear force and the
Pauli Exclusion Principle), but the event horizon stays
where it was since it's a gravitational effect depending
only upon the contained mass which doesn't change. So
already you'll have a lot of empty space surrounding the
matter in which standard GR can hold.
When gravity overcomes the quark degeneracy pressure,
there doesn't seem to be anything that can prevent all
those point particles from collapsing to a single point.
Now I understand. GR states that matter must be pushed towards center
with extreme force. And inside central zone (very small size) there
are no quantum effects that could counteract gravity. So existence of
singularity is not against quantum theory (since quarks are believed
to be point particles and there are no other forces except strong
nuclear force and Pauli exclusion principle). If quantum theory is
applicable in such curved space as inside of black hole then the
singularity is completely legal in all theories that we believe in. So
we should also believe in singularities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 02:47:57 PM |
|
|
<Kamil.Szot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186428823.154447.223060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[...] The quarks
can take up a much smaller volume than the neutrons
did (in fact, in the standard model they are point
particles kept apart by the strong nuclear force and the
Pauli Exclusion Principle), but the event horizon stays
where it was since it's a gravitational effect depending
only upon the contained mass which doesn't change. So
already you'll have a lot of empty space surrounding the
matter in which standard GR can hold.
When gravity overcomes the quark degeneracy pressure,
there doesn't seem to be anything that can prevent all
those point particles from collapsing to a single point.
Now I understand. GR states that matter must be pushed towards center
with extreme force. And inside central zone (very small size) there
are no quantum effects that could counteract gravity. So existence of
singularity is not against quantum theory (since quarks are believed
to be point particles and there are no other forces except strong
nuclear force and Pauli exclusion principle). If quantum theory is
applicable in such curved space as inside of black hole then the
singularity is completely legal in all theories that we believe in. So
we should also believe in singularities.
Right. Good summary.
What is still questioned is how space will behave
very close to such a massive singularity. GR doesn't
predict what the structure of space will be on such
short scales with so much stress energy present, and
quantum theory doesn't tell us how gravity should
effect things at these scales either!
There are some guesses like quantum foam structure,
but nothing is settled yet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 12:36:26 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 11:28 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
<Kamil.S...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186328705.951158.143740@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There's a whole lot of "inside" inside a black hole.
Schwarzchild radii for typical black holes are thought
to run from several kilometers solar mass black holes
to billions of kilometers for billion solar mass BHs.
GR should work just fine until very close proximity of
a singularity, perhaps within a few Planck lengths.
And another thing ... Let's assume that black hole is built of
neutrons, and that they are evenly randomly distributed inside
Schwarzschild radius.
That assumption is patently false, as the gravity inside
the event horizon overwhelms degeneracy pressure -- the
black hole forms because the neutrons have already been
crushed together and collapsed.
Any conclusions drawn from a false premis cannot be
trusted.
The 'theorized' gravity inside the event horizon drawn
on information about 'uncollapsed' neutrons' gravity, which
create their gravity..........how?.............we don't know.
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
Any conclusions based on someone who can't
spell 'premise' are suspect.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 12:47:57 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 12:53:44 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 05:10:56 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 9:53 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
www.google.com "how to use google"
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 10:09:00 AM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 4:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:53 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
www.google.com"how to use google"
Eric, no black hole has ever been observed.
We looked around for them, because our gravity
'theory', when taken to extremes, predicts them.
There are extremely massive places at the center
of galaxies, and these are the things we have seized
upon as being 'black holes'. They are 'galactic nuclei',
Eric, and they are a 'black hole candidate'.
Gravitation from galactic centers has been observed.
Big deal.
The 'theory' behind black holes is this: the more matter,
the more gravity. It is flawed. And the proof is
the singularity. It is a paradox- matter having no volume.
Any time you arrive at a paradox, it is proof that your
theory is flawed.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 05:26:03 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 7:09 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:53 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
www.google.com"how to use google"
Eric, no black hole has ever been observed.
The compact objects we see obey all the properties of black holes.
Some of them even spin.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
[snip spew]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 10:17:42 AM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
Eric, no black hole has ever been observed.
John have you ever seen any of the electrons, atoms or molecules you
claim to model?
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 02:56:31 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 9:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Eric, no black hole has ever been observed.
John have you ever seen any of the electrons, atoms or molecules you
claim to model?
Individual atoms have been imaged.
I have seen a film of that.
Electrons and molecules are manipulated all the time.
Black holes are pure fantasy/speculation based on 'what
if gravity can get that intense'?
Put something on Jupiter and measure the gravity.
See if it is in the range we expect. Don't extrapolate to
so-called black hole levels if you don't
even have enough points to determine if planetary gravities
increase in a straight line.
That's either silly, or..................the 'c' word.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 03:04:56 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Eric, no black hole has ever been observed.
John have you ever seen any of the electrons, atoms or molecules you
claim to model?
Individual atoms have been imaged.
I have seen a film of that.
Electrons and molecules are manipulated all the time.
Black holes are pure fantasy/speculation based on 'what
if gravity can get that intense'?
Put something on Jupiter and measure the gravity.
See if it is in the range we expect. Don't extrapolate to
so-called black hole levels if you don't
even have enough points to determine if planetary gravities
increase in a straight line.
That's either silly, or..................the 'c' word.
John
We measure the mass of Jupiter using the same techniques as measuring the
mass of the big black hole called Sgr A... by monitoring the orbits of
stuff going around it.
Monster of the Milky Way 58:30
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/program.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3314_blackhol.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
07 Aug 2007 09:41:55 AM |
|
|
Sam If BHs don't have a singularity at the exact center of their cores
it was created to do nothing,and there is no such thing as nothing.
Also the heart of my critical mass density theory would have no
meaning,and that would hurt my ego. bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
05 Aug 2007 01:25:59 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
For example the one in the center of the galaxy... and M31... and M87.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 10:52:43 AM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Do collapsed neutrons still gravitate?
Why?
Why not?
The gravitation from black holes is observed.
What black holes?
For example the one in the center of the galaxy... and M31... and M87.
Yes, Sam, there are massive centers
to galaxies.
There are also massive centers to atoms.
Sam, if there were such a thing as
black holes that eat matter, there would
be *less* matter around them. If galactic centers
were black holes, they would be surrounded
by voids, not millions of stars.
Space is virtually empty *except* around
galactic centers.
Are the sources of water at oases surrounded
by plants because the water there attracts the
plants in order to eliminate them?
Where the cows graze the field behind
the fence, there is less greenery than in
the ditch- why, Sam?
Where people burn wood for fuel, there
is less deadwood close to where they live and more
further away. Why, Sam?
So, why, if your black hole/galactic center eats
stars, are there only stars in close proximity to each
and every one- by the multi-millions- and next to none
*everywhere else*?
Methinks somebody is feeding you a line.
And you're swallowing it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 11:20:46 AM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
Yes, Sam, there are massive centers to galaxies.
There are also massive centers to atoms.
Don't forget massive centers to planets and massive centers to
aging stars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? |
06 Aug 2007 02:49:02 PM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 10:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
malibu wrote:
Yes, Sam, there are massive centers to galaxies.
There are also massive centers to atoms.
Don't forget massive centers to planets and massive centers to
aging stars.
You have wonderful concentration, Sam, and a way
of keeping it focussed away from anything that
gets in the way of your worldview.
I suggest we call it the 'ostrich syndrome'.
Sam, perhaps you'll be our head ostrich;
big butt, small mind, and eyes full of sand.
(Oh yeah- and can't fly.)
(-:
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
