Author Topic: No Black Holes?  (Read 916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
No Black Holes?
« on: June 18, 2014, 02:28:45 PM »
Found this when looking through a recent science article on Hawking radiation.

http://www.noblackholes.com/

The gist of the argument seems to be that black holes can't form because of various physical limitations, specifically that it's impossible for a compacting mass to compress past the Schwartzschild radius due to time dilation, and that a collapsing star will eventually disintegrate without ever quite reaching it.  According to them, as the radius of a collapsing mass approaches the critical radius, some of it will (from the perspective of an observer near the star) disintegrate very quickly and be emitted as radiation, thus preventing the mass from collapsing into a black hole (although it will repeatedly approach doing so before another layer of it disintegrates, and so on).  This also apparently explains quasars, at least according to them.

I can't say I'm particularly impressed[1], but I thought I'd share it and see what people thought.
 1. Frankly, I am rather unimpressed, as his argument makes extensive use of the journey of an imaginary pair of astronauts named Bob and Betty; Bob goes to the black hole, and Betty records his journey using a high-memory video camera.  Basically, he claims that we can figure out what actually happened to Bob by simply running the video tape at an extremely high speed and that this somehow disproves black holes.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2014, 02:48:28 PM »
Having read a bit further into the actual technical papers, I think I've pinpointed the mistaken reasoning that underlies this argument.  Time and time again, the articles on the website emphasize that a massive object (such as a star) cannot compress past the Schwartzschild radius because the outer layers will blow off in a burst of intense radiation (similar to what happens in a supernova) when they approach that radius.  However, they do not touch upon the scenario wherein some of the matter inside the star is what initially collapses into a black hole.  The initial formation of a black hole does not have to be particularly large; it would grow as additional mass was pulled in and contributed to the black hole's gravity field.  There would be no escape for that mass by disintegrating into radiation and emitting as the Schwartzschild radius shrunk; even if it did disintegrate, it would still be near the center of a very large and massive object anyway.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2014, 04:59:19 PM »
So what they're saying is that our observations of black holes' enormous gravitational pull, which creates dark spots in our line of sight, since light can't escape it, are incorrect. Is light just bouncing off of something that happens to be more or less spherical and affects all light around it; not just light "behind" it (relative to us)?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2014, 05:23:33 PM »
Apparently, it's because the gravitational pull approaches the speed of light, but can't surpass it.  Since it gets infinitesimally close, the escape of radiation from it is slowed to almost a complete stop, but will eventually escape.  That part actually makes sense, after a fashion - it follows from general relativity and other things accepted by scientists for decades.

The part that I don't agree with is their statement that as something approaches the Schwartzschild radius, its outer layers will effectively flash into radiation, causing the near-black hole to "burp", since the reduction in mass causes the Schwartzschild radius to drop below the critical point, allowing the energy to escape more easily.  On top of my objection from before, this necessarily presumes that the reduction in the radius of the object (caused by its mass that turns to energy) is not equal to or greater than the reduction in the Schwartzschild radius.  I haven't done the math on this, so I don't know; I'm not sure that I can do the math on it, since it's very complicated.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2014, 05:44:09 PM »
I haven't done the math on this, so I don't know; I'm not sure that I can do the math on it, since it's very complicated.

Maybe I'm not getting the equation, but it seems fairly simple. 1/2M - r, where, if r = 2M, then r is the Schwarzschild[1] radius. Then we have E = Mc2. All we need is the object's average density (which, if it's an actual black hole, will be infinite, due to the singularity) and how big the "outer layers" are.
 1. God dammit that's hard to spell.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2014, 06:12:48 PM »
I haven't done the math on this, so I don't know; I'm not sure that I can do the math on it, since it's very complicated.

Maybe I'm not getting the equation, but it seems fairly simple. 1/2M - r, where, if r = 2M, then r is the Schwarzschild[1] radius. Then we have E = Mc2. All we need is the object's average density (which, if it's an actual black hole, will be infinite, due to the singularity) and how big the "outer layers" are.
 1. God dammit that's hard to spell.
Quick question, how can density be infinite if the volume is not zero?
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2014, 06:15:08 PM »
Quick question, how can density be infinite if the volume is not zero?

I said average density. At the very core of the black hole, everything is compressed into an infinitesimal space, which makes its density infinite. However, things around this limit don't necessarily need to have infinite density as well.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2014, 06:18:56 PM »
I know what you said, but there's still the point that is infinitely dense; how can it be without zero volume?
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2014, 06:23:03 PM »
I know what you said, but there's still the point that is infinitely dense; how can it be without zero volume?

I swear to baby Jesus H. Christ, if I have to go back to having "Read my posts in full before replying" in my sig...
At the very core of the black hole, everything is compressed into an infinitesimal space, which makes its density infinite.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2014, 06:29:03 PM »
I know. I read.

If volume is not zero, density isn't infinite. Good enough?

Infinitesimal only implies a VERY VERY VERY small volume. However, how can infinite fit in ANY amount of volume? It does not. If there's a density in space, then it cannot be infinitely packed, since density requires matter in an area which is packed as can be: Zero. An elephant in a bottle is less densely packed than an elephant packed a bottle without room for anything.

I don't even know. Bye.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2014, 06:36:30 PM »
I know. I read.

That was not my assessment.

If volume is not zero, density isn't infinite. Good enough?

Nope. There's another way density can be infinite: if the mass is infinite.

Infinitesimal only implies a VERY VERY VERY small volume.

I say "infinitesimal" because, as far as I know, we can only go so far before our math and physics break down.

However, how can infinite fit in ANY amount of volume? It does not.

It actually does. How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? Infinite. Yet they are perfectly contained within 1 and 2. You are conflating infinite with boundless. Infinity can be contained.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2014, 06:39:09 PM »
Yes but can't you grab and hold all the numbers between 1 and 2? Nope. They aren't physical concepts that can be grabbed. They have no substance but as concepts.

Sure, infinity can be contained, just in an infinite space; not in the cramped centre of a Black hole.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2014, 06:50:51 PM »
Yes but can't you grab and hold all the numbers between 1 and 2? Nope. They aren't physical concepts that can be grabbed. They have no substance but as concepts.

It's an analogy. Since infinity is a mathematical thing, the analogy is valid.

Sure, infinity can be contained, just in an infinite space; not in the cramped centre of a Black hole.

The fact that infinity can be contained is part of the Big Bang theory. A big part, I think.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2014, 06:53:10 PM »
Yes but can't you grab and hold all the numbers between 1 and 2? Nope. They aren't physical concepts that can be grabbed. They have no substance but as concepts.

It's an analogy. Since infinity is a mathematical thing, the analogy is valid.

Sure, infinity can be contained, just in an infinite space; not in the cramped centre of a Black hole.

The fact that infinity can be contained is part of the Big Bang theory. A big part, I think.
Alright.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2014, 08:36:59 PM »
Actually, the center of a black hole probably does not have infinite density or infinite anything else.  When we get infinity as the result of anything, the equations have broken down; it's like trying to divide by zero.  Just what do you do next?

There's a reason scientists have come up with alternate theories for the Big Bang and black holes that don't involve singularities, because a singularity is a discontinuity.  If you graph the equation 1/x, for example, the 'singularity' is the two axes, because 1/0 is not a number.  The equation breaks down if you try to divide 1 by 0.  It's meaningless.  That doesn't matter so much with a math equation (which, after all, is just a concept), but when you're talking about reality, it simply doesn't work.

That's why the math is complicated; how can anyone plug an infinity into it and get an answer that is worth anything?  But if you don't plug infinity into it, then just what do you plug in?  How are you supposed to figure out the average density of a black hole, when the whole point is that it has to be infinite in order for the equation to work?

That's the real problem.  Unless space-time is infinitely curved around a black hole (which requires that infinite density that I just got done saying couldn't exist in reality), then it should be possible for something to escape the event horizon.  The only way I can even conceive of which doesn't require infinities is if spacetime is curved into a sphere.  Once you're inside that sphere, you can run around on the inside all you want and never escape.  It's not infinite, but the curvature is folded inwards so it acts like it is.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2014, 08:38:57 PM »
The only way I can even conceive of which doesn't require infinities is if spacetime is curved into a sphere.

Isn't that one of the things General Relativity says/implies?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2014, 08:55:37 PM »
Maybe.  But the problem is, standard black hole theory absolutely requires there to be a singularity at the center, because theoretically, once it's compressed below its Schwartzschild radius, nothing should be able to keep it from compressing further and further still.  And that's the reason why I can't just dismiss what this site is saying.  Standard black hole theory doesn't just break the laws of physics, it smashes them all to pieces.

However, I don't think that it necessarily needs to be that way.  Let's take the supermassive black hole believed to be at the center of our galaxy.  Despite the fact that it has more than enough mass to act as a black hole, it doesn't seem especially likely that it's formed a singularity.  I'm not sure if it ever will, either, even though the equations seem to predict that it should.  I think that if something does form a black hole, it just means that light can't escape; the mass doesn't necessarily have to be compacted in the middle due to gravity.  Indeed, if the mass inside the black hole is revolving around the black hole's center of mass, it might never actually form a singularity at all.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2014, 09:08:27 PM »
Maybe.  But the problem is, standard black hole theory absolutely requires there to be a singularity at the center, because theoretically, once it's compressed below its Schwartzschild radius, nothing should be able to keep it from compressing further and further still.  And that's the reason why I can't just dismiss what this site is saying.  Standard black hole theory doesn't just break the laws of physics, it smashes them all to pieces.

It's just an approximation of what we've observed. Right now, though, it's the best explanation for our observations.

However, I don't think that it necessarily needs to be that way.  Let's take the supermassive black hole believed to be at the center of our galaxy.  Despite the fact that it has more than enough mass to act as a black hole, it doesn't seem especially likely that it's formed a singularity.  I'm not sure if it ever will, either, even though the equations seem to predict that it should.

What makes you say that?

I think that if something does form a black hole, it just means that light can't escape; the mass doesn't necessarily have to be compacted in the middle due to gravity.  Indeed, if the mass inside the black hole is revolving around the black hole's center of mass, it might never actually form a singularity at all.

How can the mass can be revolving around the black hole's center of mass? Surely a black hole, with its enormous gravitational pull (even if there's no singularity, a black hole is still pretty dense), would be as close to a rigid body as can be, right? I know gravity doesn't really mean much on an atomic and subatomic scale, but what you seem to be suggesting is that large "blobs" are moving around inside a black hole, orbiting its center of mass. Such "blobs" would definitely be affected by the black hole's gravity.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2014, 11:38:36 PM »
It's just an approximation of what we've observed. Right now, though, it's the best explanation for our observations.
That's the thing, though.  It really isn't the best explanation, because we have no explanation for why there would be such a singularity in the first place.  Not to mention that it causes at least one paradox, the information loss problem.  Now that scientists are starting to puzzle out a quantum theory of gravity, we should be able to come up with better explanations.  In fact, scientists have already come up with explanations for the Big Bang and for black holes that don't involve singularities at all.

Quote from: One Above All
What makes you say that?
Because it's possible for a supermassive black hole to have an average density less than that of water, as long as there's enough mass inside of it, because the density of a spherical object is inversely proportional to the square of the mass - meaning, the higher the mass is, the lower the density will be, and the density will decrease even faster than the mass.

Quote from: One Above All
How can the mass can be revolving around the black hole's center of mass? Surely a black hole, with its enormous gravitational pull (even if there's no singularity, a black hole is still pretty dense), would be as close to a rigid body as can be, right? I know gravity doesn't really mean much on an atomic and subatomic scale, but what you seem to be suggesting is that large "blobs" are moving around inside a black hole, orbiting its center of mass. Such "blobs" would definitely be affected by the black hole's gravity.
How can twin planets revolve around their center of mass?  Or binary stars, for that matter?  For that matter, how come the moon orbits the Earth instead of being pulled straight in by gravity?  If the mass of a black hole is all around the edges and is rotating quickly enough, the center of it would be pretty much empty.  I suspect if this tidal force is strong enough, it would keep matter inside the black hole from clumping at the middle, and thus no singularity could form.

Or, if the scientists who are trying to put together a quantum theory of gravity are correct, the mass simply drains down into the black hole, to wherever it ends up, so a whirlpool would be a good analogy.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12300
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2014, 12:11:32 AM »
How can the mass can be revolving around the black hole's center of mass? Surely a black hole, with its enormous gravitational pull (even if there's no singularity, a black hole is still pretty dense), would be as close to a rigid body as can be, right? ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole

Quote
Rotating black holes are formed in the gravitational collapse of a massive spinning star or from the collapse of a collection of stars or gas with a total non-zero angular momentum. As most stars rotate it is expected that most black holes in nature are rotating black holes. In late 2006, astronomers reported estimates of the spin rates of black holes in the Astrophysical Journal. A black hole in the Milky Way, GRS 1915+105, may rotate 1,150 times per second,[1] approaching the theoretical upper limit.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2014, 05:24:44 AM »
That's the thing, though.  It really isn't the best explanation, because we have no explanation for why there would be such a singularity in the first place.  Not to mention that it causes at least one paradox, the information loss problem.  Now that scientists are starting to puzzle out a quantum theory of gravity, we should be able to come up with better explanations.  In fact, scientists have already come up with explanations for the Big Bang and for black holes that don't involve singularities at all.

OK then.

Because it's possible for a supermassive black hole to have an average density less than that of water, as long as there's enough mass inside of it, because the density of a spherical object is inversely proportional to the square of the mass - meaning, the higher the mass is, the lower the density will be, and the density will decrease even faster than the mass.

That seems illogical[1], unless you're also saying that the radius will increase by a factor of the square of the mass.

How can twin planets revolve around their center of mass?  Or binary stars, for that matter?  For that matter, how come the moon orbits the Earth instead of being pulled straight in by gravity?  If the mass of a black hole is all around the edges and is rotating quickly enough, the center of it would be pretty much empty.  I suspect if this tidal force is strong enough, it would keep matter inside the black hole from clumping at the middle, and thus no singularity could form.

And, like above, that seems illogical. Is a star 100% plasma? Isn't it nucleus (where we think black holes come from) composed of atoms (the result of fusion)? How can you go from, say, a massive[2] solid[3], apply pressure, and end up with a hollow spherical shell? It doesn't seem possible.

Or, if the scientists who are trying to put together a quantum theory of gravity are correct, the mass simply drains down into the black hole, to wherever it ends up, so a whirlpool would be a good analogy.

Can you explain a bit more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole
<snip>

I am aware of black holes that rotate on their own axis (in fact, IIRC, that's one of the way they can dissipate - by "using" all their energy to spin), but what I think jaimehlers was saying is sections of the black hole (like the Earth's inner and outer cores) rotating around the center of mass, which seems fairly impossible. In rotating black holes, if I'm not mistaken, everything is spinning around the center; not just parts of the black hole.
jaimehlers, if this is not what you were saying, then my apologies, because it is what I understood.

Also, mind replying to this post?
Maybe I'm not getting the equation, but it seems fairly simple. 1/2M - r, where, if r = 2M, then r is the Schwarzschild[4] radius. Then we have E = Mc2. All we need is the object's average density (which, if it's an actual black hole, will be infinite, due to the singularity) and how big the "outer layers" are.
 4. God dammit that's hard to spell.
 1. Given that density has the units of kg/m3
 2. According to Google translate, this is the English term. If it doesn't make sense in this context, know that I'm talking about something that is not hollow.
 3. This is just an example; if you're not comfortable with it, just replace it with whatever state stars' nuclei are supposed to be in.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2014, 08:01:38 AM »
the author of the website.
http://www.dougweller.com/attorney_profile.html

he's a patent lawyer and an "Elder" of his church.

His "paper" on how black holes violate the first law of thermodynamics
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-24-14.PDF


other Doug Weller publications
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Weller


I suppose it is possible, but I just don't see a BSEE and patent lawyer shooting down Hawking.  This would be big news by now.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12300
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2014, 09:32:30 AM »
I am aware of black holes that rotate on their own axis (in fact, IIRC, that's one of the way they can dissipate - by "using" all their energy to spin), but what I think jaimehlers was saying is sections of the black hole (like the Earth's inner and outer cores) rotating around the center of mass, which seems fairly impossible. In rotating black holes, if I'm not mistaken, everything is spinning around the center; not just parts of the black hole.

The mass of the black hole, not the relatively-trivial mass of stuff circling into it, is spinning in such black holes.  This means that there must be internal details that are able to spin.  Without movement, there cannot be angular momentum.  Without internal details, there cannot be movement.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2014, 10:32:04 AM »
That seems illogical, unless you're also saying that the radius will increase by a factor of the square of the mass.
That appears to be the case, since the Schwartzschild radius increases faster than the object's physical radius.  The most basic definition of a black hole is an object who's Schwartzschild radius is larger than its physical radius, so the Schwartzschild radius must increase faster than the physical radius.

Quote from: One Above All
And, like above, that seems illogical. Is a star 100% plasma? Isn't it nucleus (where we think black holes come from) composed of atoms (the result of fusion)? How can you go from, say, a massive solid, apply pressure, and end up with a hollow spherical shell? It doesn't seem possible.
It's the same principle as a centrifuge or something else along those lines - apply enough angular spin to something, and it hollows out.  In fact, unless there's something keeping it from going past a certain point, it would actually fly apart completely.  But that's where the black hole's gravity field comes into play.  If even light cannot escape, how could matter?  And therefore, you could have the inside of a black hole hollowing itself out without forming a singularity, provided there was enough spin.  Note that all of the mass of the black hole would be moving in this case, not just parts of it.

Quote from: One Above All
Can you explain a bit more?
http://www.space.com/21903-black-holes-explained-space-time-loops.html

Probably the simplest way for me to attempt to describe it is that the center of a black hole consists of space-time that is very sharply curved, rather than a singularity.  It's the same basis as the Big Bounce theory, which also doesn't require a singularity.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2014, 12:47:17 PM »
The mass of the black hole, not the relatively-trivial mass of stuff circling into it, is spinning in such black holes.  This means that there must be internal details that are able to spin.  Without movement, there cannot be angular momentum.  Without internal details, there cannot be movement.

I meant that what I understood jaimehlers meant was that random pieces of the black hole itself must be moving on their own; that is, with a different angular velocity than the rest of the black hole. My apologies if this wasn't clear.

That appears to be the case, since the Schwartzschild radius increases faster than the object's physical radius.  The most basic definition of a black hole is an object who's Schwartzschild radius is larger than its physical radius, so the Schwartzschild radius must increase faster than the physical radius.

Just because it increases doesn't mean it increases by a certain factor. y=x also increases, but y=ex increases far more, and y=x! increases even more than that.

It's the same principle as a centrifuge or something else along those lines - apply enough angular spin to something, and it hollows out.  In fact, unless there's something keeping it from going past a certain point, it would actually fly apart completely.  But that's where the black hole's gravity field comes into play.  If even light cannot escape, how could matter?  And therefore, you could have the inside of a black hole hollowing itself out without forming a singularity, provided there was enough spin.  Note that all of the mass of the black hole would be moving in this case, not just parts of it.

I agree with this scenario, but there's a problem: you have no idea if the black hole is spinning quickly enough for that to happen. How fast does a star's nucleus spin when the star is dying? How much does it accelerate before collapsing?

http://www.space.com/21903-black-holes-explained-space-time-loops.html

Probably the simplest way for me to attempt to describe it is that the center of a black hole consists of space-time that is very sharply curved, rather than a singularity.  It's the same basis as the Big Bounce theory, which also doesn't require a singularity.

I think my brain had an orgasm from that article, but it doesn't really explain something that I saw as the problem in your statement. Specifically, the part where you said "wherever it ends up". Were you referring to white holes?

Also, see here:
Also, mind replying to this post?
Maybe I'm not getting the equation, but it seems fairly simple. 1/2M - r, where, if r = 2M, then r is the Schwarzschild[1] radius. Then we have E = Mc2. All we need is the object's average density (which, if it's an actual black hole, will be infinite, due to the singularity) and how big the "outer layers" are.
 1. God dammit that's hard to spell.

Isn't it nucleus (where we think black holes come from) composed of atoms (the result of fusion)?

I must now perform seppuku to prevent further contamination of the English language.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +55/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2014, 03:19:56 PM »
I have a couple of black holes in my lawn.  They absorb all matter thrown into it (grass seed, mulch, fertilizer, water) while producing nothing but copious frustration and funding of the lawn service.

Anyone have Stephen Hawking's phone number?
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2014, 03:30:08 PM »
Anyone have Stephen Hawking's phone number?

No, but you can send him an email, though there's no guarantee he'll reply. I have done that before.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2108
  • Darwins +377/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2014, 05:03:19 PM »
I have a couple of black holes in my lawn.  They absorb all matter thrown into it (grass seed, mulch, fertilizer, water) while producing nothing but copious frustration and funding of the lawn service.

Anyone have Stephen Hawking's phone number?

I think you've got some wormholes there buddy.  I've been trying to figure out where all this grass seed, mulch, fertilizer, and water in my office have been coming from.

Now I know.

Toss in a beer when you get the chance.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4937
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2014, 05:55:39 PM »
Just because it increases doesn't mean it increases by a certain factor. y=x also increases, but y=ex increases far more, and y=x! increases even more than that.
I believe they've done the calculations using the Schwarzschild equation and showed that it does increase faster.  Or so I understand from reading wiki articles and such.

Quote from: One Above All
I agree with this scenario, but there's a problem: you have no idea if the black hole is spinning quickly enough for that to happen. How fast does a star's nucleus spin when the star is dying? How much does it accelerate before collapsing?
Granted, but I don't think we've actually observed a star collapsing into a black hole, so at the moment we don't know for sure what happens to it; all we have is predictions.  I did look up to see how fast pulsars can spin, which is as much as 3000 times per second before the angular momentum should overcome the star's gravity.  So a black hole would have to be spinning faster than that to avoid a collapse.  Since we can't observe a black hole's mass directly, I don't know how we could tell how quickly it was spinning.

There's also a possibility that it could be spinning rapidly enough to keep from collapsing without actually coming apart.  I don't know how fast it would need to spin to do that, however.  Also, the Schwarzschild metric (how they calculate the radius before it turns into a black hole) apparently doesn't apply to a rotating object, which complicates things.

Quote from: One Above All
I think my brain had an orgasm from that article, but it doesn't really explain something that I saw as the problem in your statement. Specifically, the part where you said "wherever it ends up". Were you referring to white holes?
Ah, my mistake.  I was referring to a different article which said that the matter might end up elsewhere in the universe or in another universe entirely.

Regarding your follow-up question, I haven't really worked with that level of math before, and thus I'm not sure how well I could work with it.  Also, as I stated before, the problem with plugging an infinity (such as the infinite density that a singularity is believed to have) into an equation is, what do you do then?

Quote from: One Above All
I must now perform seppuku to prevent further contamination of the English language.
Can I be your second?  I mean, if you're going to eviscerate your intestines, it might help to have someone ready to chop your head off before it gets to be too painful.