Author Topic: No Black Holes?  (Read 898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2014, 07:46:36 PM »
A white hole is simply where all the matter that is absorbed by a black hole ends up. It doesn't mean that it has to exist in the same time as the black hole.

Indeed.  And in my interpretation, the white hole - if one exists - is indefinitely far into the future.  So we wouldn't expect observe such a thing.

In the context of your analogy, I took "up" and "down" as being literal things, like when physicists try to explain the fabric of spacetime using actual fabric and objects heavy enough to deform said fabric. This is because, according to the theory of relativity, spacetime really is flat.

So you don't take spacetime to actually be deformed by gravity?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2014, 07:54:42 PM »
Indeed.  And in my interpretation, the white hole - if one exists - is indefinitely far into the future.  So we wouldn't expect observe such a thing.

That's not all. A black hole gains mass that is the same as the mass it absorbs. If it were simply being sent into the future, we shouldn't see the black hole gaining mass like that.

So you don't take spacetime to actually be deformed by gravity?

This is where it gets tricky. You see, spacetime is (supposedly; everything I say here is what's in the theory of relativity, or so I was told by an astrophysicist) flat, but it is also spherical. Put simply, it is the "shell" of a sphere. Imagine a slice of graphene (one-atom-thick carbon sheet; a "true" 2D object). It is perfectly flat, right? Now twist it so that it's in the shape of a cylinder. It appears to be not flat, right? Wrong. Measure the thickness of the graphene. It is still only one atom thick. No matter how much you twist and turn, it will always be one atom thick. It will always be flat (2D).
So yes, spacetime can be deformed by masses (note: gravity is the result of the deformations of spacetime; spacetime itself is bent due to particles with mass), but will always remain flat (2D).

EDIT: I almost forgot. What you describe (bending spacetime "backward", if you will) is what dark energy supposedly does. Yet we have not observed particles disappearing after going into a certain region of space. So, either dark energy does not exist (in which case we'd need a better hypothesis regarding the accelerated rate of expansion of the observable Universe, which might not be a bad thing), or the effects of what you're describing cannot exist.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 08:04:20 PM by One Above All »
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2014, 09:23:41 PM »
That's not all. A black hole gains mass that is the same as the mass it absorbs. If it were simply being sent into the future, we shouldn't see the black hole gaining mass like that.

We don't actually know that.  But also, we don't know whether temporally displaced material's mass is also undetectable to us.

This is where it gets tricky. You see, spacetime is (supposedly; everything I say here is what's in the theory of relativity, or so I was told by an astrophysicist) flat, but it is also spherical. ...

I am familiar with the concept.  Also, it is not at all certain that space-time is a closed Riemann sphere.  Its overall shape could insted be totally flat, or it could be hyperbolic (the opposite of a sphere in this sense).

So yes, spacetime can be deformed by masses (note: gravity is the result of the deformations of spacetime; spacetime itself is bent due to particles with mass), but will always remain flat (2D).

I never implied otherwise.

EDIT: I almost forgot. What you describe (bending spacetime "backward", if you will) is what dark energy supposedly does. Yet we have not observed particles disappearing after going into a certain region of space. So, either dark energy does not exist (in which case we'd need a better hypothesis regarding the accelerated rate of expansion of the observable Universe, which might not be a bad thing), or the effects of what you're describing cannot exist.

Actually in this scenario, dark energy would cause particles to blue-shift somewhat if it behaved in that manner, as it would (relatively gently) move them into the past.  But that's making a lot of assumptions about the way that dark energy actually works.  Little enough is known about dark energy that we cannot conclusively say what if anything it is doing to spacetime.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2014, 10:22:16 PM »
Isn't being inside a powerful gravity field effectively the same as traveling close to the speed of light?  Mass (more accurately, inertial mass) increases with speed, and gravity increases with mass, therefore gravity increases with speed.  So that means if you accelerated something to near the speed of light, it should actually appear to slow down from the perspective of an outside viewer, because the gravity associated with its inertial mass would drastically slow down any light that escaped from it.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2014, 10:28:49 PM »
I think One Above All is disagreeing with the part where it says "slow down any light". To him, as I understood in his replies, light must always travel at the same speed.

But then how could light "slow" through the experiment done by that one scientist who slowed it down to like 35 feet per second?
"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: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2014, 10:30:40 PM »
Because the speed of light changes depending on the medium it's traveling through.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2014, 10:36:43 PM »
Because the speed of light changes depending on the medium it's traveling through.
But in space, it travels through the same medium from any point of light just as from the black hole.

Wait, I might have made a mistake. Is there a medium for light in a vacuum? I remember Aether, but that seems to be forgotten.
"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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2014, 10:43:34 PM »
But then how could light "slow" through the experiment done by that one scientist who slowed it down to like 35 feet per second?

Because it has to take a longer path.  And because it's often not the same photon that entered the medium - it's been absorbed and re-emitted by atoms en-route.  The actual speed of the photon as it travels is still c.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2014, 10:47:33 PM »
But then how could light "slow" through the experiment done by that one scientist who slowed it down to like 35 feet per second?

Because it has to take a longer path.  And because it's often not the same photon that entered the medium - it's been absorbed and re-emitted by atoms en-route.  The actual speed of the photon as it travels is still c.
Ohhh, now it makes sense.

Light is still c. Just that it has to be absorbed and re-emitted by atoms. Thanks for that.

And the second part? Is there a medium in vacuum?
"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: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2014, 05:48:48 AM »
We don't actually know that.  But also, we don't know whether temporally displaced material's mass is also undetectable to us.

http://www.universetoday.com/99929/new-research-sheds-light-on-black-hole-growth/

I am familiar with the concept.  Also, it is not at all certain that space-time is a closed Riemann sphere.  Its overall shape could insted be totally flat, or it could be hyperbolic (the opposite of a sphere in this sense).

This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.

I never implied otherwise.

You seemed to be, hence my reply. Regardless, my apologies.

Actually in this scenario, dark energy would cause particles to blue-shift somewhat if it behaved in that manner, as it would (relatively gently) move them into the past.  But that's making a lot of assumptions about the way that dark energy actually works.  Little enough is known about dark energy that we cannot conclusively say what if anything it is doing to spacetime.

I went to a seminar about dark energy, actually. What he described dark energy should do is what you're describing: bending spacetime "upward" - anti-gravity. Think of it this way: if all particles with mass in the Universe bend it in one direction, causing things to come closer together, then dark energy, by pushing things apart, must do the opposite, right?
This, of course, assuming it exists, which I don't really buy.
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2014, 09:42:42 AM »
We don't actually know that.  But also, we don't know whether temporally displaced material's mass is also undetectable to us.

http://www.universetoday.com/99929/new-research-sheds-light-on-black-hole-growth/

Where does this say that temporally displaced material would be undetectable to us?  Throwing links without commentary is easy.  I could respond to one of your comments by throwing the Wiki article on black holes at you.  Wouldn't mean much.  In this case, I read the whole article and cannot find the relevant part.

This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.

You positively claimed the universe's spacetime surface to be spherical above.  Why?

I went to a seminar about dark energy, actually. What he described dark energy should do is what you're describing: bending spacetime "upward" - anti-gravity.

The "up" and "down" directions in the respective analogy-descriptions of black holes (mine) and dark energy (theirs) are inverted.  We're using "up" to refer to different directions.  If it helps, consider the past to lie above, and the future to lie below, the plane, with a black hole still depressing it downward.

Think of it this way: if all particles with mass in the Universe bend it in one direction, causing things to come closer together, then dark energy, by pushing things apart, must do the opposite, right?
This, of course, assuming it exists, which I don't really buy.

There are forces in our universe that don't rely on bending spacetime at all.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #69 on: June 21, 2014, 09:54:57 AM »
Where does this say that temporally displaced material would be undetectable to us?  Throwing links without commentary is easy.  I could respond to one of your comments by throwing the Wiki article on black holes at you.  Wouldn't mean much.  In this case, I read the whole article and cannot find the relevant part.

Again, my apologies. The link was to your first claim - that we didn't know if black holes gained mass or not. Still, in theory, tachyons (particles that travel faster than light, therefore being able to travel backward in time) are visible to us. Specifically, if you were to witness a tachyon passing by you, you'd see one approaching, then two leaving in opposite directions.

You positively claimed the universe's spacetime surface to be spherical above.  Why?

No, I did not. I said the following:
This is where it gets tricky. You see, spacetime is (supposedly; everything I say here is what's in the theory of relativity, or so I was told by an astrophysicist) flat, but it is also spherical.
Bold mine.

The "up" and "down" directions in the respective analogy-descriptions of black holes (mine) and dark energy (theirs) are inverted.  We're using "up" to refer to different directions.  If it helps, consider the past to lie above, and the future to lie below, the plane, with a black hole still depressing it downward.

We still have a problem. Time and space are intricately connected. You can't separate the two, as far as I know. If you affect time, you affect space, and vice-versa.

There are forces in our universe that don't rely on bending spacetime at all.

If the quantum field theory is right, all forces are the result of particle interactions[1], which would mean that all forces can and do bend spacetime.
 1. Force carriers, as they're called, more commonly known as bosons, AFAIK.
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #70 on: June 21, 2014, 10:04:13 AM »
Again, my apologies. The link was to your first claim - that we didn't know if black holes gained mass or not.

At no point did I claim that.  I claimed that we don't know this:
Quote
A black hole gains mass that is the same as the mass it absorbs

There could be a discrepancy there, and we'd have no way to know it, because we cannot know exactly how much mass has fallen into a black hole in order to give it its present mass.

No, I did not. I said the following:
This is where it gets tricky. You see, spacetime is (supposedly; everything I say here is what's in the theory of relativity, or so I was told by an astrophysicist) flat, but it is also spherical.
Bold mine.

If you're so unsure of whether this is true, then why are you presenting it as a factual counterpoint to my position?

We still have a problem. Time and space are intricately connected. You can't separate the two, as far as I know. If you affect time, you affect space, and vice-versa.

You'll have to actually describe the problem you see, then.

If the quantum field theory is right, all forces are the result of particle interactions[1], which would mean that all forces can and do bend spacetime.
 1. Force carriers, as they're called, more commonly known as bosons, AFAIK.

Actually it would mean that no forces bend spacetime, gravity included.  QFT only works in a flat spacetime.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #71 on: June 21, 2014, 10:17:17 AM »
At no point did I claim that.  I claimed that we don't know this:
Quote
A black hole gains mass that is the same as the mass it absorbs

There could be a discrepancy there, and we'd have no way to know it, because we cannot know exactly how much mass has fallen into a black hole in order to give it its present mass.

So you're suggesting that miniscule amounts of matter - too small to even be relevant when matched against the mass that black holes absorb - travel into an indeterminate (and possibly indeterminable) point the future. How is this falsifiable?

If you're so unsure of whether this is true, then why are you presenting it as a factual counterpoint to my position?

I am not "so unsure". I stated what the most accepted theory said, while also saying where I got it from. Note that here:
This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.
I said, once again, that it was relativity speaking. You replied with this:
You positively claimed the universe's spacetime surface to be spherical above.  Why?
Which doesn't even make sense to me.

You'll have to actually describe the problem you see, then.

With what I said, I now realize that there's no problem. Black holes do distort space.
However, let me ask you something: what would be the odds of us observing a phenomenon like that (matter suddenly appearing out of nowhere) per every billion years? Surely, if we can observe stuff that's, according to Wikipedia, 13.37 billion light-years away, we should have observed something like that.

Actually it would mean that no forces bend spacetime, gravity included.  QFT only works in a flat spacetime.

As I've explained, flat does not mean "flat as a board". Flat means 2D. Flat can be bent and still remain 2D, like I exemplified in the graphene scenario.
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #72 on: June 21, 2014, 10:34:50 AM »
So you're suggesting that miniscule amounts of matter - too small to even be relevant when matched against the mass that black holes absorb - travel into an indeterminate (and possibly indeterminable) point the future. How is this falsifiable?

I don't know, but then I never proposed what you describe.

I am not "so unsure". I stated what the most accepted theory said, while also saying where I got it from. Note that here:
This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.
I said, once again, that it was relativity speaking. You replied with this:
You positively claimed the universe's spacetime surface to be spherical above.  Why?
Which doesn't even make sense to me.

"Relatively speaking" can mean a lot of things.  What did it mean when you used it here?  Relative to what?

However, let me ask you something: what would be the odds of us observing a phenomenon like that (matter suddenly appearing out of nowhere) per every billion years? Surely, if we can observe stuff that's, according to Wikipedia, 13.37 billion light-years away, we should have observed something like that.

Where would we observe it coming out?  Inside of existing black holes?  I'm not the random-white-hole-appearing-in-random-places advocate.

As I've explained, flat does not mean "flat as a board". Flat means 2D. Flat can be bent and still remain 2D, like I exemplified in the graphene scenario.

I know.  And QFT only works in a locally flat-as-a-board spacetime.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #73 on: June 21, 2014, 10:52:50 AM »
I don't know, but then I never proposed what you describe.

You said this:
Indeed.  And in my interpretation, the white hole - if one exists - is indefinitely far into the future.  So we wouldn't expect observe such a thing.
You also said this:
There could be a discrepancy there, and we'd have no way to know it, because we cannot know exactly how much mass has fallen into a black hole in order to give it its present mass.
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "the mass that has fallen into the black hole from the moment it first appeared", as that wouldn't be scientific. We can't travel backward in time, as far as we know, so we wouldn't be able to observe this, unless, by some stroke of luck, we happened to find a star that was just about to collapse into a black hole and studied it for decades.

"Relatively speaking" can mean a lot of things.  What did it mean when you used it here?  Relative to what?

Surprisingly enough, I thought this was the problem, but dismissed it, as you don't tend to make mistakes like that. I didn't say "relatively". I said "relativity". See here:
This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.

Where would we observe it coming out?  Inside of existing black holes?  I'm not the random-white-hole-appearing-in-random-places advocate.

White holes are the "end" of a black hole's gravity well. It has to be this. Either that or you're suggesting that black holes and white holes are the same (that is, that the properties scientists expect from white holes are not true, which would explain why we've never observed white holes, per se), in which case I'd have to quote (maybe even screenshot, should you not believe it) a PM I sent from myself to myself several hours ago expecting this exact statement.

I know.  And QFT only works in a locally flat-as-a-board spacetime.

How "locally" are we talking? Because all things are flat as a board if you look at it at a small enough scale (but not too small, such as atomic scale).
You should also read up on the extension of QFT to curved spacetimeWiki.
Quote
In particle physics, quantum field theory in curved spacetime is an extension of standard, Minkowski-space quantum field theory to curved spacetime.
EDIT: I want to note that I was not aware that the standard QFT only applied to flat-as-a-board spacetime.
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #74 on: June 21, 2014, 11:40:15 AM »
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "the mass that has fallen into the black hole from the moment it first appeared", as that wouldn't be scientific. We can't travel backward in time, as far as we know, so we wouldn't be able to observe this, unless, by some stroke of luck, we happened to find a star that was just about to collapse into a black hole and studied it for decades.

What has this to do with the fact that I never proposed what you described?

Surprisingly enough, I thought this was the problem, but dismissed it, as you don't tend to make mistakes like that. I didn't say "relatively". I said "relativity". See here:
This is relativity speaking. We can't directly observe spacetime, as far as I know.

Ahh, I had thought you were just making a typo.  It makes even less sense in light of your clarification.  Relativity is a scientific theory.  It is not something that speaks.  You are speaking (or typing).  Relativity does not claim the universe to be a Riemann sphere.  That is entirely unnecessary to General Relativity.

White holes are the "end" of a black hole's gravity well. It has to be this. Either that or you're suggesting that black holes and white holes are the same (that is, that the properties scientists expect from white holes are not true, which would explain why we've never observed white holes, per se), in which case I'd have to quote (maybe even screenshot, should you not believe it) a PM I sent from myself to myself several hours ago expecting this exact statement.

I'm unaware of "white holes" being a necessary phenomenon in the first place.  Indeed, we've never observed one.  Regardless of whether or not I'm right, in the course of over 13 billion years we should have seen at least one of them, right?

How "locally" are we talking? Because all things are flat as a board if you look at it at a small enough scale (but not too small, such as atomic scale).

Not in a black hole, they're not.

You should also read up on the extension of QFT to curved spacetimeWiki.
Quote
In particle physics, quantum field theory in curved spacetime is an extension of standard, Minkowski-space quantum field theory to curved spacetime.
EDIT: I want to note that I was not aware that the standard QFT only applied to flat-as-a-board spacetime.

Nor was I aware of the progress since then.  Thanks.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #75 on: June 21, 2014, 12:05:49 PM »
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "the mass that has fallen into the black hole from the moment it first appeared", as that wouldn't be scientific. We can't travel backward in time, as far as we know, so we wouldn't be able to observe this, unless, by some stroke of luck, we happened to find a star that was just about to collapse into a black hole and studied it for decades.

What has this to do with the fact that I never proposed what you described?

I posted two quotes with what you said. That line you quoted was simply my interpretation of the very last quote, as well as the justification for that interpretation.

Ahh, I had thought you were just making a typo.  It makes even less sense in light of your clarification.  Relativity is a scientific theory.  It is not something that speaks.  You are speaking (or typing).  Relativity does not claim the universe to be a Riemann sphere.  That is entirely unnecessary to General Relativity.

It's a metaphorical "speaking", like saying "the theory of evolution says (...)". It means that that's what's described in the theory. At least, again, according to what an astrophysicist told me.

I'm unaware of "white holes" being a necessary phenomenon in the first place.

If you want matter that goes into black holes to come out somewhere else, you have two options:
1 - Suggesting and/or accepting the existence of white holes (the theoretical "end" of a black hole's gravity well), even if their theoretical properties are not in line with what you are proposing (for example, you could say that one particle ends up 10 thousand years in the future, while the next ends up 10 billion years in the future)
2 - Suggesting and/or accepting that black holes are also white holes (that is, that black holes are connected across time and space)

Indeed, we've never observed one.  Regardless of whether or not I'm right, in the course of over 13 billion years we should have seen at least one of them, right?

I believe so.

Not in a black hole, they're not.

Only at the singularity. Everywhere else the curvature of spacetime is not infinite. It is theoretically possible to "zoom in" far enough for spacetime to be flat as a board. So, I ask again, how "locally" are we talking? One light-year? Bigger? Smaller?
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #76 on: June 21, 2014, 12:35:23 PM »
I posted two quotes with what you said. That line you quoted was simply my interpretation of the very last quote, as well as the justification for that interpretation.

I saw a statement of what you were assuming, you saying that for some reason it wasn't scientific (not sure what that means in the context of what you said), and no justification for it.

It's a metaphorical "speaking", like saying "the theory of evolution says (...)". It means that that's what's described in the theory. At least, again, according to what an astrophysicist told me.

My confusion stems from the fact that "relatively speaking" is a common turn of phrase, but "relativity speaking" is not.  Anyway, based on my own reading, and my own physics classes at university, your astrophysicist friend is mistaken.  GR makes no claims as to the overall shape of the universe.

If you want matter that goes into black holes to come out somewhere else, you have two options:
1 - Suggesting and/or accepting the existence of white holes (the theoretical "end" of a black hole's gravity well), even if their theoretical properties are not in line with what you are proposing (for example, you could say that one particle ends up 10 thousand years in the future, while the next ends up 10 billion years in the future)
2 - Suggesting and/or accepting that black holes are also white holes (that is, that black holes are connected across time and space)

3 - Black holes gradually lose energy and thus mass as their event horizons emit Hawking radiation, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation

I believe so.

So why bring them up as a supposedly necessary idea in the first place?

Only at the singularity. Everywhere else the curvature of spacetime is not infinite. It is theoretically possible to "zoom in" far enough for spacetime to be flat as a board. So, I ask again, how "locally" are we talking? One light-year? Bigger? Smaller?

Granted, one can zoom in small enough for it to appear flat-ish.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #77 on: June 21, 2014, 12:47:52 PM »
I saw a statement of what you were assuming, you saying that for some reason it wasn't scientific (not sure what that means in the context of what you said), and no justification for it.

Then you should re-read my post.

My confusion stems from the fact that "relatively speaking" is a common turn of phrase, but "relativity speaking" is not.  Anyway, based on my own reading, and my own physics classes at university, your astrophysicist friend is mistaken.  GR makes no claims as to the overall shape of the universe.

He's just an acquaintance who went to my college to present a seminar. After checking online, I have verified that you are correct. So much for being able to trust astrophysicists about astrophysics.

3 - Black holes gradually lose energy and thus mass as their event horizons emit Hawking radiation, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation

Which is not relevant in the context of your suggestion. You said "future". Hawking radiation is in the present.

So why bring them up as a supposedly necessary idea in the first place?

Because, as I've explained, for your idea to work, white holes (or black holes linked across space and time) are a necessity.
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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #78 on: June 21, 2014, 01:04:35 PM »
Then you should re-read my post.

I did, quite a few times.  It does not compute.  I am indeed saying that we can't know exactly how much mass has fallen into a black hole since its formation, if it's any different from the mass of the black hole at present.  What is "unscientific" about stating that unknown?

Which is not relevant in the context of your suggestion. You said "future". Hawking radiation is in the present.

I never said that the mass has to leave the black hole, just that it would be displaced into the future.  As I said earlier, and as you ignored, we don't know whether or how much future-displaced matter would affect non-future-displaced matter gravitationally.

Because, as I've explained, for your idea to work, white holes (or black holes linked across space and time) are a necessity

You've given no reason to think they would be.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #79 on: June 21, 2014, 02:57:46 PM »
Actually....huh.  Gravity warps space-time, which is why you get time dilation in a gravity well.  In effect, the slope of the curve represents the amount of time dilation.  So if the slope is straight vertical, time would effectively stop...or possibly it would act the same way as a photon does (since a vertical slope is effectively moving the speed of light).

Anyway, what happens when it becomes negative, as is predicted to happen inside a black hole?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #80 on: June 21, 2014, 04:46:39 PM »
FYI: I'm playing a game for the third time, as I hadn't had time to play it in months. If I don't get back to you in two or so days, it's because I have forgotten about this thread. Feel free to send me a PM if you see fit.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 04:52:33 PM by One Above All »
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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11037
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: No Black Holes?
« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2014, 02:55:24 AM »
Right on schedule, the One Above All has beaten the game for the third time. Gonna try for a fourth in several hours. And fifth after that. And so on until I get bored with it. Could be a while, but I'll try to post here more often.

I did, quite a few times.  It does not compute.  I am indeed saying that we can't know exactly how much mass has fallen into a black hole since its formation, if it's any different from the mass of the black hole at present.  What is "unscientific" about stating that unknown?

Because that means your idea is unfalsifiable. Matter that we can't tell from matter that a black hole absorbs disappears from the black hole and winds up at an indeterminate point in the future. You're also asking for something that can't be done: complete knowledge about something (specifically exactly how much mass a black hole has absorbed since its formation).

I never said that the mass has to leave the black hole, just that it would be displaced into the future.

An indeterminate point in the future. See above.

As I said earlier, and as you ignored, we don't know whether or how much future-displaced matter would affect non-future-displaced matter gravitationally.

It depends on how much mass were sent to the future.

You've given no reason to think they would be.

If matter winds up somewhere else in time, then there needs to be a connection between those two points in time, right? You can't have a particle go from point A to point B without something connecting the two (in our universe it's spacetime itself).

Actually....huh.  Gravity warps space-time, which is why you get time dilation in a gravity well.  In effect, the slope of the curve represents the amount of time dilation.  So if the slope is straight vertical, time would effectively stop...or possibly it would act the same way as a photon does (since a vertical slope is effectively moving the speed of light).

Uh... No. Mass distorts spacetime; curves it "inward", if you will. That curvature makes masses "converge", like water filling up a hole, only that hole is caused by the water and keeps expanding the more water is in it.

Anyway, what happens when it becomes negative, as is predicted to happen inside a black hole?

Time dilation becomes negative in a black hole? Where did you get that from?[1]
 1. Seriously; where did you get that from? I only know the equation for time dilation based on velocity.
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.