The theory of Infinity - any ideas on this?

[Guest liliangrn]

THE THEORY OF INFINTY (Part 1)

 

Let me first consider what we do know about black holes.

 

From earth we see a black hole to be a large sphere with an

extrodinary mass. It also, therefore, has an extraordinary

gavitational force. It emits no light. Therefore, at the event

horizon, light is infinately red-shifted.

 

This creates a rather tricky question as to how a hole in spacetime

has mass and a centre of gravity.

 

An event horizon has no objects sitting on it's edge, like a ball

would sit on the edge of the earth. The ball, to an observer orbiting

the BH, would appear to be enter the event horizon.

 

There is a small amount of radiation emitted from the BH. According

to Stephen Hawking this is due to the attempted formation of atoms at

the EH. He states that if protons, electrons and neutrons continually

meet at the EH, and the electron is sucked* into the EH before they

can bind properly, a small amount of radiation would be emitted.

 

* I have used the term 'sucked', for lack of a better term, refering

to the apparent dissapearance of an object at the EH.

 

Gravitational forces, of the BH, do not continue increasing past the

event horizon toward the centre of gravity. When the gravitational

forces are stronger than the escape velocity for light, spacetime

curvature at the event horizon is so great it creates a hole in

spacetime. As such the event horizon spacetime is curved to infinity.

Time becomes a constant infinity at the EH. So the event horizon is

the entrance to infinity. I'm guessing that the time value = infinity

at the EH is the same for any observer outside the EH regardless of

their velocity. So spacetime at the EH is a constant. So if you would

like to find out how your spacetime relates to the constant spacetime

you need to find it relative to infinity.

 

So:

lightspeed © is a constant

Time (according to your observation) is relative to the constant:

spacetime=infinity

 

Since I have only been

studying relativity, or any form of physics for that matter,

(independently, besides the help from a professor over the last few days) for less than a

month it is not possible for me to come up with an equation to

calculate this theory. With all the squared numbers, the square roots

and the 'times twos' I can barely understand Lorentz Transformation.

Perhaps you can work it out and you, may, have your constant

spacetime value to work out your problem. By this I mean the

discrepancies in length contraction, with regard to different

observers, going at different velocities heading toward the BH.

 

HOW DOES THE UNIVERSE STAY TOGETHER

 

What is the opposite of a mass imploding to infinity. Well it would

be a mass exploding form infinity. Or even masses. So you would say

that the 'big bang' is the universe exploding from infinity. This

would therefore make the centre of the universe a black hole. Then

what would be outside this universe? Well another black hole. This

would mean that our universe is situated within a spherical event

horizon where outside would equal infinity and the centre event

horizon would equal infinity. Between these two event horizons would

equal time according to your relative perspective. With two event

horizons, one in the centre of the unverse and one surrounding the

universe, we would have a perfect 'isometric' universal gravity. Just

as the pressures within and without a soap bubble create a perfect

sphere.

 

PREDICTING THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

 

In this case you may predict that with infinite gravity the universe

would continue to expand infinitely. However, as with soap bubbles,

if the pressure changes between the inner and outer pressures the

bubble will pop. So I predict that as the stars and planets begin the

implode at an increasing rate an increase in pressure within the

bubble will cause an implosion at some point in this universe's

future.

 

THE RELATIVITY OF INFINITE SPACE-TIME (Part 2)

 

If inside a black hole there exists infinity. What does this mean.

If I were floating somewhere in infinite time and space, would it matter to where and at what time I was at a specific place. No, because, which ever direction I travelled I would still be in infinite time and space. So outside of this universe, of finite time and space, space and time no longer has any real meaning. Therefore relativity no longer has meaning.

 

So how would a universe, of finite time and space, be created out of infinity. This infinite spacetime must therefore have an infinte source of power. That is why at the event horizon we have infinite red-shifting, and infinite gravitational force.

(I must assert, at this point, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be defined mathematically).

 

We cannot say whether there are other finite universes existing within this infinite spacetime. Perhaps there are many. What would cause a section of this infinite space time to explode into a bubble of finite spacetime no one can know. But the theory remains true, when we consider, the existence of black holes.

 

TRANSFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNIVERSES (Part 3)

 

What would happen if an object floating through infinity were to come in contact with the finite universe. Well first we need to know how the finite universe looks from the outside. From within this finite universe all we see is a black space where no light can escape. One would therefore assume that the infinite universe is completely black. When we are controlled by the laws of physics infinite energy appears black basically. Now an observer outside the event horizon (if this could be possible) would need to be somehow related to this infinite energy. This is because a finite energy would simply be crushed and absorb due to the infinite force of energy. So an observer with infinite energy would see this infinite energy in a different way to an observer of finite energy. In other words this infinite energy would appear as light. So the event horizon would appear to be white. Since we cannot see this infinite energy any object of infinite energy would not be seen by the finite observer. Just as a black hole the object would appear blacker than black.

 

Thus an object from this infinite universe can therefore enter a finite universe but a finite object cannot escape.

 

UNIVERSE OF IFINITE ENERGY VS. UNIVERSE OF FINITE ENERGY (Part 4)

 

Well we know that our current universe consists of finite energy. Now we have found a relatively large space which consists of infinite energy. So do the infinite expanses of space and time Consist of mostly infinite or finite energy.

 

Let us consider the fact that our universe is expanding. The only way this universe could expand without flying off into space is if there was a force holding it together. This force would need to be isometric and infinite.

I therefore must conclude that we are in a finite space with finite energy. Outside this finite energy is an infinite energy which most of the infinite universe consists of.

 

 

Josephine Sage

Amatuer Physicist

 

 

(The following is part of a conversation I had with my proffessor whom helped me come up with the theory)

 

O.k Mac now I will respond to you.

 

Nothing inside a BH does anything IMO because there

> just ain't anything in there.....

 

Now you are acting like the pundits that have dismissed you out of

hand. You cannot hide empirical facts. I agree with you that the GR

idea is absurd. But somewhere between GR and your theory I see a

correlation. Neither is true because it mathematically doesn't add

up. So I think YOU are now not thinking outside the box.

 

An empty shell seems the most likely answer. To me as well. However

would you like to show me nothing. You can't even think about

nothing. Try it. I bet you are still thinking about something. Even

if you go far outside the boundaries of our universe what would you

find? That's right, not nothing as many may believe, you would find

infinity. As darkness is the abscence of light, infinity is the

absence of the finite. Is finity, therefore, the absence of infinity?

Well, no. Just as light is not the absence of darkness.

 

So yes, you are right, you cannot mathematically hold down infinity.

It is everywhere. It is not a metaphysical constant. It is a

mathematical constant.

 

S = 1 * infinity = infinity

S'= 1.1 * infinity = infinity

 

Now let's consider the absence of time. I gave you the hypothetical

(which I meant by no means literally) situation where I could freeze

time. You reacted to this statement as if I had walked over you

grave. Although you claim that time within the blackhole freezes.

Imagine this: no time and no space. If space and time no longer

existed inside the black hole then how would a black hole encase it.

The black holes radius would be measuring a space in time consisting

of no time and no space. It's equally absurd as the pundits.

 

You told me that there must be a tiny factor missing from your

equation and the GR equation. I am offering you the smallest number

and at the same time the largest number. Infinity does not

neccesarily consist only of a decimal place, followed by infinite

zeros with a one on the end of it. If I take infinite 9's, place a

decimal, then place infinite 9's on the end of it, this would also be

infinity.

 

...999 999 999.999 999 999... = ...111 111 111.111 111 111...

 

The problem though with the GR version is that there is a supposed

singularity. But this does not make sense in mathematics. If space

time curves to infinity the space time lines would never meet at a

point they would continue forever parallel to each other. It is not

mindful of the fact that infinity is a constant. So within the black

hole you have infinity and nothing else. The centre of gravity is

merely an abstract one as your theory states, Mac.

 

I understand calculus quite well. I also understand the Lorentz

transformation to the point I could calculate it and I understand the

meaninngs of the calculations to a point. I'm just rather immature in

my exposure to physics. I know I will get it. I just cannot see

through and beyond the numbers so to speak.

 

Also please read the end of the post #5111. The first half is the

same as #5110 but I go on from there and would like to hear you

thoughts.

 

Josephine Sage

[C1ay]

Hello Josephine and welcome to Hypography. That is quite an interesting theory you have there. I think you would have better luck at stirring up some conversation by breaking it up until smaller discussions on it's parts though. I personally envision our universe as sort of a bubble itself, a local, finite collection of matter and energy in a larger infinite space. Of course, we can never know if this is true or not.

[Guest liliangrn]

Thanks Clay, I'm happy to be here. I have placed my theory on a 4 different forums and yours is the first response I've gotten. I know my theory is not thought out completely, I am quite new to this, but I think certain aspects of it do fit in with what we do know about the universe.

 

For example what hold the universe together? Well if we lived in a finite space within an infinite black hole this universal gravity would be understood. I could define my theory a little better if I had other people's opinions. Failing that I guess I have to work through it myself which will take me a long time. I kind of wish someone could refute it absolutely then I could leave it alone. But, as for now, it's been published on the web and apparently it is too lengthy for anyone to touch it as you said.

 

Thanks anyway.

Josephine

[C1ay]

Thanks Clay, I'm happy to be here. I have placed my theory on a 4 different forums and yours is the first response I've gotten. I know my theory is not thought out completely, I am quite new to this, but I think certain aspects of it do fit in with what we do know about the universe.

 

For example what hold the universe together? Well if we lived in a finite space within an infinite black hole this universal gravity would be understood. I could define my theory a little better if I had other people's opinions. Failing that I guess I have to work through it myself which will take me a long time. I kind of wish someone could refute it absolutely then I could leave it alone. But, as for now, it's been published on the web and apparently it is too lengthy for anyone to touch it as you said.

 

Thanks anyway.

Josephine

Einstein took quite a while to work out some of his own theories. For some of them he had to invent the math to analyze his ideas

 

Does your concept of the universe have a boundary? If so, do you think anything lies beyond that boundary?

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi Clay,

My theory states that our universe is probably surrounded by a spherical event horizon. My reasoning for this is that there is a universal gravity that is supposedly slowing the expansion of our universe from flying away to nowhere. This gravity force is equal in all directions. The only example we have of a gravitational force that great enough to do this is a black hole.

 

At the event horizon spacetime is curved toward infinity. Therefore an event horizon, at the outskirts of the universe, would also curve spacetime to infinity.

 

The other thing we know about black holes is they have an exceptional gravitational force (infinite from our view).

 

So outside this universe would be infinite spacetime which has infinite force.

 

Whether anything exists in this infinite spacetime I have describe is obviously unknown to me, or anyone else, since I cannot enter an event horizon without being crushed by it's infinite force. So who knows. But if something or someone were to exist in this infinite force and spacetime then they or it would have to also posess infinite force.

 

It would be difficult to prove but it does, at least, offer an answer to the universal gravity. That is, other than the answer we are offered by expert physicists: 'We don't know what it is or where it comes from.'

 

Josephine

[C1ay]

Hi Clay,

My theory states that our universe is probably surrounded by a spherical event horizon. My reasoning for this is that there is a universal gravity that is supposedly slowing the expansion of our universe from flying away to nowhere.

Are you aware of any observable evidence that the expansion of the universe as we know it is actually slowing? I have heard theories before that there could eventually be the big crunch as the universe collapsed back on itself but I am aware of nothing to support this. Where would this black hole be? Many of the galaxies we observe have a black hole at their center but none is so large as to exhibit a gravitational effect to the boundary of the universe. Is your theory based on a black hole we have not observed?

[Guest liliangrn]

Sorry I didn't mean the expansion was slowing down. Rather that the expansion is going much more slowly than would be expected if there were no universal gravity. Imagine a bubble and everything outside the bubble is, basically, a black hole. Now consider that everything inside this bubble is the universe as we know it. Hey it's a crazy thought but I cannot see any other reason for this universal gravity (which is isometric, which means it comes form all directions)

 

Wild huh?

 

Try telling this to anyone though.

 

:) Josephine

[Queso]

black holes outside.....that would be insane. but wouldn't our universe bubble be sucked into one and then we wouldn't exist anymore?

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi thanks for your response.

 

Well the theory I have come up with states, that if there were a blackhole in the middle of this bubble of infinite force then, the pressure within the universe would equal the pressure ouside the bubble. Thus it would hold together perfectly.

 

Insane? yes.

Possible? I don't know.

 

Just looking for opinions.

 

Josie

[Tormod]

The other thing we know about black holes is they have an exceptional gravitational force (infinite from our view).

 

Welcome to Hypography! I really appreciate you taking the time to post your theories.

 

I want to comment on the part quoted above. In fact, from our point of view black holes behave exactly like other objects of the same mass. A black hole with 1000 times the mass of the Sun would have the gravitational force of 1000 times the Sun.

 

However, when you cross the event horizon things change, according to standard theories about black holes.

[C1ay]

Sorry I didn't mean the expansion was slowing down. Rather that the expansion is going much more slowly than would be expected if there were no universal gravity. Imagine a bubble and everything outside the bubble is, basically, a black hole. Now consider that everything inside this bubble is the universe as we know it. Hey it's a crazy thought but I cannot see any other reason for this universal gravity (which is isometric, which means it comes form all directions)

 

Wild huh?

 

Try telling this to anyone though.

 

:) Josephine

It sounds like you are saying that our universe is at the center of an enourmous black hole. If the bubble is surrounded by a black hole everywhere outside of the bubble then wouldn't the tremendous gravity of that black hole accelerate the expansion or would it eventually lead to the big crunch?

[NomadaNare]

I like your theory, it looks like you gave it some serious thought but, just a few questions. What would cause such a "finite bubble" if there are equal forces both at the center and outside the bubble? It seems very strange that if these forces can balance each other through the bubble, they shouldn't be able to balance themselves without the bubble.

 

Also, my knowledge is limited on black holes so work with me; I was under the impression that black holes had specific mass that was very large but not infinite (otherwise we'd all be swallowed up), we just couldn't measure it because of the whole GR thing and the warping of space-time. This would also explain why black holes swallow each other sometimes.

 

Lastly infinity is a very tricky concept because within it, one can basically say 1 = 2 and math goes all crazy. If this occurs, than all of physics as we know it goes wacky and the idea of balancing forces goes out the window, because just as infinity equals infinity, infinity doesn't equal infinity at the same time.

[Guest liliangrn]

Hi NormadaNare,

 

"I like your theory, it looks like you gave it some serious thought but, just a few questions. What would cause such a "finite bubble" if there are equal forces both at the center and outside the bubble? It seems very strange that if these forces can balance each other through the bubble, they shouldn't be able to balance themselves without the bubble."

 

Thank you. Well really it's a work in progress and questions regarding the theory in practices are helping me iron out the creases. Your questions are rather intelligent and requires me to do a lot of processing. I know very little about physics. I just found an interest in due to a discussion about the 'big bang' about a month ago. Since this, I have been studying physics intensely and, a recent conversation with a proffesor, who explained the inconsistancies of SR in regard to black holes, brought me to the conclusions of my theory.

 

Now with regard to bubbles this question is in regards to HOW it exists. Well I do not really know and another question you could have tacked on to this response is: If it is a bubble how is it expanding? because we all bubbles do not expand, right?

 

I will answer this question by explaining why a bubble MUST exist. Well there MUST be finite time to a finite spacetime, right? That would mean there would be a start and a finish. Just as a star implodes at the end of it's lifespan and our body dies at the end of ours. Then our finite universe must also have a lifespan. The 'big bang' theory can't explain how the universe is an extension of a previous finite spacetime. Whereby, if all that existed before the 'big bang' were finite gases, that, exploded to create our present universe, We must ask where did these gases come from? They would have a life span too, wouldn't they? So if everything is finite the neccesary consideration would be how would something that existed infinitely up to this point suddenly burnout: like a star imploding into infinite spacetime. Since the suggestion is that OUR finite spacetime is infinite, it thus goes beyond all logical reasoning. A possible explanation for this is that due to laws of conservation of energy and mass, this finite energy always existed so, when one form burnsout another form is created, adopting, the same energy that existed before. But this can be conclusively thrown out due to the fact, that, if everything we see existed in it's current state (in one form or another) infinitely, up to this point, how would a black hole exist? That is, we would already exist within an infinite space time i.e. our spacetime IS the infinite spacetime.

The fact that we are in a finite spacetime arising out of infinite spacetime (i.e. whatever is beyond these blackholes) is the only conclusion I can make.

 

As to how we could understand how this bubble exist:

 

The following equation measures the exact pressure required to create a bubble. Pi = the pressure within the bubble and Po = the pressure outside the bubble.

 

Pi - Po = 4T/r

 

I'm not quite sure how bubbles works, nor how infinite spacetime works. I need to do a fair bit of research here to understand this i.e. that is if I can ever understand it.

 

Your question gives rise to a lot of other feasible questions like;

 

How would the bubble expand as this is not nature as we know it to be?

How would infinite spacetime 'explode' into finite time?

What is contained in infinite spacetime?

What kind of qualities does infinite spacetime posess?

What kind of energies or forces would infinite spacetime posess?

 

I have not a clue at the present time.

 

"Also, my knowledge is limited on black holes so work with me; I was under the impression that black holes had specific mass that was very large but not infinite (otherwise we'd all be swallowed up), we just couldn't measure it because of the whole GR thing and the warping of space-time. This would also explain why black holes swallow each other sometimes."

 

Gravity of a black hole can be measured based on Newton' s Gravitational Constant. The distance from the centre of gravity where the gravity reaches an infinite force is the event horizon. (This is basically the radius where light infinitely red-shifts.)

 

Light speed being 3 000 000 000 000m/second cannot escape at this point and spacetime is bent infinitely. This is based on an accurate knowledge of the relationship that gravity has with the curvature of spacetime. There is a discrepancy with regard to the Lorentz transformation but, it so tiny that, noone can discredit the accuracy of this calculation. Between this point and the centre of gravity physicists are unaware of the qualities of this spacetime. If an object is 'sucked' into this BH the mass increases therefore the event horizon is also larger. Gravity should therefore also increase. But all it really does is create a larger space where spacetime is infinitely bent (if the blackhole 'sucked in' the whole universe it would become the size of the external 'bubble', thus, returning infinite spacetime back to it's original state). So we know at the event horizon gravity is a constant infinity and the force never increases at this point. This would be regardless of the BH's size.

 

With regards to your question, would we be sucked into this black hole if it posessed infinite gravity. I'll explain this:

 

Imagine if you were directly in the middle of two black holes, then, they would be applying equal pressure and neither could pull you in. If you moved, however, toward one black hole the force would slowly 'suck' you in. This is where my theory began.

If, however, our finite spacetime were encased within an infinite spacetime bubble, then forces would be pulling from all directions at all times which would make you static (i.e. sitting still). If the universe were expanding, on the other had, then all the planets and stars would be pulled apart relative to the expansion of the universe. I hope this makes sense.

 

"Lastly infinity is a very tricky concept because within it, one can basically say 1 = 2 and math goes all crazy. If this occurs, than all of physics as we know it goes wacky and the idea of balancing forces goes out the window, because just as infinity equals infinity, infinity doesn't equal infinity at the same time."

 

Well Cantor's concept of infinity defines different sized infinities. There are large ones and small ones, but infinity always equals infinity according to my thinking. You may be correct but I haven't really got that far in my studies.

 

Excellent questions. :)

Josephine

[justforfun]

Hello Josephine and welcome to Hypography. That is quite an interesting theory you have there. I think you would have better luck at stirring up some conversation by breaking it up until smaller discussions on it's parts though. I personally envision our universe as sort of a bubble itself, a local, finite collection of matter and energy in a larger infinite space. Of course, we can never know if this is true or not.

I really like your idea of our universe being a finite part of an infinte 'superuniverse'. I'm a little puzzled why we can never know if this is true or not. Maybe the coming AI supergeniuses can tell us ...

[noumenon]

I find interesting when researching the Internet on the Theory of Infinity as it related to the physical Universe. There are theories that focus on a beginning, such as the Big Bang, which seems to denote a singular event, due to physical laws and Cosmological Principle. Backing that up are observations of the fine structure content and the age of the Universe as being recorded by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe WMAP. [reference Wikipedia]

 

Still, there seems to be a singularity with the Big Bang, which makes the Universe more like a July 4th fireworks display on a grand scale. It would seem the focus on Infinity should be started at a level much smaller then the a star system.

 

Below are some premises that will try to focus one's imagination away from preconceived ideas. They are just intended to establish a frame of thinking, before a proposition can be formated and then empirical data can be collected.

 

1. The Universe has always existed.

2. Is the definition of the Universe, all that resides in space, and the Universe can be dated to around 13.73 billion years, given the current technology, this presumes the Universe hasn't always existed, or that only the part that can be seen and measured is a certain age.

3. The Universe is make up of the 117 known elements from the Periodic Table.

4. The 117 elements of the Periodic Table or their atomic mass have always existed. Floating in the void of space. Sometimes very far apart from each other and sometimes very close. Close enough to cause chemical reactions on a small scale or a very enormous scale.

5. A Universe of only as random particles made up of the atoms of chemicals from the Periodic Chart, floating in the void of space is still a Universe.

6. Lifeforms on Earth have a longevity.

7. Stars have a longevity.

8. The Universe has no longevity but encompasses the longevity of all things.

 

The proposition is that even one atom of the 117 chemicals found in the Periodic Table is infinite, that would be the Universe. And to understand the Theory of Infinity one would have to understand one atom and it's nuclear properties as an infinite particle.

 

Post note:

 

I can only be be amazed at the Probability Theory that enabled lifeforms to exist on Earth. This planet hit the Cosmic Lottery and may really only be the lifeforms to exist at this conscious level. To feel a sense of being. To survive the occurrence of Natural Selection, not just mimicking but understanding the results before the actions. Building complex tools to provide a comfortable longevity. The human search for knowledge may be the key to an infinite existence.

[CHADS]

I had the same theory a while back where Everything wants to travel Towards C.

 

A BlackHole Singularity is the closest mass can get to 1 dimensional point .... the bigger the black hole the more the mass/energy it has collected is spread along 1 d line.

 

OutSide the universe is the same as the central points of particles Who want to travel at C. The Expanding Universe(Cosmic Expansion) Wants to travel into A 1 D point which is the The edge of the universe(Event Horizon) .. Like a Black Holes except A black hole has Mass .. Where the outside of the universe is the sum of all particles Centres .

 

In this model the masses in the universe will Continue expanding always trying to get to the edge Which is the Quintisential Edge of the whole universe but the Edge is closer to light. In comparison the small scale Universe is Further down as it is to the edge on a big scale.

 

The uncomfortable part comes with trying to rationalise that Atoms /particles all want to travel into there own centres Toward C which is a Quicker Way for them (Becuase they are travling Quick) to the edge of the universe than the Macro edge of the Universe.

 

This leads to an almost 4 dimensional thought ... Also The surface Area of the

outside of the universe is mapped with wave probabilities which seperate 1 dimensional and the 3 dimensional.

 

I think this model explains a lot ....

 

If you travel at C you in essence ocupy the outside of the bubble but on the bubbles surface and any further speed would lead you to a Probability Infinite.

 

Heavy Stuff but experiments can support this model Although i dont know the math.

 

Essentially like water always seeks out the lowest point it can spread out .... mass wants the same except its not the spreading to the edge of the universe ... The fastest way to the most freedom is within its centre(gravity centre and individual Centre) toward Infinite Probability.

 

Inertia Maintains the slowness compared with C;

Gravity is the result of the mass/energys pushing into all the Different energy/Velocity states that have piled up onto this 1 dimensional Attractor;

Velocity increases the proximity to this region .... C;

The Particle Accelerators create larger energy Particles by digging into the pilled up energies;

If you push a mass in space it continues becuase it is always seeking its centre within itself ... You may think that it will slow itself down becuase it always wants to travel inward but this preserves its inertia .. Kinetic energy ..its like going around an abstract 1d point in a circle untill other masses have an effect on it..... The whole mass is scraping along all the Energys that want to travel at C ...

 

Finally Scientists are looking at Whats Toward the finestructure of the bubble if you like ... Using models that hold Mathematical reasoning ... like string theory ...

Each probing the "bubbles" Quantumn gravity Theory and more.

[arkain101]

Maybe this will interest you... that is, some of my thoughts on blackholes ...

 

Let's observe the physical orientation of a star such as our own sun. Although the outter layer of the sun is dense relative to our understanding it is like a cloud in comparison to the super dense core. Now, I am not aware of what the core physically looks like or behaves like but we do know that the core is rotating, how fast, I am not sure. Also, if the core were dense enough, and / or rotating fast enough it is possible that it could be producing a significant doppler shift (redshift) in its local zone... however, due to the thick violent outter ocean of the star seeing the core is an impossibility.

 

 

 

 

Physicists with the right equipment could probably produce the accurate experiment with a computer animation model and such to further elaborate on what I am saying.... and that takes us to the next part..

 

I question, is a black hole a supermassive body in a state of extremely high velocity of orbiting matter. The study of black holes shows us how black holes do not tend to suck up large objects in one whole gulp... but rather it unwinds them like a ball of yarn, starting from the end of the string and sucking it up as so. It takes alot less energy to put small atoms into high velocity orbit than it does an entire star. When I speak of high velocity orbit I am refering to near and up to velocity of C (speed of light).

 

As special relativity explains length contraction occurs to matter observed at a very high velocity.. Now around a black hole there is no object per say experience length contraction but rather trillions upon trillions of atomic material's increasing in mass, velocty and the dilations dictated to us under the theory of special relativity.

 

So we visualise this object as a super fast rotating stream of material. We must ask in what shape is this object likely to arange itself. What we know is that the independent molecules have aquired a velocity and mass at such a level that the atomic forces should be losing their influence.. thus we can not consider the black hole as a bonded object but more like a dish of water(the space-time) spinning and the material caught in this whirl pool like particles of dust or sand ... Each particle influencing the other mainly by its gravitational disturbance through space and time.

 

The object thus in this reasoning is more like a disk than it is a sphere. As we know the center of a rotating disk is a low energy state. This is due to lower rotational velocity. If anything was ever to slow down in this particular spinning system of a black hole, it would be at the center that it was able to escape. This is where scientists discovered black holes emit powerful jets of new atomic material. Is this why we are able to detect and observe 'something' escaping from a black hole only from the poles in a perpendicular direction to the expected rotation of the 'body' as a hole? It is a question worth understanding..

 

 

Futhermore, as we observe galaxies around the universe we see that they to are typically flat like a disk in appearence. Is this because the gravitational field of a black hole is thing and disk shaped as opposed to sphereical. In some of my studies there has been research into this possiblity that the gravity field is in a thick condensed disk shape around the black hole. And if an object were to pass by a galaxy in a perpencilar direction to the disks plane and rotation it would be influenced very little, so much so as to drift away not getting caught up in an orbital behavior.

 

 

In this concept, the possiblity of infinities and singularities is out of the equation. Again we can fall back onto special and general relativity to helps explain the causes and effects.

 

As for the Hawking Radiation... or other forms of low frequency and low energy emissions... this could be tied into the principle that one side of the disk is moving away and the other towards, and the center perpendicular to the observer viewing the disk at plane level, peering into the edge. Materials breaking apart as they enter into the rotational orbit would be more capable send EMF when they are moving in the direction of an observer... In this case energy could be spewing off all the time but only detectable for a short period and in a headon circumstance of reference frame and observer. Thus generating a puslating effect of a laser like observable stream of redshifted and dilated energy.