Black Holes

[Anomalous]

Buffy

 

infamous

 

I cannot swallow your stories. For that you will have to answer the important part of the question. The fact that humans extract fantastic amounts of energy from Last heavy elements makes me question your statements. Is it possible to create a nuclear reactor out of lower elements, if no then that too sound mindboggling.

 

This also raises a new question in my mind. what if sun was made of Uranium ?

[coldcreation]

Supposing, first, that the gravitational force, or curvature, of a given area managed to condense the protons, neutrons and electrons in that area so that the space between particles is reduced to zero, i.e., all particles are touching. We are still left with protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

The black hole idea states that gravitational collapse can continue until those protons, neutrons and electrons are all fused together into either one point or into nothing (a so-called worm hole). There is no force or natural law that permits the disappearance of matter and energy—even if 100% of the mass was converted into pure energy. Are there any known laws of nature that forbid such occurrences? Yes there are: they are called the conservation laws, notably the conservation of energy. But we also have the conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of charge, conservation of baryons and the conservation of leptons. Not to mention Pauli's exclusion plrinciple: the particles mentioned above cannot occupy the same quantum state (i.e., they cannot have the same position and the same velocity simultaneously).

 

Conclusion: black holes are pure fantasy...mathematical aberrations.

[Boerseun]

Conclusion: black holes are pure fantasy...mathematical aberrations.

 

No, they are not. They are a logical conclusion to Laws of Nature, when extremely large compacted masses are involved.

[Stargazer]

I know that the Big Bang is almost universally accepted, but does that mean there could not have been another way?

One of the problems with big bang, as far as I know and I could be completely wrong, is that it doesn't explain what happened during that first Planck time, or before, if there was a before. The expansion and all those things, seems to be pretty well established. Perhaps inflation is another problem too?

[Anomalous]

Supposing, first, that the gravitational force, or curvature, of a given area managed to condense the protons, neutrons and electrons in that area so that the space between particles is reduced to zero, i.e., all particles are touching. We are still left with protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

The black hole idea states that gravitational collapse can continue until those protons, neutrons and electrons are all fused together into either one point or into nothing (a so-called worm hole). ...

 

The problem with these statements is that, star as long as it remains star is due to the fact that it has energy, meaning it has something that causes fusion to get energy to remain a star. But your statements gives an impression that the heavier elemnts are fused together. Due to their heavyness they should release more energy than lighter hydrogen and helium ; and there should never anything be collapsing as with more fusion we get more unstable heavier elements ?

[infamous]

The problem with these statements is that, star as long as it remains star is due to the fact that it has energy, meaning it has something that causes fusion to get energy to remain a star. But your statements gives an impression that the heavier elemnts are fused together. Due to their heavyness they should release more energy than lighter hydrogen and helium ; and there should never anything be collapsing as with more fusion we get more unstable heavier elements ?

 

I quess you haven't heard of a neutron star Anomalous, very well documented fact of nature. If you have an interest and care to learn anything about the subject, google pulsar .

[insight]

One of the problems with big bang, as far as I know and I could be completely wrong, is that it doesn't explain what happened during that first Planck time, or before, if there was a before. The expansion and all those things, seems to be pretty well established. Perhaps inflation is another problem too?

 

i'd like to say that there wasn't before or there was 'nothing' before completely. regarding to the uncertainty principle, there is no exact time to say the big bang creation if the age of the universe was known. universe is appeared from nothing like matter and anti-matter are created from nothing, it's quite unbelieveable though. please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

i don't know how to delete this extra post. can anyone delete it for me or tell me how to?

[insight]

One of the problems with big bang, as far as I know and I could be completely wrong, is that it doesn't explain what happened during that first Planck time, or before, if there was a before. The expansion and all those things, seems to be pretty well established. Perhaps inflation is another problem too?

 

i'd like to say that there wasn't before or there was 'nothing' before completely. regarding to the uncertainty principle, there is no exact time to say the big bang creation if the age of the universe was known. the universe was appeared from nothing like matter and anti-matter are created from nothing, it's quite unbelieveable though. please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Anomalous]

I quess you haven't heard of a neutron star Anomalous, very well documented fact of nature. If you have an interest and care to learn anything about the subject, google pulsar .

 

Yes Ihave heard all that but That is not my answer abotu fusion ?

[coldcreation]

Confronting black holes or some analogous destructive mass, or even of oneself, has led to loss-of-composure and disagreements. The fearful proportion of the brutal big bang and its dark repulsive aura are in their false decisiveness non-representational of the real world—they represent something to be avoided—fabrications of the amazing bicameral mind.

 

It is a bi-polar world, for sure. It revolves between those who refuse to see the monsters and those who can almost befriend them. But there still is the hope of curtailing folly by appeal to common sense. The mind made black holes, and the mind can stop them cold.

 

The Cold Creation universe has no such creatures, and the dark-forces have all been exorcised, but nature has become no less wondrous or astonishing. Cold Creation provides a simple vehicle for clarification. The stances defined by modern cosmology—in terms of oppositions and contradictions—can easily be dramatized in conventional terms.

 

The truth is much more fascinating.

 

coldcreation

[Queso]

coldcreation, what are your facts about your theory that black holes don't exist? have you done any scientific research?

[Stargazer]

Coldcreation, could you explain what you mean?

[coldcreation]

coldcreation, what are your facts about your theory that black holes don't exist? have you done any scientific research?

 

Hello orbsycli,

 

I've been doing scientific research as an independent since 1996: At Columbia University, N.Y.C, Observatoire de Paris / Meudon, New York University, Trinity College (CT), La Sorbone Paris 7, and at the Facultat de Fisica, Universitat de Barcelona (Spain).

 

Your question about black holes is primordial. The answer is simple. There are no facts. There are no facts that show black holes (BHs) exist: there are interpretations of rotational curves on stars spinning around galaxies very quickly implying some missing mass, and some abstract mathematics. There are other explanations or interpretations for those observations. There is no guarantee that our equations hold true when pushed to infinity. I've already quoted Einstein in a previous text of which I reiterate and corroborate here (see above, or previous page).

 

There may be no facts that exclude the existence of BHs either. But there is evidence that stars generally do not collapse and disappear.

 

Here is a quote well worth reading carefully from Sir Fred Hoyle:

 

“At this point, observation takes over - or, more properly speaking, should take over. In recent years, what might be called a black-hole establishment has arisen, composed of individuals who talk to each other in positive language, as if black holes were as certain of existence as tomorrow’s sunrise. Yet there is not a scintilla of observational evidence to support their position. What there certainly is evidence of are highly condensed aggregates of matter producing very strong gravitational fields. There is a great volume of evidence of violent activity associated with such aggregates, but the evidence is all of outbursts, never of the continuing infalling motion that would lead to the formation of a black hole. The evidence is all of a process that self-destructs.” (Hoyle, F. 1994, 1997, Home is Where the Wind Blows pp 399-423, see specifically page 406).

 

I disagree with the words ‘self-destruct.’ I would have used the word change. All the evidence shows that stars explode, become red giants, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, protoplanetary nebulae, brown dwarfs, etc. All is in a process of change. Nature tends towards equilibrium without ever quite attaining it.

 

There are no laws of nature that lead to a spacetime singularity, or wormhole. On the contrary, they all lead away from extreme scenarios.

 

Ask the black hole hunters. The search for BHs (decades worth) has come up with zero. Not even one gravitational lensing from a distant star, not one deflected incoming light beam from a distant galaxy or quasar (around a dark object). The suggestion that Einstein's Cross is one such example is absolute speculation.

 

Hawking radiation, was originally introduced ad hoc to black hole physics in order to avoid violating the second law of thermodynamics. Like the CMB, Hawking radiation is a vestige from the Christ-antichrist asymmetry. (Start a thread about that! You'll get a lot of hits)

 

Seriously, Hawking’s groundbreaking research at Cambridge defined the parameters of what we know today about black hole physics. But there is still no direct proof that they even exist.

 

There are very good reasons why spacetime singularities should not exist in nature. It must be noted that after having realized the fact that black holes were incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics, Bardeen, Carter and Hawking co-borrowed or appropriated a concept that was much more than suggestive. The result would be called the ‘four laws of black hole mechanics.’ These laws are stated almost precisely in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics, but with surface gravity in the place of temperature, and entropy replaced by ‘area.’ Aside from switching the words around, there is a fundamental difference between the two sets of laws: The laws of thermodynamics are based on empirical facts, while the ‘laws of BH dynamics’ are based on extrapolations, conjecture, mathematical aberrations.

 

It’s probably unnecessary to reiterate that the results of thermodynamics are not dependent on the validity of any particular theory or model that describes matter in terms of ultimate particles or waves. The equivalent cannot be said of black hole mechanics. Only the highly dubious cogency of the BH argument remains within reach.

 

”I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would be all wasted if it turned out that black hole do not exist” (Stephen Hawking, 1988 p. 94).

 

This is indeed a fascinating subject and I could go on, and on, about BHs, because it touches upon more than just a branch of physics (one of the human mind). Though more than pristine imagination, or pure creativity, is needed if ever an ultimate theory is to materialize: notably, empirical evidence.

 

As Paul Dirac used to teach his students in the 1930’s: “That which is not observable does not exist.” (from Hoyle 1994).

 

The ultimate theory is materializing (circa 1996-2005).

 

Coldcreation

[Chacmool]

Excellent answer, Coldcreation! I think newcomers and people unfamiliar with good scientific reasoning should be referred to this post. It has all the characteristics of logical reasoning and sound scientific insights, whether you agree with the ideas or not. We would advance much faster and more smoothly in the various threads if the opinions were all expressed this eloquently. Well done!

[mike89]

would it be possible weather it be a black hole or other wise for something to have enough gravitational pull to pull in planets or even possibly another star in turn making its gravitational pull even greater opening a possability that maybe there wasnt "a big bang" but instead many big bangs that get to a point at which it explodes and sends forth all that it had pulled in. I have no scientific backing for this theory but seems to make since, so maybe this universe is not the first one....

[infamous]

would it be possible weather it be a black hole or other wise for something to have enough gravitational pull to pull in planets or even possibly another star in turn making its gravitational pull even greater opening a possability that maybe there wasnt "a big bang" but instead many big bangs that get to a point at which it explodes and sends forth all that it had pulled in. I have no scientific backing for this theory but seems to make since, so maybe this universe is not the first one....

 

Good question mike89; there are theorists that purpose an alternative interpretation for the Big Bang. Many little bangs, as it were. No proof yet, jury is still out on this one.

[Stargazer]

i'd like to say that there wasn't before or there was 'nothing' before completely. regarding to the uncertainty principle, there is no exact time to say the big bang creation if the age of the universe was known. the universe was appeared from nothing like matter and anti-matter are created from nothing, it's quite unbelieveable though. please correct me if i'm wrong.

Perhaps there was nothing at all, and perhaps the universe expanded within a superverse of some kind. There are apparently many different ideas on how it happened. Perhaps we will never know with fair certainty...