Black Holes part 2


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2

Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 21 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413468 - Posted: 9 Sep 2013, 21:59:28 UTC - in response to Message 1413464.

If you actually want to know your error, ask nicely.

So, please prove Hawking wrong.

The world of Science will be genuinely interested if so.


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,878,964
RAC: 6,681
United States
Message 1413495 - Posted: 9 Sep 2013, 22:47:33 UTC - in response to Message 1413468.

If you actually want to know your error, ask nicely.

So, please prove Hawking wrong.

I only stated ML1 is wrong.

ML1 wrote:
Just as infalling material slows to near everlasting time from our viewpoint as they approach the event horizon

Not true.

Are you ready for your face palm ........

.
.
.
.
.
.

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

What level does gravity have to be to make time appear to stop? Infinite.

QED In-falling material slows in time to a finite rate above zero.

It is because time still flows in the positive direction at the event horizon that a particle anti-particle pair can have one of the two enter the event horizon and the other escape.



Please prove your maths credentials

Actually had Kip S. Thorne as a teacher ...


____________

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4865
Credit: 82,123,571
RAC: 41,955
United States
Message 1413503 - Posted: 9 Sep 2013, 23:14:01 UTC

This is a great discussion, and I am really enjoying it. As far as I am concerned, this thread can go where ever it wants.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413542 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:35:07 UTC - in response to Message 1413495.
Last modified: 10 Sep 2013, 0:42:44 UTC

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

Does it need to be?

What happens for real universe examples?

Please show your graph of mass, radius, gravity, time, so that we can all simply see your maths.


No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

In our universe, how long would it take in our timeframe for a 'singularity' to form (collapse to become) a Planck-scale sized object?


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413544 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:38:21 UTC - in response to Message 1413495.
Last modified: 10 Sep 2013, 0:40:24 UTC

Actually had Kip S. Thorne as a teacher ...

That is a great shame and a great loss that you singularly and completely failed to grasp or follow the Scientific Method from him. Or even to have any of the meekness and understanding of a scientist.


Sorry, but just as for a religion, your religion of yourself, you appear to know everything already. Just a black hole?

Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413546 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:39:37 UTC - in response to Message 1413503.

This is a great discussion, and I am really enjoying it. As far as I am concerned, this thread can go where ever it wants.

Wormholes next? ;-)


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4865
Credit: 82,123,571
RAC: 41,955
United States
Message 1413547 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:41:29 UTC - in response to Message 1413546.
Last modified: 10 Sep 2013, 0:43:31 UTC

This is a great discussion, and I am really enjoying it. As far as I am concerned, this thread can go where ever it wants.

Wormholes next? ;-)


Keep searchin',
Martin

I will listen, and enjoy!

Edit: After all, good science is all about discussion of evidence based theories, and can change as needed.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413548 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:50:56 UTC - in response to Message 1413547.
Last modified: 10 Sep 2013, 0:51:20 UTC

[Wormholes next? ;-)

I will listen, and enjoy!

Errr... Sorry, the wormy bit was a joke!

There might be some constellation called The Worm or something...?


Edit: After all, good science is all about discussion of evidence based theories, and can change as needed.

Indeed so.

(Scares the hell out of politicians and PR people. After all, what definite policy position can they take if new evidence can change everything?...)


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1438
Credit: 691,077
RAC: 349
Message 1413552 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 0:55:04 UTC

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

I can not explain these things any better, though.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,878,964
RAC: 6,681
United States
Message 1413589 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 4:09:47 UTC - in response to Message 1413542.

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

Does it need to be?

So you don't understand general relativity. It is a very hard concept to grasp. Nothing to be ashamed of. It is very frequently misstated in articles on the subject for lay persons.

For time to stop as you have stated, you either have to travel at the speed of light or be in an infinite acceleration frame (infinite gravity).

Explain why either (or both) of these special conditions exists. And do so for both in-falling matter and virtual particle pairs of Hawking radiation. Oh, and we already disproved an infinite acceleration frame at the radius of the event horizon. So you are left with a proof that all particles must approach the speed of light as they near the event horizon.


No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

In our universe, how long would it take in our timeframe for a 'singularity' to form (collapse to become) a Planck-scale sized object?

Nonsense question. Our universe ends at the event horizon. I know you won't like that answer, but it is the truth. There are only 11 things our universe knows about what is inside an event horizon[1], and the size of the whatever is inside is not one of those things. Mass, charge, linear momentum (x, y, z), angular momentum (x, y, z), position (x, y, z). Size of the thing inside is not one of the things we can know about the inside, so your question is nonsense.



[1]If magnetic monopoles exist 12 things, the magnetic charge.

____________

Profile JulieProject donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 21025
Credit: 3,779,654
RAC: 6,106
Belgium
Message 1413633 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 6:52:19 UTC - in response to Message 1413503.

This is a great discussion, and I am really enjoying it. As far as I am concerned, this thread can go where ever it wants.

Steve



Thanx for your feedback, Steve:)
____________


rOZZ

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31761
Credit: 13,155,350
RAC: 37,448
United Kingdom
Message 1413692 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 11:50:21 UTC

For time to stop as you have stated, you either have to travel at the speed of light or be in an infinite acceleration frame (infinite gravity).

Logically infinite gravity cannot exist. Nothing of any substance could survive infinite G force, it would cease to exist.

All this stuff about black holes is all theory. We think we know what they are, how they are formed, and what they do etc but it is all theory. Until someone travels into one and comes back and tells us about it we will never know for sure.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413705 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 13:38:47 UTC - in response to Message 1413589.

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

Does it need to be?

[...Pathetic insult snipped...]

For time to stop as you have stated,...

Sorry, not stated unless you are very loosely using that as a description when viewing between timeframes.


infinite acceleration frame (infinite gravity). [...Further random blather snipped...]

So, for your "infinite gravity" and for your absolutism: With such infinite gravity, could the rest of our universe even exist?


No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

In our universe, how long would it take in our timeframe for a 'singularity' to form (collapse to become) a Planck-scale sized object?

Nonsense question. Our universe ends at the event horizon. [...Insult snipped...] There are only 11 things our universe knows about what is inside an event horizon[1], and the size of the whatever is inside is not one of those things. Mass, charge, linear momentum (x, y, z), angular momentum (x, y, z), position (x, y, z). Size of the thing inside is not one of the things we can know about the inside, so your question is nonsense.

[1]If magnetic monopoles exist 12 things, the magnetic charge.

I think that is a very good question and one that with your claimed credentials you should be easily able to plot for us all to see.


So again please:

Taking a radial line from "distant" away from the event horizon, through to the centre of a black hole, what can be plotted for mass, gravity, escape velocity, and time? (This is open to anyone :-) I don't know! :-) )


Note that my suggestion is that there is not enough time in our universe for a singularity (as in something smaller than one Planck unit) to ever form.

Further, with the effect of Hawking radiation and time sheer, a collapsing mass will evaporate before ever getting anywhere near any "infinities".


Hence, your plot please?

(Please avoid the insults on this thread. You are welcome to start your own thread over on Politics for your frivolities over there if you wish... ;-) )

Keep searchin',
Martin



____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413708 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 13:46:46 UTC - in response to Message 1413692.

... but it is all theory. Until someone travels into one and comes back and tells us about it we will never know for sure.

So...

By your same reasoning: Have you been to your god for morning coffee and biscuits?

Any hints as to how he is setting the UK lottery this week?

Oooops... Has that just undone c2000 years of dogma for our part of the world?!!


(So why are not clairvoyants silly rich?... ;-) )

Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1543
Credit: 559,712
RAC: 501
United States
Message 1413709 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 13:47:45 UTC

In his day Newton's laws explained the universe, as observed, better than any other theory. Then along came Eienstein who, armed with better data, came up with a better more complete theory and set of equations that explained how the universe works except for gravity's role in quantum mechanics. Now that the existence of black holes, dark matter and dark energy are part of reality it is likely that Eienstein was as far off base as Newton was and we await the next genius that can account for all of the observed data in a new set of laws that will compose a new grand theory of everything. Until then we are groping around in the dark with equations and theories that don't quite fit what has been observed.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31761
Credit: 13,155,350
RAC: 37,448
United Kingdom
Message 1413946 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 22:39:29 UTC

Clairvoyants do not predict the exact future. They say they have an ability to gain information about an object, person, location or physical event through means other than the known human senses, i.e. a form of extra-sensory perception.


Until then we are groping around in the dark with equations and theories that don't quite fit what has been observed.

Which is why they have to invent unobserved things like Higgs Bosons to balance things up, and then go looking for them.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,878,964
RAC: 6,681
United States
Message 1413948 - Posted: 10 Sep 2013, 22:42:04 UTC - in response to Message 1413705.

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

Does it need to be?

[...Valid science snipped...]
For time to stop as you have stated,...

Sorry, not stated unless you are very loosely using that as a description when viewing between timeframes.

Denying your own words again ...
ML1 wrote:
Just as infalling material slows to near everlasting time from our viewpoint as they approach the event horizon


infinite acceleration frame (infinite gravity). [...valid points snipped...]

So, for your "infinite gravity" and for your absolutism: With such infinite gravity, could the rest of our universe even exist?

As soon as you are a hair away from the singularity (which has mass) you are no longer experiencing an infinite acceleration frame, "infinite gravity." Now back a bit farther off, to outside the event horizon and it should be obvious a universe can exist.

No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

In our universe, how long would it take in our timeframe for a 'singularity' to form (collapse to become) a Planck-scale sized object?

Nonsense question. Our universe ends at the event horizon. [...Insult snipped...] There are only 11 things our universe knows about what is inside an event horizon[1], and the size of the whatever is inside is not one of those things. Mass, charge, linear momentum (x, y, z), angular momentum (x, y, z), position (x, y, z). Size of the thing inside is not one of the things we can know about the inside, so your question is nonsense.

[1]If magnetic monopoles exist 12 things, the magnetic charge.

I think that is a very good question and one that with your claimed credentials you should be easily able to plot for us all to see.

So again please:

Taking a radial line from "distant" away from the event horizon, through to the centre of a black hole, what can be plotted for mass, gravity, escape velocity, and time? (This is open to anyone :-) I don't know! :-))

Note that my suggestion is that there is not enough time in our universe for a singularity (as in something smaller than one Planck unit) to ever form.

Further, with the effect of Hawking radiation and time sheer, a collapsing mass will evaporate before ever getting anywhere near any "infinities".

You don't seem to get this. The event horizon is the edge of our universe. It is a discontinuity. From the outside you can not know the inside. It is forbidden. The existence of the event horizon is proof that a singularity is lurking inside.

Perhaps if you think of it this way, you are just a hair inside the event horizon. PDQ you find yourself smashed into oblivion at the singularity. This because every direction is directly at the center, and you don't have the choice to sit still.

Or it is a micro hole and say you are 10 plank distance units away from the center. At this point you are traveling so close to the speed of light as to not matter. From your perspective before 11 plank times pass you are going to be at the center. Remember every direction is directly towards the center. Has the universe been in existence for more than 11 plank times? (When you ask questions where division by zero is implicit, you get crazy answers.)

Oh as to your graphs, try 1/x^2. Just label them with the appropriate units.

BTW it looks as if the Wiki author of black holes is a bit confused. In one place he states what you do, that at the event horizon time has stopped due to gravitational time dilation. However later he talks about you being inside a black hole and being able to make it take a bit longer trip to the center by a rocket. Here is the problem. For time to stop you need to be in an infinite acceleration frame, and he states that is at the edge. But if you are closer to the center infinity is still infinity and no force (F = m * a) exerted by a rocket will in any way add or subtract from infinity to result in anything but infinity. The issue in a conflation of time dilation due to velocity and time dilation due to gravity. What is trying to be said is that most stuff falling into a hole is in orbit. As those orbits get smaller they get faster and at the edge they are at the speed of light. It is velocity time dilation , not gravitational, that makes it appear as if they never can enter the hole. However consider that a particle will on occasion run into another particle. One will pick up velocity and the other lose velocity. The one that loses now isn't going fast enough to stay out and it falls in. Yes black holes get bigger. They even talk later about what happens when you cross the event horizon. Several places they say something doesn't happen and later describe exactly what it is to do it. Wiki is giving a general gloss over answer, with the confusion of rotating and non-rotating black holes thrown in.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8448
Credit: 4,150,282
RAC: 1,740
United Kingdom
Message 1413995 - Posted: 11 Sep 2013, 0:09:09 UTC - in response to Message 1413948.
Last modified: 11 Sep 2013, 0:14:56 UTC

Ask yourself a question. Is gravity infinite at the event horizon?

Does it need to be?

[...Fluff snipped...]
For time to stop as you have stated,...

Sorry, not stated unless you are very loosely using that as a description when viewing between timeframes.

Denying your own words again ...
ML1 wrote:
Just as infalling material slows to near everlasting time from our viewpoint as they approach the event horizon

So think a little... Why would I use such a careful and long phrase to describe something rather than just saying simply that "time stops"? Could it be that I am indeed not saying that "time stops"?...


infinite acceleration frame (infinite gravity). [...fluff points snipped...]

So, for your "infinite gravity" and for your absolutism: With such infinite gravity, could the rest of our universe even exist?

As soon as you are a hair away from the singularity (which has mass) you are no longer experiencing an infinite acceleration frame, "infinite gravity." Now back a bit farther off, to outside the event horizon and it should be obvious a universe can exist.

Mmmmm... I sense a confusion of infinite proportions spanning multiple timeframes...

So that we can agree on what we are talking about...

Are you describing the entire volume of a black hole event horizon a "singularity"?...

Please note that my descriptions are for a discrete and continuously collapsing object that is some smaller volume within an event horizon...



No it is not. It is only infinite at the singularity.

In our universe, how long would it take in our timeframe for a 'singularity' to form (collapse to become) a Planck-scale sized object?

Nonsense question. Our universe ends at the event horizon. [...Insult snipped...] There are only 11 things our universe knows about what is inside an event horizon[1], and the size of the whatever is inside is not one of those things. Mass, charge, linear momentum (x, y, z), angular momentum (x, y, z), position (x, y, z). Size of the thing inside is not one of the things we can know about the inside, so your question is nonsense.

[1]If magnetic monopoles exist 12 things, the magnetic charge.

... Taking a radial line from "distant" away from the event horizon, through to the centre of a black hole, what can be plotted for mass, gravity, escape velocity, and time? (This is open to anyone :-) I don't know! :-))

Note that my suggestion is that there is not enough time in our universe for a singularity (as in something smaller than one Planck unit) to ever form.

Further, with the effect of Hawking radiation and time sheer, a collapsing mass will evaporate before ever getting anywhere near any "infinities".

You don't seem to get this. The event horizon is the edge of our universe. It is a discontinuity.

Ahhhh... That is where our understandings differ...


From the outside you can not know the inside. It is forbidden.

And yet we feel the presence of "the inside".


The existence of the event horizon is proof that a singularity is lurking inside.

Which comes back to what it is that is what is here being called a "singularity".

My reasoning is that all this "singularity" talk is just fanciful trash-TV hokum...

Hence the question: Do any 'infinitely dense' objects ever have enough time to ever get to be 'infinitely dense'?


(Present company here excepted :-p - sorry couldn't resist! :-) )


... Oh as to your graphs, try 1/x^2. Just label them with the appropriate units.

Yes, an x^2 curve is expected. Sorry, somewhat more detail is needed, including adding the detail for how the multiple parameters overlay, how, and why. Please care to oblige us all?


BTW it looks as if the Wiki author of black holes is a bit confused.

Phew! Glad I didn't have a mouthful or anything in hand of any beverage for that one!!! Thankfully I can still see the screen! And the keyboard still works ok ;-)


In one place he states what you do, that at the event horizon time has stopped due to gravitational time dilation. However later... Here is the problem. For time to stop you need to be in an infinite acceleration frame, ... issue in a conflation of time dilation due to velocity and time dilation due to gravity. What is trying to be said is that most stuff falling into a hole is in orbit. As those orbits get smaller they get faster and at the edge they are at the speed of light. It is velocity time dilation , not gravitational, that makes it appear as if they never can enter the hole. ... Wiki is giving a general gloss over answer, with the confusion of rotating and non-rotating black holes thrown in.

There's a lot to get confused about especially when throwing in random infinities...

Hence, keep all this simple by not suffering any infinities?


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1438
Credit: 691,077
RAC: 349
Message 1414006 - Posted: 11 Sep 2013, 0:33:36 UTC
Last modified: 11 Sep 2013, 0:44:21 UTC

Please remember that neutron stars and black holes are the remnants of massive stars which blew apart as a result of a supernova. Iron may possibly not be created by means of a fusion process alone, this element as well as at least the other ones which are even heavier becomes a by-product of a process which takes place when the star explodes.

In the order for a black hole to be created, the remaining mass of a star has to be at least 3.2 times that of our sun. Such a star has its fusion processes going on in different or separate layers below the surface. There are two different fusion processes going on inside stars. One such process is known to be happening inside our own sun. Another process which is more complex is happening inside stars which are heavier than our own sun. Therefore the process which ultimately leads to the event of a supernova and the demise of the parent star is based on the more complex fusion process of these two.

Near the surface of a star close to becoming a supernova the temperature may be so high that hydrogen is being fused into helium in the same way as it is happening in our sun. Farther down, either silicon or oxygen may be fused or fuse into even heavier elements in an approximate 2*element weight / atomic number proportion. The temperature in the center of the sun is some 15-20 million degrees. Not too much of a difference regardless of Fahrenheit, Kelvin or Celsius.

At such a temperature one might assume that the elements are in a gaseous state, but because of the immense pressure, it is rather in metallic form. In large stars, either like Betelgeuze (20 solar masses) or younger Rigel (50 solar masses), the temperature in the center may be perhaps 100 million degrees and possibly 4 billion degrees has been mentioned just before the moment of the supernova explosion itself.

Therefore it is the remaining iron core of the star which collapses in on itself when the remainder of the star blows itself into space as the result of the supernova explosion. One part of the star blows, the other one contracts into itself.

The result of the remaining contraction process leads to either a neutron star or a black hole.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2384
Credit: 5,026,795
RAC: 10,526
United States
Message 1414021 - Posted: 11 Sep 2013, 1:22:23 UTC

IMHO, this thread would be better served over at E@H forums, gravity is what they do.
____________

Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 21 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2

Copyright © 2014 University of California