11 replies to this topic

[adamh]

A singularity being a black hole (bh) which forms when there is sufficient mass in one area. Its often due to stars that burn out and explode but do not eject most of their mass. The mass remaining cools rapidly as nuclear fires burn out. As it cools it contracts which makes its mass fit into a smaller space and become denser. At some tipping point space itself seems to collapse and everything is drawn into the center which is now a bh. 

 

I'm not sure what the exact density is needed to form a bh but its greater than the pressure and density that creates a nuclear fluid, a theoretical state in which there are no atoms just a "fluid" of nuclear particles mashed together. Its a very high density but not enough to make a bh, however we see numerous bh's in the observable universe.

 

According to the big bang theory, the whole universe began as a tiny dot or even a mathematical point which exploded and over millions and billions of years expanded into stars and galaxies. If this theory is correct, and most scientists and astrophysicists seem to accept it, then the density of the proto universe was near infinity at creation and stayed at a super high density for millions of years. According to what we know, a bh should have been created at the same time.

 

Does it matter? Only in a theoretical sense perhaps. It would mean that nothing could escape the universe not even light and anything outside the universe would be drawn into it. However it could help explain some things that do not make sense and which seem to violate "laws" of physics that we have agreed upon. Perhaps its our understanding that is wrong rather than the universe refusing to order itself according to our theories?

 

For example, many galaxies spin at a rate that is faster than the mass and gravity of the galaxy could hold it together and those galaxies should spin apart but they don't. So we came up with "dark matter" which is invisible, can't touch it or sense it in any way but it has gravity which balances the books. Then we see that the observable universe is flying apart and seems to fly apart faster and faster going once again against what our theories predict. So they invented "dark energy" which pushes things apart and supposedly explains the anomalies

 

How is this any different than what we did in olden times when we couldn't explain something, we invoked fairies, spirits, gnomes, etc with supernatural powers to explain it away. We don't believe in magic or demons anymore so we have to make up a new supernatural force that can not be explained to fill the gaps. 

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, being in a super massive bh means that while the laws of physics work the way we think they do on a micro cosmic scale like our solar system but on a much larger scale other forces take over that we don't understand yet. This would explain why the farther away something is, the greater the red shift which we interpret as speed away from us. Maybe the bh has this influence over a distance of thousands of light years but it not detectable over shorter distances? 

 

We need a 21st century einstien to sus it out because our scientists are baffled. What is your theory?

[Mind]

I think our particular universe/reality (as we experience it right now) was created.

 

Otherwise, I think the "fabric of reality" is infinite in time and space, basically the steady-state theory.

[QuestforLife]

Although the big bang theory is still largely supported by astrophysicists, it is a problematic theory that is constantly having to have additions and modifications made to it to make it work. For example, there had to be a period of faster than light 'inflation' required in order to make the universe look the same in all directions, 'dark energy' had to be invoked to explain the apparent ongoing acceleration of galaxies away from each other, and there is also the problem that as we look further out with more and more capable telescopes, we find huge webs of galaxies that could never have formed in the time since the supposed big bang. This is to say nothing of the requirement of 'dark matter' to make gravity strong enough to keep galaxies together, and a host of other astrophysics related conundrums. The overly complex modern outlook of the universe is akin to how the astrophysicists of pre-Copernican times explained the motion of planets and stars around the earth with complex looping orbits.  Oh, and stellar evolution theory also has lots of problems, hence I we have to question the idea of a 'black hole'. I totally agree with you that most of modern astrophysics is nothing more than invoking fairies. But I'd hesitate to invoke a singularity, given that I am not sure such things actually exist in the real universe. 

[adamh]

It sounds as if there is a lot of skepticism among our members toward the accepted ideas that are going around. We are still invoking supernatural forces to explain the holes in our theories instead of saying the theories must be wrong and need a new theory. What is dark matter, dark energy, but supernatural forces? They have no scientific explanation or basis, its like our theory predicts 400 of something and we keep seeing that its 300 so we invent a troll which stole100. Its good that we don't blindly go along with the stories we are told and demand better explanations

 

We found that newtonian physics worked great here on earth but with greater speeds, energy, and mass, the numbers and observed effects did not add up. Luckily einstien came along or we might have light bending fairies and mass adding gnomes to explain the difference. Now we find that at even greater distances, greater energies and so on, the numbers still do not add up. Einsteinian physics works well in the solar system and nearby stars, at those distances, but as we look at the milky way as a whole and at things farther away, neither newton or einstein seems to have the answers. It will likely turn out that both einstein and newton were special cases of a more general theory.

 

Do black holes exist? We see areas of space in which a dark central object seems to draw mass including stars into it and what goes in, so far, has never come out. Unlike dark matter or energy, we can actually measure the gravity it produces and the way it bends light around it, indicated enormous amounts of mass equal to a very large star in many cases. So whether its a bh or a glitch in the matrix, it does seem real. We have not seen any non bh objects of that density so far in the sky and we have followed stars in their evolution and seen them in the stages of white or brown dwarf, neutron star and so on but when they get to a certain size and density they seem to collapse into a bh

 

Can a bh have other bh's inside it? We don't know. If the universe is exploding and constantly flying away from a central point that supports the big bang theory but that would tend to make the new universe a bh due to super intense mass and density. If so, then the enormous gravity force produced by a bh may make distant objects look more red. That alone would explain the distance and velocity measurements since red shift is used to calculate them. Then again, the big bang could be wrong and or there is a higher theory that ties together relativity and observed effects much as einstein's theory tied up the loose ends we could not explain before him

[QuestforLife]

Do black holes exist? We see areas of space in which a dark central object seems to draw mass including stars into it and what goes in, so far, has never come out. Unlike dark matter or energy, we can actually measure the gravity it produces and the way it bends light around it, indicated enormous amounts of mass equal to a very large star in many cases. So whether its a bh or a glitch in the matrix, it does seem real. We have not seen any non bh objects of that density so far in the sky and we have followed stars in their evolution and seen them in the stages of white or brown dwarf, neutron star and so on but when they get to a certain size and density they seem to collapse into a bh

We've not actually seen a black hole. We've seen things that might be one. Or it might be something else. We certainly haven't seen stars become black holes. We've seen stars go forwards and backwards on the supposed one way stellar evolution path.

Edited by QuestforLife, 10 November 2023 - 07:38 PM.

[adamh]

Apparently when it collapses under the pressure of massive material, the black hole happens very rapidly much like an explosion but inward. So seeing that actually happen will be rare. However we have seen sudden bursts of energy which could have been a bh forming and then later the bh. If you don't want to call it a bh, what is a better name? Its something that gobbles up matter around it and has fantastic gravity. Call it anything you want but they are apparent and real

 

Another unproven thing that is accepted as true is hawking radiation. Hawking was very bright and did good work in astrophysics but nothing outstanding. They decided to award him recognition for hawking radiation (hr) yet there is no evidence at all that it exists. HR is supposed to occur in bh's and slowly reduces their mass. But there is no way to measure it or verify that it happens at all. It would take supposedly a billion years or so to make the bh light enough to show it lost mass. Convenient isn't it? A theory impossible to prove or disprove

 

When you read about hr, its always presented as a fact, not an unproven theory. My suspicion is that they had to award him with something because it was politically correct. He was disabled after all so lets give him huge honors. Did he earn the recognition? Looks to me they said "we will take your word for it" So lets add hawking radiation to the list of unproven and suspiciously supernatural forces they want us to believe in. I believe what can be proven. BH's or any other name can be pointed to and examined, unlike the "dark" forces they imagined up. Nothing is supposed to escape a bh they said

 

What other things have scientists or the powers that be told us that seem suspiciously like they made it up? Is there evidence of quarks, super strings, or many of the other beasties they say lurk within the atom? Last time I looked there were over 100 particles on a list they want us to believe in. The best they have come up with is a photo of particle collisions and they say this spark coming off here is this and that coming off is that. If you ask how they know what it is, they may say it matches our calculations. Or were the calculations made up to match the "sparks" instead? They made up dark energy and so on to make it fit the calculations. Maybe they do a lot of that and in a few years, they will change their theory and say once again "this time we got it right" 

[QuestforLife]

Black holes were dreamed up by a guy called John Wheeler at Princeton University to explain why some galaxies had.very bright, energetic centers. They are just a theory. And not a very good one at that. They don't have enough mass to explain how galaxies form or stay together. And they can't explain the jets of plasma coming from the top and bottom of the galaxy, which would not be able to 'escape'.

[Mind]

Black holes were dreamed up by a guy called John Wheeler at Princeton University to explain why some galaxies had.very bright, energetic centers. They are just a theory. And not a very good one at that. They don't have enough mass to explain how galaxies form or stay together. And they can't explain the jets of plasma coming from the top and bottom of the galaxy, which would not be able to 'escape'.

 

The current physical laws as we understand them seem to support the concept of a black hole pretty well, except that the equations break down (are not solvable) when density goes to infinity. So you are right in a sense. No one truly understands what is going on in a point of infinite density. Some physicists think that the centers of galaxies are not "black holes" but something else that we cannot currently describe.

[adamh]

The difference between bh's and fairy dust or dark matter as they call it, is that bh's can be detected and located. No light reflects off them but we see their effects on nearby stars and other material. We see that light bends around them and by the amount of bending we can calculate mass. They seem to gobble up dust, and whole solar systems. The matter is heated to very high temperatures due to tidal effects from the super strong gravity. This can cause it to shoot out jets of energy and plasma from the poles. Since it does not come from inside the bh, it can escape. Compare that to the imaginary dark matter. They can't say where it is, just generally in the galaxy somewhere. Is it everywhere in space? They say no, just in certain areas where its needed to make the figures come out right. 

 

I think there is something that causes light to assume a red shift when it travels a great distance like billions of light years. If that was the case then there is no need to invoke dark energy to plug the holes in theory. What could this force be? I think its a very slight effect from gravity or from the mass of objects. Instead of falling off as the square of distance, this force might be linear and could have only a slight effect on space and light going through it but over vast distances, it shows up. It causes light to shift to the red the farther light travels

 

Light has an electric field and a magnetic field which have different properties. Why not gravity have two different effects on space, an attractive force that falls off rapidly with distance, and a weaker force that extends throughout the universe. That would explain away distant galaxies seemingly moving ever more rapidly away from us. If the universe then is not accelerating its expansion that solves the conundrum and dark energy can go back in the closet

 

It could also weaken the support for dark matter since the speed of spin of galaxies is calculated by red or blue shift as well. Something that tweaks with the shift might mean they are not spinning as fast as they thought so no missing mass and no need to explain it away. 

[QuestforLife]

I'd recommend reading 'Seeing Red' by Halton Arp. Shows you red shift isn't just caused by the doppler effect (motion away for red, towards for blue) but also some sort of intrinsic quantum effect. Once you understand that, the expansion of the universe and the big bang, and all the additions needed to keep that theory going, become unnecessary.

As for your insistance black holes have been observed, or that they can give rise to jets, you haven't convinced me at all. What do you think these jets are made of, out of interest?

Edited by QuestforLife, 11 November 2023 - 11:15 PM.

[adamh]

"red shift isn't just caused by the doppler effect (motion away for red, towards for blue) but also some sort of intrinsic quantum effect."

 

Do tell us more about this "some sort of intrinsic quantum effect." We know that motion toward or away produces a shift, intense gravity fields too can produce a red shift. 

 

"As for your insistance black holes have been observed, or that they can give rise to jets, you haven't convinced me at all. What do you think these jets are made of, out of interest?"

 

We have seen the effects of the bh. The jets are superheated matter, a similar jet comes out of some quasars and other stellar objects. There are pulsars which put out a pulse on a regular basis

[QuestforLife]

It has been a while but from what I remember from the book there are numerous cases of large galaxies with low red shift next to small galaxies with high redshift. The assumption was that the small galaxies were much further away and hence receding faster. But Arp showed that these galaxies are often connected and are actually next to each other. He then showed that the difference between the red shift of the large and small galaxies is quantised, and that in many cases there were several small galaxies being 'born' from the large galaxies, and as they moved away from the larger galaxy their red shift decreased, in quantised levels. The best thing about Arp is that he is a practical astronomer with catalogues of 1000s of galaxies showing this effect. IMO his work throws doubt on the idea of using red shift to work out distance, and even puts the big bang model in doubt. We might be better moving to a steady state theory, with new material being born constantly - although I do not know where it all goes and if there is also a process to destroy it (other than dissipation via expansion).  

 

BTW you can't just say 'we've seen the effects of black holes', as jets aren't evidence of a bh, they are something that wasn't expected from bh theory, they have been 'bolted on' like so much of modern cosmology. Jets are something that has to be explained and many theories are possible to do this.