Black Holes

[Squatch1111]

It is my opinion that there is no "information paradox" with black holes because any matter falling into them travels backward in time and returns to its original state of energy. So black hole Hawking radiation from that matter is "pure" in the sense that it is from energy as it existed before it became matter and recorded any information.

Another way to put it is that information is a function of forward time. And if time is reversed completely inside the black hole, the information is unraveled there as well. Just because we can't see that process doesn't mean it didn't happen and therefore information is lost. Rather, it's a consequence of light being unable to reach us to inform us of this.

 

[iconoclast]

Your opinion needs some proof. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Squatch1111]

But I don't think my claim is extraordinary. And I can't give you proof if I can't report to you live from a black hole.

 

[iconoclast]

Uh, yeah it is. Even if it were not, you need some proof. And the rest of your post is just trolling the forum, please don't.

 

[Squatch1111]

Uh, yeah it is. Even if it were not, you need some proof. And the rest of your post is just trolling the forum, please don't.

"Extraordinary" is a subjective word and one that does not belong in Science. Shame on Carl Sagan for that. Science evolved out of philosophy and back then it consisted of more freedom of thought than we have now. We regrettably do not welcome new ideas anymore. Instead, we call people "trolls" (heretics) when they have new ideas. Shame on you for participating in that.

But don't worry. I will leave your "turf" and won't post here again, after going through all the necessary trouble of signing up because I was eager to participate. Obviously, not all ideas are welcome here, so I'll be on my way now. I'm just glad you didn't burn me at the stake for my transgression. Thank God "Science" replaced the Catholic religion because things have obviously gotten so much better now.

 

[iconoclast]

"Extraordinary" is a subjective word and one that does not belong in Science. Shame on Carl Sagan for that. Science evolved out of philosophy and back then it consisted of more freedom of thought than we have now. We regrettably do not welcome new ideas anymore. Instead, we call people "trolls" (heretics) when they have new ideas. Shame on you for participating in that.

But don't worry. I will leave your "turf" and won't post here again, after going through all the necessary trouble of signing up because I was eager to participate. Obviously, not all ideas are welcome here, so I'll be on my way now. I'm just glad you didn't burn me at the stake for my transgression. Thank God "Science" replaced the Catholic religion because things have obviously gotten so much better now.

"Extraordinary" is a very well defined word, and you have offered no extraordinary or even ordinary back up of your statements. Your new idea is put out with no proof or justification, asking for that is not being hostile to new ideas. Science is new ideas, proved or shown. If you have an idea and can back it up, you are welcome here. But if you want to leave, whatever.

 

[Squatch1111]

But "if you have an idea and can back it up" is subjective as well. I think you are an honest person, but I feel that you are missing the point. If you restrict even one idea, you are (potentially) impeding progress in Science. If, back in Einstein's day, I were to declare his theory of relativity "extraordinary" would I be justified in telling him to shut up because I didn't consider his ideas to be worthy of consideration? If I recall, proof of his ideas didn't come until much later. But you demand that I present INSTANT proof to satisfy you?

We didn't have Twitter back then, or comment sections like this one, so perhaps we were lucky in that regard. We got Einstein and we got relativity.

But if I were to tell you that all black holes lead back to the big bang instead of some arbitrary place in space, would you insult me instead of thinking about it? Yep.

My point is that our society has become to closed-minded and intolerant of other ideas. That is bad for Science. It always has been, and always will be.

 

[iconoclast]

But "if you have an idea and can back it up" is subjective as well. I think you are an honest person, but I feel that you are missing the point. If you restrict even one idea, you are (potentially) impeding progress in Science. If, back in Einstein's day, I were to declare his theory of relativity "extraordinary" would I be justified in telling him to shut up because I didn't consider his ideas to be worthy of consideration? If I recall, proof of his ideas didn't come until much later. But you demand that I present INSTANT proof to satisfy you?

We didn't have Twitter back then, or comment sections like this one, so perhaps we were lucky in that regard. We got Einstein and we got relativity.

But if I were to tell you that all black holes lead back to the big bang instead of some arbitrary place in space, would you insult me instead of thinking about it? Yep.

My point is that our society has become to closed-minded and intolerant of other ideas. That is bad for Science. It always has been, and always will be.

Einstein made revolutionary statements concurrent with proof(s) taking pages; you don't present an idea, you make outlandish and poorly written statements and refuse to back them up with facts or discussion. You make yourself out as a martyr. You are no Einstein, you are trolling. If your posting gave me something to think about, I would. If you gave any discussion or justification for me to think about, I would. But you don't. Besides, your intractability method has been used hundreds of times in the past by long forgotten people. Bye, I'm blocking you so you can wallow around in your own misguided martyrdom.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Since a black hole isn't held up by nuclear forces as they are defeated with matter collapse.
IMO a black hole is just a time well of less activity/time as you go deeper.
Time itself a last step beyond the nuclear force, as a black hole compresses so does time/activity.
Why we never see infinite mass or infinite smallness of a black hole.

Nothing will escape a black hole since it has forever to shrink in time crunched forever
No information is destroyed in a black hole, it can just never be recovered stuck in a time well unless the universe has some end or rebirth.

JMO.

 

[Squatch1111]

Einstein made revolutionary statements concurrent with proof(s) taking pages; you don't present an idea, you make outlandish and poorly written statements and refuse to back them up with facts or discussion. You make yourself out as a martyr. You are no Einstein, you are trolling. If your posting gave me something to think about, I would. If you gave any discussion or justification for me to think about, I would. But you don't. Besides, your intractability method has been used hundreds of times in the past by long forgotten people. Bye, I'm blocking you so you can wallow around in your own misguided martyrdom.

So are you asking for proof from something that can emit no information?

 

[Squatch1111]

Since a black hole isn't held up by nuclear forces as they are defeated with matter collapse.
IMO a black hole is just a time well of less activity/time as you go deeper.
Time itself a last step beyond the nuclear force, as a black hole compresses so does time/activity.
Why we never see infinite mass or infinite smallness of a black hole.

Nothing will escape a black hole since it has forever to shrink in time crunched forever
No information is destroyed in a black hole, it can just never be recovered stuck in a time well unless the universe has some end or rebirth.

JMO.

That sounds like make-believe and Santa Claus. And no, I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to engage in duscussion.

The answer depends on what gravity is. And we don't know that.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That sounds like make-believe and Santa Claus. And no, I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to engage in duscussion.

The answer depends on what gravity is. And we don't know that.

Hey don't diss santa, him and the beer elves are my good friends Black hole can be no more than a time well since nothing can withstand it's gravitational collapse other than maybe time/space compressed.

 

[Harry Costas]

Classical Black Hole cannot exist.
So what does create mass that can produce vector force fields that will prevent EMR from escaping and cause the Event Horizon forming?
What can mimic a Black Hole?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Classical Black Hole cannot exist.
So what does create mass that can produce vector force fields that will prevent EMR from escaping and cause the Event Horizon forming?
What can mimic a Black Hole?

My thought is singularity and event horizon don't exist or do but not just1 of each.
EMR won't escape to form an event horizon since every part/every layer is an event horizon .
A well of time/activity will cause a black hole to compress time and halt it's compression to an infinite mass point.
No time to compress further as it is compressed further a feed back loop that takes forever to stop a black hole becoming infinite.

It's a very simple answer to what a black hole is and why it stops or slows compression to last forever.

No real other good candidate reason other than compressed time as the mechanism of a black hole that halts the path to an infinite mass point.

JMO

 

[Helio]

So are you asking for proof from something that can emit no information?

It may help, IMO, if we all understand two important elements to science:

1) Subjective ideas are the first steps to scientific advancements. They should be respected if they are remotely reasonable.

2) Unlike philosophy and religion, science demands that real claims have falsifiable tests, otherwise we are allowing fiction and, sometimes, fantasy in the door.

So, to advance an idea to the level of respectable science, and eventually to "mainstream", at some point objective evidence will be required. Sometimes the evidence is "in principle" and can be taken as axiomatic. It needs to reach a level of reasonableness. But reason requires an understanding in applying prior knowledge. Circumstantial evidence can work, but it's on shakier ground.

 

[Harry Costas]

Time is not a physical item and thus cannot be compressed or expanded.
But! The clock we use can be manipulated by motion and gravity.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Time is not a physical item and thus cannot be compressed or expanded.
But! The clock we use can be manipulated by motion and gravity.

I agree time is just a concept.
Probably just an indicator of travel from point A to B in the medium of fluctuation.
Time might be a thing of substance or just a property of fluctuations space.

Time and gravity must be related to each other since gravity is the only thing that can alter perception of time.
Going fast does alter time but only personal dilation and that could also be the result of traveling through fluctuation.

Fun to think about the idea of time not existing as more than a bendable property of fluctuation.

 

[Harry Costas]

Time is not related to Gravity or any other parts of the universe.
Yet we use time to asses each part.
To asses Gravity, Distance, Velocity, Speed, you name it, most use time.

Space has no property.
Time has no property.
Yet we speak of time and space.
We note bent space

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Time is not related to Gravity or any other parts of the universe.
Yet we use time to asses each part.
To asses Gravity, Distance, Velocity, Speed, you name it, most use time.

Space has no property.
Time has no property.
Yet we speak of time and space.
We note bent space

No proof that time exists and no proof that it doesn't exist.
Space has no property but what fills it (fluctuation) does.
As the creator and maintainer fluctuation has properties at minimum keeping E balanced.
All we think of as time and space could be that balance act of fluctuation wrapped in nothing since we have a smallest possible thing between that is nothing.
JMO

 

[Harry Costas]

Please explain E balance.
You lost me the wrap.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Please explain E balance.
You lost me the wrap.

Quantum fluctuation E balance is creation of particles that either stay or are self destroyed after a very brief existence.

At the start lots of permanent particles, now only temp particles because of the E balance of fluctuation.
Mass and energy of temp creation of particles that are only allowed now make a great hiding source of dark energy/matter as temp items across the universe.
More than enough universe for temp creation to be both.

E balance of fluctuation makes a wonderful mechanism for conservation of energy.
JMO

 

[Harry Costas]

That may be so.
But Matter cannot be created to destroyed.
It is always in balance.
Matter can transform to different phases.
Research Quantum Mechanics.
Condensates and their Transients

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That may be so.
But Matter cannot be created to destroyed.
It is always in balance.
Matter can transform to different phases.
Research Quantum Mechanics.
Condensates and their Transients

Got to make you wonder what the mechanism is that won't allow new energy or it's destruction.
Quantum fluctuation seems the exception to the rule since it's makes new energy and particles all the time then seems to check if they are allowed on times scales that make 1 second seem like a very long time.
Easy to make the conclusion that fluctuation is the mechanism of conservation of energy.
JMO

 

[Harry Costas]

Mechanism is through the understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Research to understand the Mechanism

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

As you should research e=mc2 based on wrong math.
Just saying when you math out ideas with wrong base math what will you get?