Am i correct in saying that most of the galaxies, if not all are rotating around a super massive black hole and if so does that mean that black holes are eventually going to suck all the matter inside their galaxies like water getting sucked down a plug hole
Question black holes
- Thread starter E.B.E1
- Start date
That's one of those theories that should, but don't. We have several of those.
We still stick to the should but don't theories, and have other should theories to explain the don't theories.
We try to strike a balance of should and don't.
Our only understanding for this is our confidence in our perception of light. It's the only tool we have.
So basically, all these theories depend on that light perception. And I don't trust it.
We still stick to the should but don't theories, and have other should theories to explain the don't theories.
We try to strike a balance of should and don't.
Our only understanding for this is our confidence in our perception of light. It's the only tool we have.
So basically, all these theories depend on that light perception. And I don't trust it.
A black hole attracts (with gravity) in the same way as any other object ie objects fall towards the centre of attraction (the BH) but their speed compensates and the combination becomes an "orbit". How stable the orbit is is dependent on additional factors apart from any black hole influence (unless quite close to the event horizon).
The water down a plug-hole is under Earth's gravity (not the plug-hole centre). However, I think your analogy is good - if the water were to speed up its circular motion, it might not go down the plug hole.
The 'black hole' was invented to explain how the monstrous body of galaxies can rotate and drag their star families with them. Added to this was the 'dark matter' idea to explain how fast the outermost stars were whizzing around. So that's two dark invisble entities invented to explain the galaxy. Not a good start if you want me to believe in a GRAVITY Universe!
Our question shows what ridiculous conclusions these inventions lead to: "..most of the galaxies, if not all are rotating around a super massive black hole and if so does that mean that black holes are eventually going to suck all the matter...down a plug hole "
It is such nonsense but luckily scientists can prove it to their liking with mathemagical equations which we all accept...NOT! So what is a better, more logical alternative? I suggest the simplest electric motor ever discovered explains all the evidence. Michael Faraday demonstrated the homopolar motor in 1821. All he needed was an simple conductor, a magnetic field and a flow of electricity. So do we have that inside a galaxy? Certainly we do.
Every magnetic field in space is indication of a flowing current. Every galaxy is basically a disk of conductive ionised hydrogen (PLASMA). All three component parts needed for this motor to work. This negates the need for black holes and dark matter because it just works!
Our question shows what ridiculous conclusions these inventions lead to: "..most of the galaxies, if not all are rotating around a super massive black hole and if so does that mean that black holes are eventually going to suck all the matter...down a plug hole "
It is such nonsense but luckily scientists can prove it to their liking with mathemagical equations which we all accept...NOT! So what is a better, more logical alternative? I suggest the simplest electric motor ever discovered explains all the evidence. Michael Faraday demonstrated the homopolar motor in 1821. All he needed was an simple conductor, a magnetic field and a flow of electricity. So do we have that inside a galaxy? Certainly we do.
Every magnetic field in space is indication of a flowing current. Every galaxy is basically a disk of conductive ionised hydrogen (PLASMA). All three component parts needed for this motor to work. This negates the need for black holes and dark matter because it just works!
ah! i understand the fundamentals now, i was under the impression that the gravitational forces of the black hole eventually drew all the matter orbiting around it so close that it would cross the event horizon and be enveloped inside.
I was also under the impression that once attraction takes hold and anything that's pulled passed the event horizon and taken into the belly of the beast (so to speak) could never escape not even light could escape the massive gravitational forces, but Steven Hawking proved without a doubt that wasn't actually correct with what's now known as Hawking radiation.
My query now is, well i have two and the first is how are black holes created? and is the Hawking radiation or whatever else the black hole eventually burps out a characteristic of the certain amount of matter etc that's been ingested by the black hole or does the black hole eject stuff randomly or do we not know the answer to that question for certain at this time?
If the Sun were to suddenly become a bh, ignoring the gravity shock wave, no planet would see an altered course. The concentration of mass is (ie density) will not change its overall gravitational strength with changes to density. But what does change is the escape velocity at the surface. Schwarzschild derived from GR the size (density) and object must have so that the escape velocity is > c. That is the EH (Event Horizon). If no light can escape it will always be a dark region of space.
However, if there is gas orbiting this region, then particles will encounter friction and will work their way into the BH. This is how the first BH was found. There were x-rays being emitted that couldn't be explained (Cygnus X1), but the enormous friction at the point where the neighboring star was feeding the disk around the bh was found to be the source.
Hawking radiation is only at the EH. A virtual particle can suddenly appear at the EH then split so that there is a tiny leakage of matter taking perhaps trillions of years to dissolve a BH.
A massive star, say at least 20x that of the Sun, will go through a cycle where heavier and heavier elements will form due to fusion. Once the fusion produces iron, then energy is not produced. Worse, this process absorbs energy. This suddenly collapses the core of the star and.... bang.... you get a super nova. Since the core is still massive enough, it will crush itself into such a tiny space that an EH forms. Whether or not it continues to become a singularity is highly unclear given the bizarre physics of such a point.
"how are black holes created?," and why does every galaxy seem to contain one?, are fundamental questions and seem to be associated with massive early star collapse leaving a massively dense core. My question is what if that core was not stable, and the result of that instability was further, entire explosion resulting in that energy forming its galaxy, and the excess projecting to a great degree beyond, leaving behind initially a vacuum. How would that be measurably and observationally different to the current interpretation?
Last edited:
My non-professional opinion on black holes is that they are simply the result of gravity, are completely symmetrical, extremely stable, and extremely long-lived. I don't buy the wormhole concept, because a BH is always a local event, ruled by gravity to contract, and stay contracted. There is no denser place in the universe than inside a BH. It is as packed together as is possible, and therefore simply cannot "go" or lead to anywhere else. If there are higher dimensions involved, it's beyond our understanding, and explanation. Their life is so long, we might as well consider them immortal, certainly in human terms. I think they keep the universe anchored.
The main point being.
How can you tell the gravitational, or any difference between a black hole of maximum density and a vacuum of maximum emptyness?
Last edited:
No one knows what is inside a black hole. One could actually go inside the event horizon without damage provided the mass of the BH is large enough. The tidal force at the event horizon is lesser with higher mass BH's. Eventually, as you fell in, you would be spaghettified and dead. Any talk of using a pair of BH's as a wormhole for instant transit across the universe must face two slight problems. One is that you must take one of the BH's with you to the far end and leave it there. Then you could instantly go home. The second problem is, the only thinsg that could possibly make the transit are elementary particles. Reassembling them would be a challenge.
I can't think of a more stable thing than a black hole, which has crushed instability out of the equation. The realities of the details of BHs will be eternally unknown, and that's why we will pursue understanding them until we are extinct.
Is there a star, or galaxy, or even universe, that doesn't eventually reveal a black hole as its core horizon that made it and didn't eat it?
Atlan0001
"How can you tell the gravitational, or any difference between a black hole of maximum density and a vacuum of maximum emptyness?
Infinite density is an infinite hole. It's so dense it's automatically a hole at the same time. It 'is' and it 'is not' . . . thus a Schrodinger Cat! The universe is infinitely full / The universe is infinitely empty / The universes, to infinities, are balanced finitely neither full nor empty!
The universe is so full, yet so roomy!
Last edited:
You shoot one with a high energy pulse; you pretend to shoot the other.
Then you watch the show.
The essence of black hole formation and feeding is the relinquishing of space. The particles and the forces inside are all the same as they were before, only the space has been relinquished. And the opposite is true, in that the essence of fermion formation is the capture of space, which is held firm inside of the fermion and which becomes a part of the fermion, making the fermion way larger than the elementary particles themselves at a near infinite rate. This space is held by the outward pressure of the strong force, which holds onto the space and holds the elementary particles firm in space in the form of a fermion, right up until collapse to a black hole, when gravity overcomes the strong force, the boundaries of the fermion break, and the space inside of the fermion is relinquished (forget about the pseudo-force "degeneracy pressure", it's a true battle between gravity and the strong force, one overcoming the other). But that's not the end. All of the forces are forever inseparable from matter, so the nuclear forces go right down into the black hole along with all of the elementary particles. But by that time, since gravity alone can hold the nucleus of the black hole together, there's no need for the strong force to use any of its power for binding a nucleus, and all it's power can be used on its outward-pushing aspect. And we know that the weak force is always pushing outward, trying to work outside of matter with electromagnetic fields and charged particles, but even the entirety of the weak force and electromagnetism is trapped entirely inside the black hole. The strong and the weak force can't overpower gravity in small black holes, but those forces and pressures grow and grow as the black hole gets bigger and bigger, making the primordial matter inside of black holes the most explosive substance in existence.
Last edited:
Melting Mirrors to Murgatroyd, Batman!
Heat needs space to operate in.
BHs are devoid of space and therefore cannot have heat. Their event horizons exist virtually at absolute zero. The 'EH' is likely a dimensionless singularity which would make it an oxymoronic term.
Continuing the same thermal space relationship,
if there is an interior of/to a BH it must be below absolute zero.
If heat is matter moving in space then perhaps below absolute zero is space moving around inside still matter.
Perhaps that fulfills some definition of negative space.
Maybe space is jumping (bending? flexing?) around, vibrating to the various time points of that matter's past. Time jumping space that connects the matter's past instants.
I will continue with a common theme from me that the geometry around a BH [or any mass field] is generally misinterpreted as Euclidean normal rather than contracted as certain evidence indicates.
In the case of a BH there is zero space and zero passage of time.
The real trick in increasing the mass of a black hole is getting matter to hold absolutely still enough ie. be absolutely cold enough to actually conjoin with it.
The matter that does conjoin would likely have to exude/transfer heat to immediately adjacent matter (space?) that would possibly be ejected away from the BH.
Matter must throw off as much or more heat than it has to enter the BH state.
A BH is a heat ejecting ultrafreezer by this analogy.
Heat needs space to operate in.
BHs are devoid of space and therefore cannot have heat. Their event horizons exist virtually at absolute zero. The 'EH' is likely a dimensionless singularity which would make it an oxymoronic term.
Continuing the same thermal space relationship,
if there is an interior of/to a BH it must be below absolute zero.
If heat is matter moving in space then perhaps below absolute zero is space moving around inside still matter.
Perhaps that fulfills some definition of negative space.
Maybe space is jumping (bending? flexing?) around, vibrating to the various time points of that matter's past. Time jumping space that connects the matter's past instants.
I will continue with a common theme from me that the geometry around a BH [or any mass field] is generally misinterpreted as Euclidean normal rather than contracted as certain evidence indicates.
In the case of a BH there is zero space and zero passage of time.
The real trick in increasing the mass of a black hole is getting matter to hold absolutely still enough ie. be absolutely cold enough to actually conjoin with it.
The matter that does conjoin would likely have to exude/transfer heat to immediately adjacent matter (space?) that would possibly be ejected away from the BH.
Matter must throw off as much or more heat than it has to enter the BH state.
A BH is a heat ejecting ultrafreezer by this analogy.
All good fun.
The current best opinion is that the star (the original star collapsed to form the Black Hole) is tiny tiny (like nearly a point) at the centre of its influence. It's influence extends to the normally considered boundary called the Event Horizon and as a normal gravitation beyond of course.
The Event Horizon is not the star. It is just a boundary describing the point at which, if crossed, there is no return. In theory, Hawking Radiation will gradually reduce the Black Hole size and at some point the Swartzchikld Radius will become inside theoretical boundary for a star of that size - I am guessing that this is where an explosion is expected (?) However-
The contraction of a BH takes so long it may never happen before the universe ends. It depends on the shape of the universe. If the universe is closed it seems likely black holes will eventually be absorbed together and time itself will point inward 'reducing' the space of our universe.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what would happen if the radius of the space of the universe became less than the Swartzchild Radius of the MEGA BH. Maybe another explosion (?)
The current best opinion is that the star (the original star collapsed to form the Black Hole) is tiny tiny (like nearly a point) at the centre of its influence. It's influence extends to the normally considered boundary called the Event Horizon and as a normal gravitation beyond of course.
The Event Horizon is not the star. It is just a boundary describing the point at which, if crossed, there is no return. In theory, Hawking Radiation will gradually reduce the Black Hole size and at some point the Swartzchikld Radius will become inside theoretical boundary for a star of that size - I am guessing that this is where an explosion is expected (?) However-
The contraction of a BH takes so long it may never happen before the universe ends. It depends on the shape of the universe. If the universe is closed it seems likely black holes will eventually be absorbed together and time itself will point inward 'reducing' the space of our universe.
It would be interesting to speculate as to what would happen if the radius of the space of the universe became less than the Swartzchild Radius of the MEGA BH. Maybe another explosion (?)
The Swartzchikld Radius presumes space is Euclidean normal.
The Sun's interior rotates 4 times faster than its exterior.
In the interior even with the same vector energy it should rotate slower to the external viewer due to time dilation.
The only sensible reason for the totally fluid interior to rotate faster to the external viewer is because of variant, non-Euclidean spatial geometry,
namely shorter radii.
There is logically less space on the Sun's interior than Euclidean normal space would dictate.
A mass field has less space than Euclidean normal would dictate.
Taking that logically means the Schwarzschild radius's circumference is measurably smaller/shorter than expected.
In the case of a black hole I believe that actual radius is zero. That means the event horizon is actually a dimensionless point, a singularity.
That makes sense to me as light can escape anything except the condition of no space and zero time passage.
The Schwarzschild Radius describes a region of space that is completely missing from positive space-time.
At radii greater than that the space in a mass field is merely contracted from what Euclidean normal would dictate.
The Sun's interior rotates 4 times faster than its exterior.
In the interior even with the same vector energy it should rotate slower to the external viewer due to time dilation.
The only sensible reason for the totally fluid interior to rotate faster to the external viewer is because of variant, non-Euclidean spatial geometry,
namely shorter radii.
There is logically less space on the Sun's interior than Euclidean normal space would dictate.
A mass field has less space than Euclidean normal would dictate.
Taking that logically means the Schwarzschild radius's circumference is measurably smaller/shorter than expected.
In the case of a black hole I believe that actual radius is zero. That means the event horizon is actually a dimensionless point, a singularity.
That makes sense to me as light can escape anything except the condition of no space and zero time passage.
The Schwarzschild Radius describes a region of space that is completely missing from positive space-time.
At radii greater than that the space in a mass field is merely contracted from what Euclidean normal would dictate.
Questioner said:-
"The Swartzchikld Radius presumes space is Euclidean normal.
The Sun's interior rotates 4 times faster than its exterior.
In the interior even with the same vector energy it should rotate slower to the external viewer due to time dilation."
Humm! Would I be correct in thinking that the spin is 4 times faster and not the speed of travel?
"The Swartzchikld Radius presumes space is Euclidean normal.
The Sun's interior rotates 4 times faster than its exterior.
In the interior even with the same vector energy it should rotate slower to the external viewer due to time dilation."
Humm! Would I be correct in thinking that the spin is 4 times faster and not the speed of travel?
It means the same vector momentum is getting around 4 times faster there because it has less distance to travel.
The inner circles get smaller sooner, going inward, than if it were Euclidean normal space.
It's hard to get one's head around, but that is what the evidence seems to point to.
The inner circles get smaller sooner, going inward, than if it were Euclidean normal space.
It's hard to get one's head around, but that is what the evidence seems to point to.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
How the 'Great Filter' could explain why we haven't found intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram