Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Glitch in red italics:
This is patently false. There are 4 alleged types of black holes in the literature. None of them exist. All are alleged to contain an infinitely dense singularity inside the ‘event horizon’.
As I pointed out above, there is only one type of black hole: rotating, and electrically charged. The other three are merely mathematical constructs and do not actually exist. And we have already established that they all have a finite density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers
What is the upper bound on asymptotic? There is none, for otherwise it would not be asymptotic. All alleged black hole spacetimes are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. Thus, each and every alleged black hole constitutes an independent universe, for otherwise they would not be asymptotically anything, in violation of the very definition of the alleged black hole.
What I bolded only applies if you assume that black holes have infinite density, which we have established is not the case.
How is it possible for a stellar mass black hole to suddenly gain more mass than it originally started with? It is not. A 100 solar mass star is going to collapse into a black hole that is less than 100 solar masses. It may be smaller than a neutron star, but it is not infinitely dense, nor infinitely small. Therefore, they cannot be either asymptotically flat or curved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers
This is patently false. All metrics for alleged black holes are eternal – they are static or stationary – because all the components of the metric tensor are independent of time. Hawking’s invocation of quantum processes are invalid as they do not comply with any black hole metric whatsoever.
Nobody has alleged that black holes were eternal in the last 40 years. You are pulling old, out-dated, information and claiming that is what is being alleged today, when that is not the case. It would be the same as if I were to say "all metrics for our universe state that it is confined solely to the Milky Way galaxy." That may have been an acceptable statement prior to 1924, but it certainly is not acceptable today. You will not find anyone today alleging that black holes are eternal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers
That’s right – there are no such things as infinite density, infinite pressure, infinite hotness, and infinite gravity. They are all nonsense. Black holes too are nonsense.
Your misconception of black holes certainly do not exist, but black holes most definitely do exist. They are not infinitely dense, nor do they have infinite pressure, infinite temperature, or infinite gravity. It is your use of the term "infinite" that is nonsense, not black holes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers
This is not correct. You have not understood my arguments. On the one hand it is claimed that all alleged black holes have an escape velocity but on the other hand that nothing can even leave a black hole. The alleged event horizon is said to be a 1-way membrane; things can go into a black hole but nothing can even leave, let alone escape. Thus, it is alleged that black holes both have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously. That is impossible. I explained this in my video too.
Another false assumption on your part. Just because gravity is strong enough to prevent electromagnetic radiation from escaping, it does not necessarily mean that there is no escape velocity.
Since we have already established that there is nothing "infinite" about a black hole, then there must be a finite speed at which something can escape the event horizon of a black hole. It may be considerably faster than the speed of light, but there must be an escape velocity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers
Your arguments are false. I assume nothing. The very definition of a black hole is that its spacetime is either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. Without that condition being satisfied there is no metric for a black hole. Your objections attest that you have not understood any of my arguments. I refer you again to my video and to this report:
You assume a great deal. Black holes have mass and therefore warp space/time, but they do not have infinite mass (an erroneous assumption), therefore they cannot warp space/time infinitely. I understand your arguments well enough to know that they are based upon unfounded assumptions, out-dated information, and invalid comparisons.
If you compressed an object with a specific amount of mass even smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, it will still have that specific amount of mass (or less). The act of compressing an object does not increase its mass. If anything, there will be loss of mass as the object is being compressed. It may be extremely dense once compressed, but it is still finite.
Black holes are extremely dense objects within the universe, and cannot be asymptotically flat or curved any more than the Sun or Earth can be asymptotically flat or curved. Black holes may distort space/time more than any other object we have ever observed, but they are still objects within the universe with a finite density, a finite amount of gravity, a finite temperature, and a finite escape velocity. Which makes your comparison of the universe and black holes invalid.
I have no problem with you taking astrophysicists to task for using the ridiculous term "infinite," but that does not negate the existence of black holes.
How is it possible for a stellar mass black hole to suddenly gain more mass than it originally started with? It is not. A 100 solar mass star is going to collapse into a black hole that is less than 100 solar masses. It may be smaller than a neutron star, but it is not infinitely dense, nor infinitely small. Therefore, they cannot be either asymptotically flat or curved.
If you compressed an object with a specific amount of mass even smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, it will still have that specific amount of mass (or less). The act of compressing an object does not increase its mass. If anything, there will be loss of mass as the object is being compressed. It may be extremely dense once compressed, but it is still finite.
absolutely right. if our sun were to be crunched down to the point of being a black hole, the earth would still orbit the black hole because it doesnt increase its mass, only its density. in fact mercury would still orbit the black hole again because there is no increase in mass, again only density.
I think there should be a concerted effort to have Congress carry out whatever necessary to have the Earth revolve about the Sun perpendicular to the orbital plane of all of the other planets.
Earth is an exceptional planet and deserves a distinctive orbit.
And, it really tees me off that galaxies are always so damned planar, also.
I was observing electrons the other day and noticed . . . Never mind, I'm not going into that now.
It just seems that the macro is too damned planarist for my liking.
And, spiraling is just a convenient compromise to this problem, (a technical volute).
I think that angular dementum should be legalized, at least in this universe.
"Therefore the black hole is not only infinite contraction, but infinite expansion as well creating a feedback loop between those two infinities (image right). As space-time collapses towards singularity at both poles simultaneously, it accelerates in a vortex until the point where the centrifugal forces created overcome the gravitational attraction of the singularity and radiate at the equator of the black hole. Then eventually the expansion would be overcome by the immense gravitational attraction of the singularity and in would collapse back into itself, in an infinite feedback."
absolutely right. if our sun were to be crunched down to the point of being a black hole, the earth would still orbit the black hole because it doesnt increase its mass, only its density. in fact mercury would still orbit the black hole again because there is no increase in mass, again only density.
sorry mr crothers, but you are wrong.
No, I'm not wrong. Glitch has demonstrated that he does not know this subject, as you too have done. The argument you have advanced has nothing to do with the price of fish.
“As I pointed out above, there is only one type of black hole: rotating, and electrically charged. The other three are merely mathematical constructs and do not actually exist. And we have already established that they all have a finite density.â€
No, none of them exist, and despite your pleadings, there are 4 types of black hole alleged by the cosmologists. And no, you have not established that they have a finite density; cosmologists already claim that. It is the singularity that is alleged to be infinitely dense.
“What I bolded only applies if you assume that black holes have infinite density, which we have established is not the case.â€
That’s nonsense – I have never claimed your insinuations. All alleged black holes only have infinitely dense singularities.
“How is it possible for a stellar mass black hole to suddenly gain more mass than it originally started with? It is not. A 100 solar mass star is going to collapse into a black hole that is less than 100 solar masses. It may be smaller than a neutron star, but it is not infinitely dense, nor infinitely small. Therefore, they cannot be either asymptotically flat or curved.â€
It’s obvious that you don’t even know what asymptotic means. To illustrate this emphatically, explain what you think asymptotically flat means.
“Nobody has alleged that black holes were eternal in the last 40 years. You are pulling old, out-dated, information and claiming that is what is being alleged today, when that is not the case. It would be the same as if I were to say "all metrics for our universe state that it is confined solely to the Milky Way galaxy." That may have been an acceptable statement prior to 1924, but it certainly is not acceptable today. You will not find anyone today alleging that black holes are eternal.â€
That’s nonsense. All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein’s field equations are static or stationary. Invoking quantum mechanical processes does not alter this fact.
“Your misconception of black holes certainly do not exist, but black holes most definitely do exist. They are not infinitely dense, nor do they have infinite pressure, infinite temperature, or infinite gravity. It is your use of the term "infinite" that is nonsense, not black holes.â€
No, I don’t invoke such infinities, the cosmologists do, and its nonsense every time. All alleged black holes are claimed to have an infinitely dense singularity within them. There are only two types of such ‘singularities’; (a) a point, (b) the circumference of a circle. Show us all were I said that black holes have infinite pressure and infinite temperature. I never did, did I. This is something else you made up. Black holes do not exist. Nobody has ever found one and never will because they are figments of irrational imagination. All alleged black holes have an infinite spacetime curvature at their singularities. According to Einstein spacetime curvature is gravity!
“Another false assumption on your part. Just because gravity is strong enough to prevent electromagnetic radiation from escaping, it does not necessarily mean that there is no escape velocity.â€
No, I made no assumption, let alone a false one. You don’t understand what escape velocity means. I suggest that you consult my video and my article again to see why your argument is vagarious.
“Since we have already established that there is nothing "infinite" about a black hole, then there must be a finite speed at which something can escape the event horizon of a black hole. It may be considerably faster than the speed of light, but there must be an escape velocity.â€
First, all alleged black holes have infinitely dense singularities and infinite spacetime curvature at their singularities. Second, you don’t understand escape velocity. Once again consult my video and article.
“You assume a great deal. Black holes have mass and therefore warp space/time, but they do not have infinite mass (an erroneous assumption), therefore they cannot warp space/time infinitely. I understand your arguments well enough to know that they are based upon unfounded assumptions, out-dated information, and invalid comparisons.â€
No, I make no assumptions at all. You are again telling lies. Show us all where I said that a black hole has “infinite massâ€. I never said that. This “infinite mass†is your own construction. Infinite mass is not the means by which cosmologists claim infinite spacetime curvature. They claim that spacetime is infinitely curved at black hole singularities, not I. So you don’t know my arguments at all. And neither those of the cosmologists.
“If you compressed an object with a specific amount of mass even smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, it will still have that specific amount of mass (or less). The act of compressing an object does not increase its mass. If anything, there will be loss of mass as the object is being compressed. It may be extremely dense once compressed, but it is still finite.â€
I’ve never claimed that compression increases mass. Show us all where I said such a thing. I didn’t. Again you are careless with the truth. Also, the ‘Schwarzschild radius’ is in fact not the radius of anything, because it is not even a distance in the ‘Schwarzschild’ metric. Not only that, the alleged Schwarzschild black hole is neither charged nor rotating. You claimed that there is no such black hole. Yes, there is no such black hole. Yet you want to retain it’s ‘radius’ to form your black holes.
“Black holes are extremely dense objects within the universe, and cannot be asymptotically flat or curved any more than the Sun or Earth can be asymptotically flat or curved. Black holes may distort space/time more than any other object we have ever observed, but they are still objects within the universe with a finite density, a finite amount of gravity, a finite temperature, and a finite escape velocity. Which makes your comparison of the universe and black holes invalid.â€
Its obvious that you don’t know this subject. All your arguments betray ignorance of what the cosmologists claim and of General Relativity. Your remarks about the Sun and Earth demonstrate that you don’t know what asymptotic means. You also demonstrate once again that you don’t even know what escape velocity means.
“I have no problem with you taking astrophysicists to task for using the ridiculous term "infinite," but that does not negate the existence of black holes.â€
You have not understood anything I have argued, and you have no knowledge of the subject matter.
mr crothers, you are not helping any of your arguments by insulting glitch and i. you might want to soften your arguments, and perhaps see that we may be making the same points, just in different forms. for instance glitch and i both understand escape velocity just as you do. it is a known quantity for various celestial bodies.
but you STILL have not explained the objects at the center of a variety of galaxies where millions of stars orbit a black mass at speeds exceeding a million miles per hour. if it is not a black hole, then what is it? its obviously black as it has no light escaping it. and while the is conjecture that there is a super dense mass in there, there is no way to tell for sure until such time as we can actually see into a black hole.
at this point, the term black hole is as good as anything else for now. but remember that in a black hole, the theory of relativity goes out the window, and quantum physics takes over.
mr crothers, you are not helping any of your arguments by insulting glitch and i. you might want to soften your arguments, and perhaps see that we may be making the same points, just in different forms. for instance glitch and i both understand escape velocity just as you do. it is a known quantity for various celestial bodies.
but you STILL have not explained the objects at the center of a variety of galaxies where millions of stars orbit a black mass at speeds exceeding a million miles per hour. if it is not a black hole, then what is it? its obviously black as it has no light escaping it. and while the is conjecture that there is a super dense mass in there, there is no way to tell for sure until such time as we can actually see into a black hole.
at this point, the term black hole is as good as anything else for now. but remember that in a black hole, the theory of relativity goes out the window, and quantum physics takes over.
No, you and Glitch don't even understand escape velocity. No proponent of the black hole understands escape velocity. All proponents of the black hole unwittingly allege that their black holes have and do not have an escape velocity simultaneously. But that's impossible. If you understood escape velocity you would have realised that this is impossible.
Why are countries still being coerced to dump BILLIONS of dollars into this junk that is absolutely going nowhere?
So, black holes were proven with empirical evidence. But now they actually aren't and if they ARE in fact what we believe them to be...we might learn something from them, or not.
Its a theory after all and scientist go back on theories and others come up to replace. But again that is also a theory. We invest millions on economic models which are also theories. Some things just turnout not to be true;plain and simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
