Black Holes

[lexluthermiester]

Black holes do not exist.

Sure they do. They have been observed in several places throughout the our galaxy and elsewhere in the universe.

White dwarf stars, a product of Type II supernova, are confused for these made up stellar objects.

That is incorrect. White dwarf stars are aptly named. Supernovae remnants are generally neutron stars or singularities. It is physically and mathematically impossible for a supernova to leave behind a white dwarf.

Due to motion in the ultra high-speed range, white dwarf stars exhibit anti-gravity "forces."
Only once the ultra high-speed motion of the constituent atoms is sufficiently abated does the white dwarf become visible.

Anti-gravity forces?

 

[FCG]

@lexluthermiester
Q: "Black holes" are or are not X-ray emitters.

P.S. I find your avatar ironic. Don't forget to stay in the Matrix

 

[lexluthermiester]

Q: "Black holes" are or are not X-ray emitters.

First, that's not a question. Second, singularities themselves do not emit anything. However the matter falling into them does emit XRay's and other EMR as friction build up near the event horizon.

P.S. I find your avatar ironic. Don't forget to stay in the matrix

Lose the insults, makes you look like a child.

 

[FCG]

First, that's not a question. Second, singularities themselves do not emit anything. However the matter falling into them does emit XRay's and other EMR as friction build up near the event horizon.

Does this help to establish as a question?:
Q: "Black holes" are or are not X-ray emitters?

Your answer is they emit X-rays (or rather the matter falling into them does - OK, sure, whatever you say).
How is it that the X-rays are not themselves lost in the Black Hole?
Explain to me as if I were a child.

 

[lexluthermiester]

How is it that the X-rays are not themselves lost in the Black Hole?

Simple, those emissions came from matter that has not entered the event horizon of the singularity said matter is in orbit around. Therefore those emissions can escape and reach us to be observed.

Explain to me as if I were a child.

Really? I think you're done here.

 

[Drone]

Accretion disk (torus) around black holes emit energy, that energy isn't lost because it's outside event horizon. Black holes themselves emit Hawking radiation and they emit gravitational waves when they merge with each other. EM and gravitational waves from black holes are 100% confirmed and detecting Hawking radiation is just a matter of time.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Black holes themselves emit Hawking radiation

That was never proved. Hawking never finished his work in that area because he couldn't resolve a few issues. Therefore "Hawking Radiation" is only a theory.

 

[FCG]

Accretion disk (torus) around black holes emit energy, that energy isn't lost because it's outside event horizon. Black holes themselves emit Hawking radiation and they emit gravitational waves when they merge with each other. EM and gravitational waves from black holes are 100% confirmed and detecting Hawking radiation is just a matter of time.

Hawking was a fraud.

Help me out here... you're saying that a black hole has what is referred to as an event horizon, which I can only take as to mean a maximum distance from the point of singularity for which the inward motion exists... but I thought gravity went on forever? Shouldn't a singularity consume EVERYTHING? What would balance this inward force (especially considering that the inward gravitation of the black hole should continue to increase as it consumes more and more matter)?

 

[Drone]

That was never proved. Hawking never finished his work in that area because he couldn't resolve a few issues. Therefore "Hawking Radiation" is only a theory.

Hawking's work was continued by Roger Penrose and few other extremely awesome physicists. They all agree that Hawking radiation does exist.

 

[FCG]

Hawking's work was continued by Roger Penrose and few other extremely awesome physicists. They all agree that Hawking radiation does exist.

X-ray emissions from just-formed white dwarfs (a.k.a. black holes) do exist but not for the reason Hawking or others argue.

 

[Drone]

Hawking was a fraud.

Help me out here... you're saying that a black hole has what is referred to as an event horizon, which I can only take as to mean a maximum distance from the point of singularity for which the inward motion exists... but I thought gravity went on forever? Shouldn't a singularity consume EVERYTHING? What would balance this inward force (especially considering that the inward gravitation of the black hole should continue to increase as it consumes more and more matter)?

Hawking is the real scientist. Nuff said.

Singularity means "laws of General Relativity" break down because spacetime curvature tends to infinity (what is slower than stopped time?).

(rewind to 20:30 or something when Kip explains singularity and event horizon)

Beyond event horizon time and space swap places but beyond Cauchy horizon they get back on track. What's beyond singularity is mystery.

 

[lexluthermiester]

They all agree that Hawking radiation does exist.

But they also agree that General and Special Relativity are perfectly correct, yet none of them can explain in any reasonable way why the universe seems to be defying the laws of physics by continuing to expand and accelerate in that expansion. So either we as a historically flawed human community are incorrect(or partly incorrect) about our understanding of the laws of physics, or the universe is misbehaving(bad universe! naughty universe!). Which do you think is more likely?

Hawking Radiation does not exist. Two reasons. 1. Matter inside the event horizon is not physically a part of the singularity that is causing said event horizon. 2. Once a any particle enters a singularity, it does not come out until released by a certain type of event.

The process Hawking described can take place with particles inside the event horizon but not the singularity itself, this means that the area between the event horizon boundary and the singularity itself can have matter extracted using the Hawking principle, but only if matter is present in that area.

X-ray emissions from just-formed white dwarfs (a.k.a. black holes) do exist but not for the reason Hawking or others argue.

Good grief you need to stop..

 

[FCG]

Hawking is the real scientist. Nuff said.

Singularity means "laws of General Relativity" break down because...

All stop.
NATURAL laws can't be broken.
Don't confuse man's law with Natural Law.
This argument is ridiculous on its head.
This means either "the law" is not a law or the explanation is incorrect (or both).

 

[dorsetknob]

In the Spirit of FCG posting

Black holes do not exist.

Explain to me as if I were a child

I will Neil deGrasse Tyson proved Black holes do indeed exist

unfortunatly he was arrested for mooning

 

[FCG]

Can we please drop Hawking?

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf

http://mileswmathis.com/hawk4.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/hawk5.pdf

 

[lexluthermiester]

Can we please drop Hawking?

No. Hawking maybe wrong about a few things, but he was non-the-less brilliant and contributed much to science. His theory about Black Hole Radiation doesn't work because it doesn't account for a number of problems. However it does open the possibility for those problems to be resolved as his work highlights the areas of science needing refinement and resolution.

 

[FCG]

Beyond event horizon time and space swap places but beyond Cauchy horizon they get back on track. What's beyond singularity is mystery.

Close.
What is beyond the unit boundary is the Time Region (of the atom).
Where all motion is in time not space.

No. Hawking maybe wrong about a few things, but he was non-the-less brilliant and contributed much to science. His theory about Black Hole Radiation doesn't work because it doesn't account for a number of problems. However it does open the possibility for those problems to be resolved as his work highlights the areas of science needing refinement and resolution.

My take-away here would be that modern astronomy has spent at least the last 100 years on this boondoggle... inventing crazier and crazier theoretical explanations, only to later recognize the implications which do not fit any basis of theory... well, let's just invent some more crazy stuff and see what sticks... rinse, repeat.

At some point you have to stop, turn around, and note just how far over the precipice you've built a (seeming) foundation into nowhere.

Black holes are your bridge to nowhere.

P.S. I'm planting red pills (lol!)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Close.
What beyond the unit boundary is the Time Region (of the atom).
Where all motion is in time not space.

That only highlights your misunderstanding of what "Time" is. It isn't just the motion of matter from one moment to the next. It's not just a "force".

 

[Drone]

But they also agree that General and Special Relativity are perfectly correct, yet none of them can explain in any reasonable way why the universe seems to be defying the laws of physics by continuing to expand and accelerate in that expansion. So either we as a historically flawed human community are incorrect(or partly incorrect) about our understanding of the laws of physics, or the universe is misbehaving(bad universe! naughty universe!). Which do you think is more likely?

General/Special relativity are incomplete, even Einstein himself said that. But general relativity explained expansion of the Universe via Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. It just didn't reveal the nature of cosmological constant.

Hawking Radiation does not exist. Two reasons. 1. Matter inside the event horizon is not physically a part of the singularity that is causing said event horizon. 2. Once a any particle enters a singularity, it goes not come out until released by a certain type of event.

The process Hawking described can take place with particles inside the event horizon but not the singularity itself, this means that the area between the event horizon boundary an the singularity itself can have matter extracted using the Hawking principle, but only if matter is present in that area.

Information about matter/energy that was lost in singularity is encoded on the black hole's surface ("holographic principle"). Black holes aren't made of matter but warped spacetime. You might say that's it's just a theory but Holographic Principle can be tested (in the future).

 

[FCG]

That only highlights your misunderstanding of what "Time" is. It isn't just the motion of matter from one moment to the next. It's not just a "force".

We have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of time, of this I am sure.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But general relativity explained expansion of the Universe via Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

It explained the expansion vector, but not the acceleration. Therefore, it is incorrect.

Information about matter/energy that was lost in singularity is encoded on the black hole's surface ("holographic principle").

That is also a theory which doesn't work as it has many problems that are unsolvable.

Black holes aren't made of matter but warped spacetime.

Also incorrect. And on two levels. Singularities(Black Holes) are made up of the ultra compacted matter that they consume. The concept of "warped spacetime" is only that, a concept and not a very good one. Again only a theory.

Holographic Principle can be tested (in the future).

It can not be tested. The principle itself is flawed as it does not contain the variables needed to function.

We have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of time, of this I am sure.

Clearly. The basic problem with your perspective is that it is observationally incorrect.

 

[FCG]

Clearly. The basic problem with your perspective is that it is observationally incorrect.

Wasn't it you that stated there is more than the observable?
The clearest example of which would be the electric (1D), magnetic (2D), and gravitational (3D) "force" (i.e motion intersecting with a conflicting motion) fields.
Of course, you must first define your reference frame...

 

[Drone]

Also incorrect. And on two levels. Singularities(Black Holes) are made up of the ultra compacted matter that they consume. The concept of "warped spacetime" is only that, a concept and not a very good one. Again only a theory.

No. Singularity at the center of a black hole is not the black hole itself. And it definitely isn't matter, and neither is the black hole surrounding it. Warped spacetime is a 'thing' and was confirmed by Gravity Probe B (spacetime vortices created by Earth's rotation) and LIGO experiments (black holes distorting spacetime).

Ultra compact matter is inside quark stars. Do you mean that black holes are actually quark stars?
https://futurism.com/have-quark-stars-been-discovered

 

[FCG]

No. Singularity at the center of a black hole is not the black hole itself. And it definitely isn't matter, and neither is the black hole surrounding it. Warped spacetime is a 'thing' and was confirmed by Gravity Probe B (spacetime vortices created by Earth's rotation) and LIGO experiments (black holes distorting spacetime).

It would be cosmic matter a.k.a. "anti-matter"

White dwarf being atoms comprised of motion FTL would cool and expand (in space; heat and grow in time) eventually moving into visible spectrum (LF light) and were previous X-ray emitters (HF EM) in the ultra high-speed range. At the center is the point at infinity (the reciprocal of our plane at infinity which we see in all directions as we look out in "space"). Being motion in time rather than motion in space, this would be viewed as inverted from our perspective from across the unit boundary. i.e. we would see an inverted density gradient in space in which the highest density would be at the boundary (surface of the star) with a decreasing density going inward. Of course, with our limited perspective we would assume the reciprocal (there it is again!) and believe that a high density at the surface must provide for a fantastically-high density at the core! The relation of matter to FTL matter would provide for some amount of anti-gravity motion.

Ultra compact matter is inside quark stars. Do you mean that black holes are actually quark stars?
https://futurism.com/have-quark-stars-been-discovered

"Black holes" are newly formed white dwarf stars. One-half of the bi-product of Blue Giant supernova being the temporal explosion in 3D time, the other being the (observable) spacial explosion in 3D space.

 

[Drone]

"Black holes" are newly formed white dwarf stars. One-half of the bi-product of Blue Giant supernova being the temporal explosion in time, the other being the explosion in 3D space.

Where did you get that from? Blue giants end their lives (after supernova) as neutron stars or black holes.