Black Holes

[FCG]

Where did you get that from?

Inductive logic brought to you by Reciprocal System of theory with further enhancements as to understanding with RS2.
Expand your horizons. (Watch the top banner... it moves every 10 seconds or so.)

See also and especially the continuation of this (although I do attest you will need to first set a foundation in Larson's original work):
RS2: http://www.reciprocal.systems/

Blue giants end their lives (after supernova) as neutron stars or black holes.

Where did you get that from?

Haha... just having fun. Again, your "black hole" is a white dwarf that is not yet emitting radiation in the visible/IR spectrums (clue: but it is an X-ray emitter!). So, yes, Blue Giants will "end" their life in a "black hole" (white dwarf). Also the explosion in space will eventually reverse (due to gravitational motion) and re-form a new proto-star (and with sufficient density achieve some level of fission due to lowering of the magnetic ionization level) -> Red Giant -> Orange Giant -> Main Sequence... Blue Giant -> another supernova. This time the White Dwarf (cooling and expanding in space; heating and condensing in time due to temporal gravity) is nearby to feel the full force of the next supernova blast!...

Houston... we have planets!

P.S. You're standing on an inside-out star (white dwarf remnant core) with low-speed (1-x) matter having accumulated on the surface over time. *

* this note assumes you are reading/posting from planet Earth or any of the other inner three (total of 4) "rocky" planets. Bonus points if you are in another solar system.

 

[Drone]

Haha... just having fun. Again, your "black hole" is a white dwarf that is not yet emitting radiation in the visible spectrum (clue: but it is an X-ray emitter!). So, yes, Blue Giants will "end" their life in a "black hole" (white dwarf). Also the explosion in space will eventually reverse (due to gravitational motion) and re-form a new proto-star -> Red Giant -> Orange Giant -> Main Sequence... Blue Giant -> another supernova. This time the White Dwarf (cooling and expanding in space; heating and condensing in time due to temporal gravity) is nearby to feel the full force of the next supernova blast!...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_star

There are some interesting alternatives to a black hole that deny the possibility of a singularity (especially Magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects and gravastars) but white dwarfs are too small to have such a powerful gravitational field.

 

[FCG]

...white dwarfs are too small to have such a powerful gravitational field...

Small in space, large in time.
We are viewing (being material observers in space) from the inverse (reciprocal) perspective.
Go re-read what has already been posted.

 

[Drone]

Small in space, large in time.
We are viewing (being material observers in space) from the inverse (reciprocal) perspective.
Go re-read what has already been posted.

I got it, you're reciprocal system supporter but what you makes believe it's true?

 

[FCG]

I got it, you're reciprocal system supporter but what you makes believe it's true?

20 years of study in application of chemistry, physics, including nuclear physics as well as various engineering application with a focus on electrical and nuclear power production proves it right. It continues to provide for a rational basis of explanation where even modern-day astronomy fails. This is also true for chemistry, quantum physics, relativistic difference (i.e. Lorentz), thermodynamics, etc. A big one for me was the true nature of radiation and basis for breakdown of the compound nucleus. What is taught is pure bunk top to bottom.

 

[Drone]

20 years of study in application of chemistry, physics, including nuclear physics as well as various engineering application with a focus on electrical and nuclear power production proves it right. It continues to provide for a rational basis of explanation where even modern-day astronomy fails. This is also true for chemistry, quantum physics, relativistic difference (i.e. Lorentz), thermodynamics, etc. A big one for me was the true nature of radiation and basis for breakdown of the compound nucleus. What is taught is pure bunk top to bottom.

And what is the most famous achievement of this theory? The strongest evidence for it?

 

[FCG]

And what is the most famous achievement of this theory? The strongest evidence for it?

Reality. You are not asked to throw away all existing empirical result in favor of this system of theory. (Specifically speaking: none.)
You are instead asked to re-consider the base hypothesis that this is a universe of matter ("stuff") inside a container of vacuum ("space") in favor of consideration of motion in and of itself (or change) as both manifest reality and the origin of the various "forces" (electric, magnetic, gravitational).
Most of the difficulty I find is the critical need to unlearn a lot of what I have been previously taught (told)... that and this new way of thinking is very anti-materialistic and so being unperceived in its own right, challenging at first to comprehend. Or, you could take the blue pill and go back to sleep.

 

[AmioriK]

Anyone watched / like the move "Interstellar" ? They had a theoretical physicist as an advisor to make it as close to scientifically accurate as possible.

Black hole "Gargantua" from the movie: (might contain spoilers so be careful!!)

Awesome movie btw. It even explores "time dilation" exhibited near the black hole, as space time itself is warped by the gravity; on the planet near the black hole, something like a minute of time translates to several years passed on the ship in orbit. Very cool movie and amazing sound track.^^

 

[FCG]

Anyone watched / like the move "Interstellar" ?

Been wanting to watch this for a while now. It's a 3 hour marathon though and once we get the kids in bed it's all over.
My interest resides in some chat I've heard regarding some (as of yet to be determined/confirmed) similarity to some of the stuff I am attempting to introduce to this audience. You may have just re-affirmed my need to watch this and provide comment.

 

[Drone]

@FCG
But why unlearn quantum mechanics or general relativity? They've been proven right billions of times. They're incomplete but so is everything else (most of the numbers in number theory are uncomputable numbers like Turing said). Until "theory of everything" (maybe there is no theory of everything after all) is found GR and QM all the way.



Christopher Nolan refused to use Kip's original idea about Wormholes and Bulk so script for Interstellar (film) was severely dumbed down. Contact is a more interesting film.

 

[AmioriK]

@FCG
Christopher Nolan refused to use Kip's original idea about Wormholes and Bulk so script for Interstellar (film) was severely dumbed down. Contact is a more interesting film.

Awh. But it is a really cool film nonetheless. I might have to watch Contact...

 

[FCG]

@FCG
But why unlearn quantum mechanics or general relativity? They've been proven right billions of times.

The math's been shown to work a billion times is not the same as a proper explanation.
What exactly would have to be demonstrated to you from the perspective of RS2 to entice you take a look?
How about the Lorentz Factor: https://reciprocalsystem.org/paper/rs2/the-lorentz-factor
Although it really would serve you better to start at the beginning.

 

[Drone]

@AmioriK
Yes Interstellar is good (could've been better with original idea about hyper dimensions). Btw Carl Sagan asked for Kip Thorne's advise for Contact, that's why I compare them

@FCG
Maths works, it's a separate world (together with physical and mental worlds)

 

[witkazy]

Awh. But it is a really cool film nonetheless. I might have to watch Contact...

Man, You want to watch Contact this flick.

 

[Bones]

Man, You want to watch Contact this flick.

I'll have to check it out one day.

I'll say much of what we know is actually in theory only, that is we speculate from the evidence gathered and reach what we perceive to be a logical conclusion and that's OK. However as knowlege is further gained some of these theories are either proven more-so as fact or debunked.

Even some of Einstein's theories/ideas are now coming under scrutiny because of new knowlege that's been gained. There is nothing wrong with re-evaluating a long held idea of something, esp if there is evidence that does suggest the idea/theory could be wrong - In fact it's one's duty to explore such a thing if said evidence is found.

Not long ago concerning the long held theory that blackholes themselves have such an intense gravity field absolutely nothing can escape, recent evidence has shown otherwise. Not long ago I watched a program that stated blackholes actually do emit/eject energy at times, this being observed, investigated and positive evidence of it being found.

The effect was described as it keeps eating and eating, then like someone at the dinner table it will "Burp" and expel this energy in a fashion somewhat like a quasar/pulsar does.

I found it fascinating to watch to say the least.

Now....
Understand - It's just speculation on my part but I believe blackholes aren't that complex, more along the lines of them being simple enough.

I'm thinking it's simply an ultra-massive object that's grabbed so much material it's gravitational field has become strong enough that even light cannot escape BUT all the mass it's pulled in is still there and yet it also maintains a magnetic field around it too because the recent evidence found supports this.
It's suprising to see it does that and would mean magnetic forces associated with it ARE POWERFUL to the point it can erect and hold this field above the surface of it inspite of the blackhole's gravity well, otherwise the energy it's comprised of would get sucked in too.
It was said when it "Burps" the energy of this burst is magnetically based and that in itself gives an indication of just how powerful it's magnetic field must really be.

I've always thought of one possibly being that way and now with the evidence these CAN expel energy I'm thinking there is something to this, you cannot have gravity without an object comprised of mass in the first place and blackholes certainly have the gravity portion covered. You can't get a magnetic field from nothingness either, something of mass/matter has to be there in order for this field to even be there in the first place too or it coudn't be generated at all.

I'll have to see if I can't recall and find the name of the program I watched but it was interesting to say the least.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Awh. But it is a really cool film nonetheless. I might have to watch Contact...

Do, it's a fun adventure and there's a decent amount of real science in it, though it is still definitively SciFi.

 

[hat]

I'm thinking it's simply an ultra-massive object that's grabbed so much material it's gravitational field has become strong enough that even light cannot escape BUT all the mass it's pulled in is still there and yet it also maintains a magnetic field around it too because the recent evidence found supports this.

I've often wondered the same thing myself. I wondered: what if black holes really aren't holes at all, but simply an object so incredibly dense that light cannot escape? When something falls in, that object, too, is added to the black "hole"'s mass.

Pressure alone affects the state of matter. Take basic water, for example, which freezes at 32F (on Earth). If you had water on the moon, where gravity is far less than on Earth and atmospheric pressure is non-existent, water can continue to be liquid water well below 32F. It will have to be quite cold for water to freeze on the moon. Conversely, under extreme pressure, that same water can become solid even at high temperatures. So what happens when you subject matter to the most extreme gravity and pressure in the universe?

 

[lexluthermiester]

what if black holes really aren't holes at all, but simply an object so incredibly dense that light cannot escape?

Almost right. A "Black Hole" is made up of two parts. The first is the singularity, the object where the mass of anything falling into it's gravity well will be compacted down to where no particles have any empty space between them. The second part is the event horizon, the boundary of which is defined by several variables such as the gravity intensity of the mass of the singularity object and the rotational vector of that object. The event horizon is what we can observe. Though nothing can escape the event horizon itself, we can directly observe EMR being warped around the Black Hole due to gravitational lensing and through the friction induced EMR given off as matter falls into the event horizon.

When something falls in, that object, too, is added to the black "hole"'s mass.

This is correct.

 

[witkazy]

Interesting read guys ,thanks a lot for Your service

 

[FCG]

Almost right. A "Black Hole" is made up of two parts. The first is the singularity, the object where the mass of anything falling into it's gravity well will be compacted down to where no particle has any empty space between them. The second part is the event horizon, the boundary of which is defined by several variables such as the gravity intensity of the mass of the singularity object and the rotational vector of that object. The event horizon is what we can observe. Though nothing can escape the event horizon itself, we can directly observe EMR being warped around the Black Hole due to gravitational lensing and through the friction induced EMR given off as matter falls into the event horizon.

Q: Gravitational "forces" (scalar outward rotational in time; scalar inward linear in space -> i.e towards all other points in space) do or do not go on to infinity?

Fg = Gm1M2/r^2 (wrong, but included here for conventional discussion purposes). BTW, have you checked out the units on G? Absurd.
As r -> inf, Fg -> 0 asymptotically (but never quite reaching zero)

What balances this out?
Only a crazy person (a.ka. the Hawking impostor) would come up with the idea of the singularity.
That's not how nature works. This universe is a beautiful, continuous attempt for balance in the silence of unity (1).
There was no "Big Bang" and there will be no final entropic heat death. Rubbish, all of it. (Forever and ever...)

A: No, gravitational "forces" reach a limit wherein the net inward motion becomes a net outward motion (the natural progression of the universe at "c" rate). We have a name for this; we call it the Hubble Expansion and we see ALL the galaxies flying away from us at SPEEDS NEARING THE "SPEED OF LIGHT!" (Whhhhaaaaa??!?!) This is outward scalar motion as can be observed from our gravitationally-bound 3D spacial coordinate system (and conversely does not mean to imply that our solar system is the exact middle of an expanding universe, rather ALL points are moving outward away from ALL other points). Space "out there" does not work the same way as space "here."

Doppler / Red shift is a measure of movement in 3D coordinate time.

Bonus comment: We have never measured an EM field outside of a gravitational system.

@Drone

Maths works, it's a separate world (together with physical and mental worlds)

I assume you're referring to QED with this comment.
If you like the idea of studying mental worlds and the true nature of time, then please go check out Reciprocal System (RS/RS2).
You will learn of the existence of the Cosmic sector (originally named as being the origin of Cosmic Rays) as well as the region inside of the atom known as the Time Region. The region is reversed in the reciprocal and so there is also the Space Region on the cosmic side (being the region inside the unit boundary of "anti-matter").

Photons are then the "sheer layer" interface between these two sectors.

Across any unit boundary (as in, where motion is unitary: 1/1) geometry inverts. We have rectilinear-Euclidean in 3D space and polar Euclidean in 3D time (or counterspace). Speed (s/t) and energy (t/s) as well... everything. It's like trying to turn your brain upside-down, inside-out, and backwards at the same time... hey, we have a name for that too! It's called a quaternion!

I'm being too general. Go check it out.

P.S. For you video enthusiasts out there: quaternions are used all the time in 3D game development (go talk to Nvidia about quaternions...) because they can be converted to what are called homogeneous coordinates which are necessary for the development of a 3D reality (Projective -> Affine -> Metric -> Euclidean). I loves me some BF4...

I'm thinking it's simply an ultra-massive object that's grabbed so much material it's gravitational field has become strong enough that even light cannot escape.

Pretty close... how about instead super-massively dense on the outside and increasingly less dense as you go towards the center; inverted as the constituent atoms are moving FTL; moving outward in time, again FTL (greater than unity) and so the spacial position of the object (white dwarf start) is essentially being "overcome" by time as it expands outward in a scalar fashion... light cannot escape and so appears as a dark area in space (with nothing around it). That region around it is NOT matter sucked in.... it's low-speed (1-x) matter PUSHED AWAY (due to the anti-gravity properties of motion FTL). The "Event Horizon" is the (anti-)gravitational limit (continuous boundary) of the 2-x intermediate speed motion of the atoms of the star!

The 2-x (FTL; "light speed" = c = 1) region (i.e. between 1 and 2 times the "speed of light") motion is created when the inner, heavier layers of the Type I (thermal limit --> BOOM) or Type II (age limit --> BIG BA'DA BOOM) supernova explode outward in time (inward in space --> "Black Hole") whilst the outer, lighter layers explode outward in space (yep, we can see that part).

Time and space, baby. Time and space... one in the same. Two halves of a coin. A box... can't have a box without an inside AND an outside... yin/yang... whatever you prefer.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There was no "Big Bang"

Incorrect. Based on observations, when we track the motions of all observed objects backward through time, everything tracks back to a single, unobservable, point in space. This means that all matter in the observable universe came from that single point, from an object that can only be classified as an ultra-massive singularity. The big bang happened, is still happening and we are all along for the ride of the continuing blast wave.

and there will be no final entropic heat death.

True. There will be a point when the outward rushing blast of the big bang meets the in-falling boundary of the event horizon that surrounds us. When that happens in 30 billion years or so, said event horizon will dissipate and those intelligent beings whom exist at that time inside this universe will be able to observe and interact with the rest of the cosmos outside our universe.

 

[FCG]

Incorrect. Based on observations, when we track the motions of all observed objects backward through time, everything tracks back to a single, unobservable, point in space. This means that all matter in the observable universe came from that single point, from an object that can only be classified as an ultra-massive singularity. The big bang happened, is still happening and we are all along for the ride of the continuing blast wave.

Pfffffffffffffftttttttttttt.... show me the write up.

You're along for the ride of the natural progression of the universe. The central datum (and natural rate) = 1 = c = "speed of light." Stop and ponder on that for a minute.... Michelson and Morley showed us something very important... no matter the reference frame, light moves at the speed of c...

Space is expanding scalarly outward at all points at the "speed of light." Gravitational systems reverse the direction in space (to inward) for the spacial aspect but have no affect on the "flow of time" outward. Space/time is motion, or change. Everything you see as a distance are a speed displacement from unity (the measuring stick). One of the jobs of your consciousness is to set time to unity in order to create what is called extension space. (Conversely, if you could in your mind set space to unity you would see the Cosmic sector in 3D coordinate (extension) time with clock space!) Do you like my avatar?

Did you get a chance to read Plato's The Allegory of the Cave from Republic?

 

[lexluthermiester]

(a.ka. the Hawking impostor)

FYI, if you're going to call Hawking a fraud, you must also question the observations and work of others such as Edwin Hubble, Einstein, Sagan and many others.

show me the write up.

Go research the work of the aforementioned Edwin Hubble and Carl Sagan. You'll discover the real world instead of that near-flat-earther nonsense you keep spouting.

 

[infrared]

Oh... someone's butthurt.
double infraction

1) Appealing to the sanctimony of the gods of astronomy (dare ye not question the word of the gods, ye underling!)
2) Personal insult

Come back when you've cooled down.

You're the one that's going to end up with an infraction in a moment, I think it's time you take a break from the computer for a bit and clear your head.

 

[Bones]

Uh - Nevermind.
I did find it but ATM it's kinda interwoven with other subjects because the program is so recent.

I'll leave the link here anyway, what's in the link is very interesting in itself and could be what I was trying to show is in it somewhere.