Black Holes

[Bones]

Just imagine - With it's "Beyond insane magnetic field" one could possibly harness all that energy to generate power like a dynamo because (In theory) that's what it would be.

I dunno - Let a couple of cables hang down and power up?

 

[Drone]

All this black hole talk got me curious enough to start wondering what would happen if one tried to overclock black hole
i guess merging two black holes oughta give nice boost
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q6.html

Strange, they didn't update the link. LIGO detected and confirmed 5 events. All of them are stellar mass black holes. LISA (space analog of ligo) will be able to detect heavier black holes.
Two black holes merge and this leads to ringdown. Models predict that if there are 3 black holes then two of them will merge and slingshot the third one. This process is more peculiar than simple ringdown.

 

[witkazy]

Now that would be something to write home about ,but seriously, two black holes is plenty for me ;p

 

[Drone]

Now that would be something to write home about ,but seriously, two black holes is plenty for me ;p

This is mindboggling indeed lol. iirc Euler once said that integral for "three-body problem" does have closed form just nobody could ever find it. Henri Poincare tried but failed, he just found approximation. Simulations on todays computers use approximations, but true solution exists, we just need new Newton or Einstein lol

2 black holes simulation is perfect though. Kip Thorne explained that he and his team spent years but finally did it (geometrodynamics) before they actually observed real black hole-black hole collision.

4 black holes even more fun. They merge in pairs and then slingshot each other in opposite directions. Astronomers detected super fast black holes hurling through intergalactic space maybe it was one of that processes.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Models predict that if there are 3 black holes then two of them will merge and slingshot the third one.

Not always. It depends on the orbits and the rotation of each.

we just need new Newton or Einstein lol

Sooner or later that's going to happen.

 

[Bones]

A little more on something I mentioned earlier.
NASA Saw Something Come Out Of A Black Hole For The First Time Ever

 

[lexluthermiester]

A little more on something I mentioned earlier.
NASA Saw Something Come Out Of A Black Hole For The First Time Ever

That was likely to be a small asteroid type object on close trajectory to Markarian 335 and very close(but not close enough to be pulled in), was then ripped apart, super-heated(which would cause the high energy EMR emissions) and sling-shot away a high speed. It is very unlikely to have been something escaping from within the event horizon.

 

[hat]

I believe the entire thing from him has been a running joke all along.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" is the approach used in his posting.

Best thing to do is pay him no mind from this point foward because you'll only get more of the same baffling from him.

Not so much baffling as it is just bizarre.

I mean, they said the same thing about Galileo. New ideas are popping up all the time, some of which threaten to tear down our current understanding of things as we know it. Looking back, we laugh at the idea of the geocentric solar system, but 500 years ago, that was solid science and the idea of a heliocentric system, to those people long ago, seemed equally ridiculous.

What I simply can't wrap my head around are such ideas that black holes are white dwarf stars, which somehow exist in space as black holes, but exist in "time" (as if time is some alternate plane of existence which we can't observe) as white dwarfs. And his ideas about how light works are even more impossible for me to understand. How is it that I, the observer, am somehow gravitating at the speed of light towards the light source, when light appears to radiate in all directions? Wouldn't that mean the Earth should be hurtling into the Sun at the speed of light? Wouldn't our planet have been barbecued billions of years ago if that were the case? How is my body not being ripped apart by this incredible force? And, what if there are multiple light sources? Surely I can't be gravitating towards hundreds of visible stars in the night sky, while still standing on the Earth. I would imagine, given the force of all this gravity and my body moving towards all these light sources (at the speed of light, no less) I observe every day, I would be a very, very dead man.

 

[Bones]

That was likely to be a small asteroid type object on close trajectory to Markarian 335 and very close(but not close enough to be pulled in), was then ripped apart, super-heated(which would cause the high energy EMR emissions) and sling-shot away a high speed. It is very unlikely to have been something escaping from within the event horizon.

I really can't say one way or the other myself, just found it and posted the link to the article.

I mean, they said the same thing about Galileo. New ideas are popping up all the time, some of which threaten to tear down our current understanding of things as we know it. Looking back, we laugh at the idea of the geocentric solar system, but 500 years ago, that was solid science and the idea of a heliocentric system, to those people long ago, seemed equally ridiculous.

What I simply can't wrap my head around are such ideas that black holes are white dwarf stars, which somehow exist in space as black holes, but exist in "time" (as if time is some alternate plane of existence which we can't observe) as white dwarfs. And his ideas about how light works are even more impossible for me to understand. How is it that I, the observer, am somehow gravitating at the speed of light towards the light source, when light appears to radiate in all directions? Wouldn't that mean the Earth should be hurtling into the Sun at the speed of light? Wouldn't our planet have been barbecued billions of years ago if that were the case? How is my body not being ripped apart by this incredible force? And, what if there are multiple light sources? Surely I can't be gravitating towards hundreds of visible stars in the night sky, while still standing on the Earth. I would imagine, given the force of all this gravity and my body moving towards all these light sources (at the speed of light, no less) I observe every day, I would be a very, very dead man.

I realize all that but it's not exactly what was said but in HOW it was said.
I've already said in a previous post things we understand and perceive as what it "Is" will change over time as more, better data is discovered. I don't have a problem with alternate theories being presented at all because some things as you said that seems crazy at the time it's suggested may well sound loony but be close to if not the truth. However we now live in a time where (Unlike back then) we can and do expect the odd and bizzare to possibly be true.

As an example when searching for Earth-like planets they did find one that seems to defy what anyone would have ever found. According to the data gathered on it the entire planet is made of carbon and they believe it's actually a huge honkin diamond in space!

Stick that on the wife's finger.

However..... That's what current methods of reseach and the data gathered from this research says.
You can only learn so much from a distance as we are from it and that goes for black holes too.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I mean, they said the same thing about Galileo. New ideas are popping up all the time, some of which threaten to tear down our current understanding of things as we know it.

To be fair, in Galileo's time most of the civilized world thought the earth was either flat, the center of the universe or both. We have gained an exponential amount of knowledge and evidence since that time. Our understanding of the universe is now much less about feeling and ego-based mumbo-jumbo and more about logic based evidence collection. This will continue.

 

[hat]

Sure, but I'm sure in 500 years time, if humans are still around, people then will look back on us now and think the same of us. I mean, we might not just believe random crap without any supporting evidence, but I'm sure we're pretty dumb right now compared to what we would be like 500 years in the future.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sure, but I'm sure in 500 years time, if humans are still around

We've been around in more or less our current form for the last 500,000 years. Chances are we'll be here in 500.

people then will look back on us now and think the same of us.

Entirely likely. Hopefully they will think the same of us as we do of past scholars.

I mean, we might not just believe random crap without any supporting evidence, but I'm sure we're pretty dumb right now compared to what we would be like 500 years in the future.

Again, possible.

 

[hat]

We've been around in more or less our current form for that last 500,000. Chances are we'll be here.

Well, as our knowledge expands, so does our ability to kill eachother. We sure didn't have nukes 500 years ago. We're also facing a bunch of new problems we didn't have 500 years ago... though we don't have the same problems they did then. In my opinion, we're gonna need a few miracles to survive for any meaningful length of time at this point.

 

[Frontino]

And his ideas about how light works are even more impossible for me to understand. How is it that I, the observer, am somehow gravitating at the speed of light towards the light source, when light appears to radiate in all directions?

I also have a hard time understanding what he writes, but that's because I can't visualize in my head this "scalar motion" he mentions.

Now, if this scalar dimension was, somehow, a completely reversed image of our universe, say, like when in the movie Interstellar, Cooper's Ranger is entering

Spoiler

Gargantua and we see the cosmos looking like a wormhole,

maybe that's what this scalar reference frame could be: some sort of mirror dimension where the edge is at the center and the core is around it?

Ok, maybe I figured it out.

If space was expanding at lightspeed, but anything which had mass was dragging itself back, it would collapse into various types of celestial bodies (stars, planets, ...), but anything without mass would be dragged by the expansion of space at lightspeed (light).
This way, light is not really moving on its own, but pulled by the expanding space, and we get hit by light because we're way slower than space, due to our mass.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If space was expanding at lightspeed, but anything which had mass was dragging itself back, it would collapse into various types of celestial bodies (stars, planets, ...), but anything without mass would be dragged by the expansion of space at lightspeed (light).

Except that there is but one problem with that logic; The universe has been observed to be expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light, by more than double. The logic proposed by "scalar motion" does not and can not account for that single observed behavior of the universe, let alone the rest of the problems with observations made of the universe. Of course, General/Special Relativity does not explain those mysteries either. This is why Hawking couldn't resolve his Black Hole theory and why it doesn't work. That's not to say that his work wasn't brilliant, only that until the big five mysteries are solved, we will not be able to resolve how certain things work.

 

[hat]

Yeah, there's definitely some problems with anything moving at over twice the speed of light... perhaps our understanding of the speed of light is flawed, or our observation is flawed. Perhaps there's some sort of space/time dilation not (correctly) accounted for?

 

[lexluthermiester]

perhaps our understanding of the speed of light is flawed

That's not it, we understand the speed of light well. It's the motion of light through the medium of the universe that needs better understanding.

Perhaps there's some sort of space/time dilation not (correctly) accounted for?

Possible and very likely.

 

[Caring1]

Ok, maybe I figured it out.

If space was expanding at lightspeed, but anything which had mass was dragging itself back, it would collapse into various types of celestial bodies (stars, planets, ...), but anything without mass would be dragged by the expansion of space at lightspeed (light).
This way, light is not really moving on its own, but pulled by the expanding space, and we get hit by light because we're way slower than space, due to our mass.

Except the expansion of space is accelerating, it's not a constant.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Except the expansion of space is accelerating, it's not a constant.

Exactly. General/Special Relativity predict that the universe should be slowing down and even contracting at this point in history, but that is not what we observe.

 

[hat]

I often wonder if the Big Crunch theory still isn't valid. How do we know the Universe still isn't in its infancy, and the expansion will eventually slow down, until we have contraction instead?

Of course, there's other theories for the end of the Universe. I recall reading about the Big RIp, where expansion becomes so fast that everything begins to fall apart at the atomic level. Not nice. There's also the Big Chill, where the Universe basically burns out. I suppose a fancier term for this one is "heat death".

I still feel we are quite insignificant. Each of our lives are like a spark emitted by a much greater flame. Probably less than that. The Universe is so inconceivably massive, with as many galaxies separate from our own as there are stars in our own galaxy. I find it a bit odd we think we can begin to understand how this works.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I often wonder if the Big Crunch theory still isn't valid. How do we know the Universe still isn't in its infancy, and the expansion will eventually slow down, until we have contraction instead?

The acceleration. If the "Big Crunch" were a thing, the universe would already be slowing down under it's own mass.

with as many galaxies separate from our own as there are stars in our own galaxy

Actually, many more. There are tens(perhaps hundreds) of trillions of galaxies in the universe. There are only upwards of 300 billion stars in the Milky Way.

 

[hat]

The acceleration. If the "Big Crunch" were a thing, the universe would already be slowing down under it's own mass.

How can we be certain of this?

Actually, many more. There are tens(perhaps hundreds) of trillions of galaxies in the universe. There are only upwards of 300 billion stars in the Milky Way.

I figured someone would say that. I didn't mean that literally, but you make a fair point.

 

[lexluthermiester]

How can we be certain of this?

Common logic based observation. If the universe were going to contract at any time in the future, it would not still be accelerating, therefore contraction is not "in the stars". (Pun intended.)

 

[hat]

Unless it is. The Universe has been around for quite a while already, and I expect it to be around for quite a while longer. Who knows what's in store in the future?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Unless it is. The Universe has been around for quite a while already, and I expect it to be around for quite a while longer. Who knows what's in store in the future?

Here's the thing. It really isn't possible. If we were to throw time in reverse, everything we can observe in the universe retracts back to a single point in space(a point beyond our observational range, yet specifically definable point). The universe is expanding with such force and acceleration that the chances of something halting and reversing that expansion are infinitesimally small. To put it in perspective, a snowball has a better chance of staying frozen for one minute on the surface of a type "O" star than the "Big Crunch" ever taking place at any point in the future.