Black Holes

[xrobwx71]

Please keep in mind that the event in question is in a galaxy 665million light years from Earth. There are no telescopes built by man that can observe that event with enough detail to work out exactly what is going on. No offense to you at all! It is a fascinating event for sure.


Very possible. It's also possible that a non-stellar mass, such as a large planet or even a red/brown dwarf cool enough to be masked by the surrounding galactic radiation is now falling in. It could also be a mass object being sling-shot ejected around, but not into, the event horizon.

We're too far away to know for sure.

Perhaps they'll find Dave from 2001:A Space Odyssey.

 

[Bones]

Please keep in mind that the event in question is in a galaxy 665million light years from Earth. There are no telescopes built by man that can observe that event with enough detail to work out exactly what is going on. No offense to you at all! It is a fascinating event for sure.

Just note I described it as "Weirdness" not as a fact or having any factual basis on my part.
Anything that is discovered later can literally re-write what we think we know to be fact(s) about black holes.

 

[Space Lynx]

Evidence for black holes being dark energy?! | Night Sky News February 2023​

Still watching this, but so far she has talked about the Jupiter Venus conjunction, though that is separate. Main topic is Dr. Becky talking about the last 100 years of expansion rate, dark energy, and finding the answer to this is what Dr. Becky is discussing, but this new research paper is discussing how Black Holes can be the reason for this (I haven't seen entire video yet, it was just posted a few minutes ago) (notification crew YEEEEEEEAAAAA)

AS universe expands, black holes expand and gain more energy, and e=mc squared --- and I will update when I finish video

 

[Shrek]

Strange given that the Earth, Solar System, our Galaxy and even the local group don't expand as the Universe expands.

 

[izy]

Strange given that the Earth, Solar System, our Galaxy and even the local group don't expand as the Universe expands.

I think they do but the gravity is stronger and it keeps them together.

 

[Space Lynx]

Strange given that the Earth, Solar System, our Galaxy and even the local group don't expand as the Universe expands.

Dr. Becky is a black hole specialist, I recommend watching the section on it, I believe its 20 mins in? There are time stamps. She explains all the science of it and her own critique of it.

 

[InVasMani]

My impression on black holes are like the magnetic poles of Earth and others gravitational masses within the universe, but hollow rather than solid and much like a tornado or whirl pool. It seems like there is potentially at least one black hole at any point in time and space larger than any mass within the universe attracting and consuming other masses towards it and causing catastrophic events to happen the universe over.

I'd say it attracts mass thru one end and out the other and we simply can't see or comprehend the distance in between because it's much more vast than we'll ever know the full extent of from our perspective within our short lifetimes.

If you think about magnetism and chemistry there is a lot of both within the universe and and shapes and forms the universe as a whole and at times can be catastrophically at odds with another. Sometimes that can lead to the formation of things and other times it can lead to the deformation of things. I think the universe is in a continuously loop of sorts, but perhaps not the way we'd first perceive or expect because it's varied and unpredictable due to a infinite amount of cause and effect events.

I'm not a physicist of course, but that's my theory theory of things. I think even the sun and planets is explainable if it's all be pulled towards a stronger black hole force in the universe somewhere. The sun is the largest mass and would naturally be pulled to the center and if magnetism spins like a cyclone it'll cause a gravitational force at the same time and orbit. There is apparently a lot of magnetic energy in black holes.

It might be incorrect about there always remaining at least one black hole larger than any formed mass within the universe that's hard to known with absolute certainty. That's just one plausible explanation. In any case there always seems to be black holes within the universe large enough to consume and alter objects within the universe and in tandem with chemistry create untold havoc for better or worse.

 

[Shrek]

One might argue that there is no singularity at the centre of a black hole on the grounds that time comes to a halt at the event horizon.

 

[lexluthermiester]

AS universe expands, black holes expand and gain more energy, and e=mc squared

This is an interesting theory, however, there many big problems with it.

Strange given that the Earth, Solar System, our Galaxy and even the local group don't expand as the Universe expands.

This is because the Universe is expanding out from the central point of the Big Bang, and we in the MilkyWay as well all other galaxies and objects are along for the ride. Put another way, the Universe is expanding out in all directions into the greater Cosmos at large without stretching the space contained within it. If we were being expanded out as well at a proportional rate with the Universe, the expansion would be unknown to us as we would not perceive it nor be able to observe it.

 

[Shrek]

There is no central point

 

[lexluthermiester]

There is no central point

That opinion is not supported by observational data or meritus evidence. Everything we have observed about the Universe strongly points to the Big Bang Theory being correct. If you're referring to the fact that we can not "see" the mentioned central point, the explanation to that problem is simple, we in the MilkyWay have expanded away from that region to the point that light and energy from that region can no longer reach us. We are expanding away from that region at a rate faster than light relative to each position. Our light can never reach that region and light from it can never reach us. This does not mean it's not there, just that we can not observe it.

 

[InVasMani]

I'm not sure certain the universe is expanding so much as it's malleable in nature and magnetism and chemistry alters the state of matter within the universe in infinite ways and re-orders the nature of things continuously thru time and space or our perception of time and space at least. A balloon can stretch and contrast and I think space is similar to that with magnetism holding it together, but also chemistry and gases.

The very thing that causes a balloon to expand and stretch and also likewise contract is perhaps same forces that keeps the universe glued together and allows it to form and change over time yet also have some constants remain within our general understanding of them. Take gravity for example it isn't consistent throughout the universe. The magnetic forces differ depending on location and the makeup nature of masses at the same time.

It could simply be that our perspective within the universe feels like it's expanding. That's true in more sense than one though we're gaining more knowledge and context about the universe than we once had with new discoveries, but also where we reside within the universe could slowly be drifting as well. If you were in a balloon as it expanded or contracted or on the outside of one your perspective would be altered and changed a lot. What if you can't see the balloon however and aren't really thinking about that perspective on things!?

I'm not a expert on the universe, but really even the experts are at a real odds with one another on many of their thoughts about how, why, and what's happening. I think everyone interested in the truth is trying to make sense of the reality of what is root truth of it all. Are we living in a AI or a blackhole or a AI within a black hole or a black hole within a AI? More importantly how many licks to the center of tootsie pop?

 

[Shrek]

That opinion is not supported by observational data or meritus evidence. Everything we have observed about the Universe strongly points to the Big Bang Theory being correct.

The big bang is correct, but it did not start from a single point; this is covered in most every book on Cosmology.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The big bang is correct, but it did not start from a single point; this is covered in most every book on Cosmology.

Citation? Every reference I've ever read states clearly that the Big Bang erupted from a single, ultra massive black hole. Hell, my doctoral thesis is based on that very point as a foundation. I think you have your facts mixed up.

 

[InVasMani]

This begs the question are black holes spitters or sh*tters?

 

[lexluthermiester]

This begs the question are black holes spitters or sh*tters?

While you jest, that is a valid question and there is an answer. It might be more accurate to call Black Holes "seam bursters", but I too say that in jest. Needless to say, the reason Eistein, Hawking and many others were never able to finish their work and answer that question is because they could not find the "triggering event" for the Big Bang. There is a theory being worked on, it just hasn't been published yet.

 

[Space Lynx]

they could not find the "triggering event" for the Big Bang. There is a theory being worked on, it just hasn't been published yet.

I feel like it is always just going to be an infinite regress problem.

 

[InVasMani]

Chemistry and magnetism is the only thing that makes sense to me. Still black holes are thought of entities in space that attract matter to them and consume them and once they cross the event horizon. The big bang theory itself kind of contradicts that general conception of black holes and how they operate though. We're told you can't escape the event horizon though that's probably true within the context of human beings somehow surviving it is almost impossibly slim odds.

One possibly way is the right chain reaction of chemistry and magnetism causing a chunk of the matter being consumed by a black hole to then be repelled back outwardly faster than it's being pulled inward by magnetism. I mean it seems like it could potentially be possible. Basically if chemistry disrupts the magnetic pull enough some of the matter at least might break free.

I'll add another thing to that last thought perhaps not all black holes can hold their liquor and puke it back up and there you're just a bunch of a space puke from a try hard black hole. What if some black holes consume and eject it out the opposite end somewhere far off beyond our perspective of space and other weaker black holes regurgitate it depending on circumstances like Pepsi and Mentos. All you need is a bottle of Pepsi and case of Menthos to escape the event horizon.

Infinite fail Pepsi and Menthos you can't escape the event horizon nice try buzz light year valiant effort.

 

[qubit]

@InVasMani seriously no, that's not how black holes work at all. Their gravity is so strong that they bend spacetime to such an extreme degree that at the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds that of light. Once inside the event horizon, nothing can escape it, absolutely nothing. Below the event horizon, the gravity keeps getting ever stronger and is at a maximum at the mysterious singularity, where Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down. Also, strong gravity significantly slows down time, so that at the EH, it stops completely compared to a distant observer.

It's nothing to do with chemistry and magnetism.

There's a theory that they emit hawking radiation, effectively a form of evaporation. This hasn't been conclusively proved yet, but seems likely from what we know about them.

Finally, all black holes are the same, from the tinyest microscopic one to solar system sized ones and beyond, ie their properties don't change with size.

If you want to argue any of this, remember that this all this is established science and not up for debate.

Wikipedia explains all this and much more.

Black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shrek]

Citation? Every reference I've ever read states clearly that the Big Bang erupted from a single, ultra massive black hole. Hell, my doctoral thesis is based on that very point as a foundation. I think you have your facts mixed up.

As far as I know the black hole birth idea is pure conjecture believed by Lee Smolin, but few others.

Where was the Big Bang located? - Sky & Telescope - Sky & Telescope (skyandtelescope.org)

no center

 

[lexluthermiester]

I feel like it is always just going to be an infinite regress problem.

How so?

The big bang theory itself kind of contradicts that general conception of black holes and how they operate though.

Not at all. The Big Bang theory posits that all the mass in this Universe was contained in a ultra massive Black Hole that at one point, for some reason, erupted into the Universe we know today. What triggered that eruption has yet to be determined but we can conclude, based on well established observations, that the theory has very strong merit, even if we can not readily explain what triggered the "Big Bang".

One possibly way is the right chain reaction of chemistry and magnetism causing a chunk of the matter being consumed by a black hole to then be repelled back outwardly faster than it's being pulled inward by magnetism. I mean it seems like it could potentially be possible. Basically if chemistry disrupts the magnetic pull enough some of the matter at least might break free.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but your comment is not correct. Then reason is that you have not accounted for gravity & friction(and several other factors) in your statement.

It's nothing to do with chemistry and magnetism.

That's not true either. Magnetic fields have great amount of influence on how, when and why matter is or is not ejected away into space rather than being absorbed by a Black Hole. Likewise Chemistry also plays a part as some elements are more prone to being ejected than other elements.

As far as I know the black hole birth idea is pure conjecture believed by Lee Smolin, but few others.

Not conjecture, common logic. And the premise for that logic is as follows: Put a lot of mass in a single place keep adding to that mass, at a certain point in time you get a Black Hole creation event. Continue to add mass at a steady rate and you end up with an object that has a mass equal to that of the Universe. The part we have not reached an understanding of is what triggered the release of all that mass to begin expanding into the Universe we currently observe.

Where was the Big Bang located? - Sky & Telescope - Sky & Telescope (skyandtelescope.org)

That is not an article worthy of citation as the opinion it expresses stands in stark and glaring contrast to known science and observations.

no center

Also an opinion that ignores known science and observations.

Shrek, let this point go. The known evidence stands against the concept you have expressed.

The Big Bang happened, it started from an ultra massive black hole object. And just for the record, the Big Bang is not some past event that once happened we're seeing the results of, it is STILL an ongoing process, the events of which we still are all along for the ride of. This is what the evidence and observations tell us. It is a cycle of events that is measured in the trillions of years. We are still very much in the beginning stages of the Big Bang. We are not looking back at some distant event that took place long ago. We are seeing the beginning process of something that will continue on for a VERY long time to come.

 

[Shrek]

Shrek, let this point go. The known evidence stands against the concept you have expressed.

You are mistaken; but I will leave you alone on this point if you wish.

Where was the Big Bang located?

The commonest misconception about the Big Bang is that it happened at some particular spot in preexisting empty space.

skyandtelescope.org

 

[Norton]

Please keep the discussion civil, let's not forget the forum rules

 

[lexluthermiester]

You are mistaken

After a lifetime of research and study on this subject I will say that we will never agree.

but I will leave you alone on this point if you wish.

That would be best at this point.

 

[Ahhzz]

@InVasMani seriously no, that's not how black holes work at all. Their gravity is so strong that they bend spacetime to such an extreme degree that at the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds that of light. Once inside the event horizon, nothing can escape it, absolutely nothing. Below the event horizon, the gravity keeps getting ever stronger and is at a maximum at the mysterious singularity, where Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down. Also, strong gravity significantly slows down time, so that at the EH, it stops completely compared to a distant observer.

It's nothing to do with chemistry and magnetism.

There's a theory that they emit hawking radiation, effectively a form of evaporation. This hasn't been conclusively proved yet, but seems likely from what we know about them.

Finally, all black holes are the same, from the tinyest microscopic one to solar system sized ones and beyond, ie their properties don't change with size.

If you want to argue any of this, remember that this all this is established science and not up for debate.

Wikipedia explains all this and much more.

Black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

which begs the question: how long ago was the universe actually created, since we don't know how much matter the universe contains, so we don't know how much "time" had passed before the matter "expelled" at the Big Bang was dispersed enough to allow light to escape the gravity well of the initial creation.