MigL

Don't know much about boat keels, but have a keen interest in jet fighter design/aerodynamics. The leading edge of a wing , and keel I would imagine, have to be able to deal with differing angles of incidence and present the same face to the airflow/waterflow while the trailing dge not so much ( due to flow laminarity ). A rounded profile helps with this and is used, at least at low speeds, at hi speed the reduced drag of a sharp leading edge takes precedence. The wing profile described by Enthalpy is commonly known as a supercritical wing and is used subsonically to improve lift/drag ratio.

The only reason Shroedinger's wave mechanics formulation became dominant in the late 20s over Heisenberg's matrix formulation and Dirac's 'algebraic' formulation is that it was more familiar to the physics community and in a way closer to classical thinking. The modern quantum field formulation has associated particles with it, but wave-particle duality is a misnomer. The case may be that it is neither particle or wave, it is just our mathematical model which is limited.

The creation of 'present day' photons from pair annihilation occurred after the inflationary period. Just about all these photons are still around today.

The 'seeds' for large scale structure formation such as galaxies and clusters, were the Quantum fluctuations ( due to the uncertainty principle ) present before inflation. The process of inflation 'smoothed' large scale features, like curvature, and enlargened small scale features like Q fluctuations so that after inflation had subsided, mass could start accumulating around these gravitational 'seeds'. Galaxy and cluster formation proceeds bottom up, not top dowm.

I don't think there's any danger of your idea being stolen.

Well the gravastar paper is even more far-fetched than black holes ever were. Self gravitating magnetic monopoles with charge g ??? Monopoles are the unicorns of particle physics, and if inflationary big bang theory is correct, then only few would have been created on the boundaries of broken symmetry areas. Or are these different monopoles ( how many can you have ??) ? And would g then be the elementary quantum of gravitation ?? As for your second link, I haven't heard that explanation for black holes since Landau and Zel'dovich used to call them 'frozen stars' in the 50s before John Archibald Wheeler coined the term 'black holes' which has nasty connotations in Russian. It is easily explained by the proper choice of reference frame. In effect, an external observer sees time slow down and stop as an astronaut approaches the event horizon, but the astronaut himself notices no such slow down and stoppage, he continues through the event horizon to the possible singularity at regular time.

When Airbrush asks for alternative explanations he is referring to methods for stopping the gravitational collapse. For example as has been mentioned electron degeneracy resistance stops the further collapse of white dwarf stars, and neutron degeneracy resists further collapse of neutron stars. What is the mechanism for stopping the gravitational collapse of these Q-stars and gravastars ? And if Q-stars are quark stars their degeneracy resistance is equivalent to that of a neutron star I would think, but not being too familiar with QCD, the quarks that comprise neutrons may have energy levels and could sink to 'lower' energy leves. Even so, they would just be one more step on the way to black holes because eventually a star massive enough to overcome quark degeneracy resistance would gravitationally collapse ( such as the galactic centre sized black holes ). So like I said, don't give us fancy names, propose mechanisms that would stop gravitational collapse for ANY ( no matter how big ) star. Its like Chandrashekar vs. Eddington all over again.

There seems to be some confusing of the event horizon with the possible singularity as Penrose diagrams for spinning black holes may allow passage from one 'universe' to another without exceeding the speed of light. The 'theory' of black holes is just normal GR, which works quite well for all space=time except at the possible singularity. Arguments made against black hole 'theory' are arguments against GR, which by 2019 will have a century of verified predictions... Hardly speculation !!! I repeat, read Kip Thorne's book, It is easy enough to follow and will settle a lot of this discussion. He is , along with Hawking and Penrose, one of the world's leading experts on black hole theory. You may continue your arguments with him if you so wish.

If you are in free fall through the event horizon of a massive black hole like the ones found in the centres of galaxies, your body and space ship would undergo the same acceleration until very close to the possible singularity, well inside the event horizon. So I really don't see how your body would get smashed against the ship's floor. Do you know what freefall is or are you making this up as you go along ? Typical galactic centre black holes have masses of millions of suns and are therefore huge. Even travelling at the speed of light ( something you still cannot do inside the event horizon ) it would take some time to reach the possible singularity. Why don't you take this opportunity to try and figure out the radius of such a black hole and the time it would take to get close to the centre at realistic ( not relativistic ) speeds. The fact that you "personally, are interested in what happens to the atoms themselves, as they would also squash, and likely the electron clouds would fail, and nucleons would likely start ripping threw those electron clouds as atoms collapse and join the matter in what ever form it exists" at the possible singularity, is of no concern because it happens at close distances to the singularity. The other 90% of your subjective time spent inside the event horizon, you wouldn't even know it. Do some reading on black holes, I recommend 'Black Holes and Warped Space Time, Einstein's outrgeous legacy' by Kip Thorne, or would you rather keep making stuff up as you go along ? Again I have always stated large black holes, not walnut sized ones which would have appreciable tidal forces, but then again so would neutron stars at very close range

Charge is conserved by a black hole also, Questionposer, so if your logic was correct its field would not be able to esape the event horizon, but it does. However, some have theorized that mass, charge and angular momentum as well as entropy are conserved on the event horizon.

If you're familiar with Faynman diagrams draw some, keeping in mind that the photons are virtual and their own antiparticles, and that every allowed interaction is possible.

No, not even close. A QFT of gravity has too many infinities which cannot be gotten rid of ( renormalised ) away.

Sure, tunneling is one mechanism for the escape of Hawking Radiation's virtual particles. Although it does mix-n-match QF theory and GR.

And the above doesn't even deserve a reply since there is actual observational evidence for black holes...

As has been mentioned, the mini black hole with the mass of the earth would have the same gravity as the earth itself, so why do you think Airbrush, that " the intense acceleration of about a million Gs" would instantly kill you well outside the event horizon ??? At one earth radius from the centre of the black hole your acceleration would be exactly 1G, not exactly killing acceleration is it ?? If you jump into the air at 4 km/hr you are not escaping but merely in an orbit, ie you will come back down !! The escape velocity for a black hole is defined as being greater than the speed of light and that is the reason we call them black holes, not even light can escape them. The 'point of no return' as you call it Airbrush, is fixed by the escape velocity. Since you can never equal or exceed the speed of light you can never return from inside the event horizon. I really hope I don't have to explain this again.

Sorry Airbrush, I'm at work and can't do the calculation but it should be simple enough to google an formula which would give required orbital speed at given distances. Temprocitor I don't understand your reasoning for the mass becoming infinite at zero radius ?

You seem to grasp the meaning of the event horizon. It is the distance at which the ESCAPE velocity becomes greater than the speed of light. That is the only constraint, the fact that c cannot be equalled or surpassed and so there can be no escape from the black hole.. The gravitational field is by no means infinite, it is governed by distance and mass just like any other. The effects you would feel near a small black hole or near the centre of a large one are due to differential gravity. The gradient is extremely steep such that your feet ( if falling feet first ) would feel much stronger pull due to gravity than your head would, This is spaghettification due to tidal forces. It tends to stretch in the axial direction and compress in the tangential. It can commonly be seen on the sea level of the earth, higher along the axial direction to the moon ( close side and far side ), and lower in the tangential direction.

A simple tube will have the same effect, with heat being absorbed on the bottom, vaporising the liquid which travels up the tube. It is then cooled at the top by fins or fans and the liquid cascades back down to the bottom. In a distillation column 'reflux' is estabilished when equilibrium is reached between the liquid being vapourised and the vapour being liquified.

Black holes don't behave any different than any other gravitating mass. For our purposes Newton's gravity will suffice, and that's what you violated JohnStu. From the moment you are released into free fall near a black hole you will experience an acceleration dependant on your distance from the centre of the black hole and the mass/energy of the black hole, just like any other gravitating body. The event horizon is a mathematical construct and you don't instantly accelerate to the speed of light upon crossing it. As a matter of fact you continue at a constant acceleration, just like when you free fall on the earth. You would still never reach light speed Airbrush as the energy for your acceleration is supplied by the black hole and would need to be infinite and I don't think that would be possible as the infinite hole would swallow the universe. The point being that all physical laws still apply well into the event horizon and only totally break down at the possible singularity. For a small black hole the (possible) singularity is reached too quickly for any appreciable speed to be acheived. For a large black hole where the distance to the (possible) singularity is much greater, the acceleration is much more leisurely as the differential gravity ( tidal force ) is much less.

The event horizon is the radial distance where escape velocity is equal to the speed of light. At any point inside, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, no light can ever be emitted and the event horizon is black. At this moment you are standing on the surface of the Earth, and without a Saturn 5 booster rocket, you cannot escape from the Earth's gravitatioonal field either ( escape velocity about 18000 mi/hr I think ), yet it doesn't "mean that your blood would no longer be able to flow, your brain would no longer be able to send nerve impulses, heck, your heart wouldn't even be able to beat" does it ?? A black hole is no different from any other gravitational source. It has no magical properties.

Possibility 1 : the springs in your vacuum actuated vent valves have weakened over time ( is this an older vehicle ? ) and swing from the a/c position to the heater position when turning in one direction. Possibility 2 : since the vent valves are vacuum actuated, accelerating out of the turn opens the throttle decreasing available vacuum signal to the vents. Try accelerating in high gear uphill to see if this is the problem. I know of no way a change of direction will change air temperature. The fly is at rest with respect to the air in the vehicle. which is at rest with respect to the vehicle. Any acceleration or force experienced by the vehicle will also affect all occupants, human or insect.

JohnStu, most of your posts make no sense and violate many physical laws, this one being a perfect example. Upon crossing a large black hole's event horizon nothing much will happen. You will be subjected to tidal forces which won't rip you apart for some time/distance ( depending on the size of the black hole ). Your eyes will be fine for the limited time/distance until you are torn apart to view the outside universe age billions and billions of years ( possibly tothe end of time ).

Well then your 'explanation' is even more speculative than mine as mine doesn't require explaning any event or time before t=0. Yours adds complexity to something which can never be known or tested for. You're not doing a good job of convincing me, and you promised.

Then how do you know the same rules apply to the previous epoch of time from which our space-time sprang ?? Did the previous time stop when our space-time started, or did the time component continue and space spring into existence to join with it ?? And when you say the 'potential' for the big bang existed 'prior' to t=0, does the 'potential' have the same meaning as in the current version of the universe ?? I myself don't see how it could. A potential in a time-only universe would be vastly different from potential as we know it in a space-time universe. Notice how the simple notion of 'before' t=0 becomes very silly, very fast.

Then you'll also need to explain what 'before' means since time started at t=0 or the moment of the big bang. Would it have been 'negative' time or was there a 'previous' time ?? Or did time actually begin at some prior epoch and is not really connected to our 'space' in GR's space-time ??