The Schlueter Theory

[Tipodehaht]

Hi there everyone,

 

 

So I have had these theories brewing in my head for quite some time, and now I want to see what you all think of them (and to possible help fill the massive holes in them). I'm pretty sure 99% of the people who are going to read this are going to think I'm crazy as most of the people I've told have lol, but I'm looking for that 1% who will atleast look at constructively and hopefully teach me the complicated stuff about space.

 

I'll start off with the theory that i'm most positive is true, which it my Black Hole Theory:

 

 

 

So it all started when trying to prove my brother wrong and show him that the Earth was expanding. I didn't like the way the actual Expanding Earth Theory persented itself, saying in the first few lines that any other theory that denounced it was wrong and even when I read through it something wasn't right. It was like something was incomplete. I read an unbiased article by R.A.Kanen (http://www.geologyne.../tectonics1.htm) that finally properly explained quite a few theories about the Earth, including about Expanding Earth, but I still came up with the same conclusion: something was missing. Now its been a very long time since i started this so I've forgotten how this pop into my head, but essentually I thought of this theory that the core of Stars, Planets and anything with gravity is infact a Black Hole.

 

 

Now how I was going to use this to prove how the Earth is expanding was that a Black Hole does what it does. But instead of destroying matter or sending to some other dimension, it just holds it in its centre. It would take alot of matter to "fill" it, but its "pull" would weaken like the outermost pieces of metal on a magnet and there would be a happy medium where matter wouldn't be sucked into it because the Black would be clogged like a Vacuum. Ofcourse the matter closest to the Black Hole would be super compressed creating alot of friction, hence giving a super hard and super hot core of Earth. The farther matter was from the core, the less pull there was on it so it wouldn't be compressed as much (making a magma level) and then the crust would form both the cold of space and if the magma had more stone particles than gas matter or something along those lines.

 

I read an article online about that Particle Collider recreating a black hole and saying it'll be safe as tiny Black Holes pass through the earth all the time (http://news.national...-space-science/). I thought what if they weren't passing through, but escaping from the Core? What if a Black Hole made of matter which was similar to a super powerful magnet, but in a gas form. If that was true maybe the combination of the pull of the Black Hole and the mass of the Matter being pulled was squeezing the Black Hole slowly apart like a hand squeezes water from a sponge. And if parts of the Black Hole were escaping that would weaken the pull, making Gravity weaker and some of the matter being compressed into the core would be able to expand increasing the volume in the magma layer, hence expanding the Earth like a Balloon. I came to the conclusion with this new found Theory that the growth would work like a parabola where as the Black Hole lost its pull, the wieght of matter would decrease aswell, decreasing the amount being squeezed from the Black Hole, to the point where the Earth would seem to stop expanding.

 

I also thought of a way this would explain why a Super Nova would happen. The Matter would squeeze all of the Black Hole from it's centre, making the the super compressed matter of the core expand rapidly. The problem here is that there has to be some delay that keeps the pressure on the Black Hole, but the pull has already weaken from the smaller size of the Black Hole.

 

 

Anyway, this is what I've done the most thorough thinking on. Let me know if I'm crazy at all lol,

 

Tipodehaht

[DrRocket]

 

 

Anyway, this is what I've done the most thorough thinking on. Let me know if I'm crazy at all lol,

 

Tipodehaht

 

As a bed bug.

[Airbrush]

Your theory sounds very absurd.

 

Your link to where you found out about tiny black holes zipping thru the Earth doesn't work. Try it out.

[Tipodehaht]

worked fine for me

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110526-mini-black-holes-pass-through-earth-lhc-space-science/

 

If it still doesn't work google:

 

Mini Black Holes Zip Through Earth Every Day?

 

Should be the first link

[Airbrush]

Now it works, thanks. But I don't understand how that supports your theory. If you would care to explain?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Airbrush

[Tipodehaht]

Well it actually doesn't support my theory. In fact there's really nothing that supports my theory at all, its just a different view on the same topic.

 

You can disregard the part about the Earth expanding, but what about a core of a star or planet being a Matter filled Black hole. The centre of our galaxy is a Black Hole and is seems to be holding our galaxy together instead of swallowing it up. Why can't the planets and stars be of a similar concept?

[Ophiolite]

We have developed over almost a century a detailed understanding of stellar structure, nucleosynthesis and stellar evolution. This understanding is internally consistent, theoretically sound and evidentially supported. There is no place within that understanding for a black hole at the centre of each star and planet. It is equivalent to saying that our digestive system may function because small invisible rodents consume the food in our stomachs and we live upon their excrement. The facts stand against it. I applaud your original thinking, but recommend you put your energy into learning some serious science before risking further original thought. In that way you might someday make a genuine contribution to human knowledge.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations

What numerical predictions does you idea make?

[The Observer]

In fact there's really nothing that supports my theory at all, its just a different view on the same topic.

 

 

Then you don't have a theory, you have a speculation.

[Tipodehaht]

So what you're saying is that there's not even the slightest possiblity that a small black hole is the centre of an object with gravity, but instead a planet is created from dust colliding and sticking together, slowly clumping together and, surprizingly, making a prefect sphere everytime?

 

Ya I'm alittle less educated on these kind of things as everyone else is on these forums, and the books I've started to read are ones you probably read as a toddler, but instead of saying this is wrong cause our current theory says so, research up on it. You probably have better resourses available to you than want my machinist hands could get or make. Plus the fact that I'm the slowest reader ever doesn't help matters.

 

So so far I've not convinced I'm wrong. I'm not 100% right, but considering what I've read so far always includes the little phrase "...scientists BELIEVE...", I don't see how my "speculation" can't have some merit.

 

I'm going to keep researching on this, whether or not I'm actually right, until I find that key that'll knock me on my ass, or'll put me on a pedestal.

 

Then the gloating can start.

[Klaynos]

Gravity is spherically symmetric, any fluid object which is acted on only by its own gravity will form a perfect sphere.

 

There is nothing gravitationally special about black holes out side of the event horizon.

 

If the sun was magically replaced with a black hole of the same mass the earth would continue orbiting the same.

 

I think it'd also be worth your time investigating the scientific method and what a theory actually is in modern physics. They're not just ideas thought up, they are rigorously tested mathematical models of reality.

[Ophiolite]

So what you're saying is that there's not even the slightest possiblity that a small black hole is the centre of an object with gravity, but instead a planet is created from dust colliding and sticking together, slowly clumping together and, surprizingly, making a prefect sphere everytime?

None of the planets are perfect spheres. The effects of rotation, variations in density and tectonic activity all cause deviation from perfection. If a black hole were at the centre of any planet all the mathematical models of planetary structure would be invalidated. However these modeles are independently supported by seismic data and geochemical studies.

[md65536]

but essentually I thought of this theory that the core of Stars, Planets and anything with gravity is infact a Black Hole.

 

Well count me as part of the 1%; I think that this part is correct (according to my own crackpot theory).

 

By "anything with gravity" you must mean "anything with mass", due to universal gravitation. That includes individual atoms.

 

I think it's possible that any mass has a singularity at its center, where there is infinite spacetime curvature. I think that any mass that could be observed as an indivisible particle would have its own "black hole", but a planet wouldn't have its own black hole apart from the singularities of all its constituent particles, unless you were observing it in some way that those particles were indistinguishable (eg. perhaps from very far away).

 

A black hole doesn't "suck matter in" more than its mass would justify. So, just as an apple 2m above the Earth has a very small pull on the Earth, a black hole the mass of an apple would have very small pull on the Earth at the same distance. The event horizon of such a small black hole would be so tiny, that it would be hard to interact with it I think. Light (of large enough wavelength?) would pass right over it... like a tiny hole that is too small to get trapped in. So I think that the things that prevent you from getting to the center of a massive particle (or a planet, if you like) can hide a black hole and prevent it from behaving like large black hole does.

 

My version of the idea is this: Any local maximum of spacetime curvature (in an open neighbourhood???) is infinite.

 

 

 

but instead a planet is created from dust colliding and sticking together, slowly clumping together and, surprizingly, making a prefect sphere everytime?

 

Despite adding additional craziness to the thread, I think this version is still correct.

 

Formation of planets makes sense with current understanding of gravity. If you conjecture that there are black holes where we don't know they are, you would still have to show that our measurements which correspond to current theories will still correspond when those black holes are factored in.

 

 

[Tipodehaht]

None of the planets are perfect spheres. The effects of rotation, variations in density and tectonic activity all cause deviation from perfection

 

Well considering all the other objects in space, a planet/star is pretty round for being naturally formed.

 

When I read the accretion article, and all the side links about planet formation on wikipedia (trying to find another source, due to its reputation) It said from what i believe that the dust/matter creates its own gravity and that's how it attracts other matter and static electricity is the glue that holds it together. The problem I see here is that if matter creates its own gravity, as long as it has enough mass, gravity would be perpendicular to the surface the pulled object is on. So essentially we could walk on walls and ceilings if there was enough matter to support our weight. The counter to this would be that because there's more matter towards the centre of the planet that the pull towards the centre is stronger than the pull on the walls and ceilings. But ofcourse that's what Wikipedia said.

 

But also a question I have regarding the accretion that I haven't found on the net yet: What make the matter move so fast to create the process?

 

Anyway, the world is full of patterns, and so here's something interesting to chew:

 

 

The centre of the galaxy is a "Super Massive Black hole" and has alot of solar systems rotating around it on the same plain, roughly.

 

The centre of each solar system is a star/sun that has planets rotating around it on the same plain.

 

Moons rotate around a planet, maybe not on the same plain, but on the same axis.

 

If the centre of our galaxy is a Black hole, and we're rotating around it, why can't the same follow suit with the other parts of the galaxy?

 

 

I saw a picture about black holes in some nasa article that show the black hole and some telescopic satilite taking pictures of it at different angles.

http://astroguyz.com/2010/06/23/23-06-10-swift-spies-black-holes-feeding-on-galaxy-mergers/

 

The first thing I thought when I saw the picture was the North and south poles were the "radio jets". Up until the pic, I thought a black hole was a void sphere. And a few webpages later, I found that matter "spins" into the balck hole around the equator in relation to the 2 radio jets, instead of going straight to the centre like I originally thought.

 

I don't know much about the suction of the black hole, all the website I manage to find just talk about what A black hole does. So if someone knows either a book or website that describes that whole process, can you refer me to it. Thanks in advance.

[Bignose]

Well considering all the other objects in space, a planet/star is pretty round for being naturally formed.

 

Your appeal to incredulity here is a logical fallacy. The model of gravity showing it is spherically symmetrical is pretty well validated. Also, don't neglect the billions of years that are available to let the planets 'settle'. That is, it may be lumpy for the first billion years, but as the plates shift, and impacts happen, and stresses form and release, the overall trend toward sphericity is a natural consequence of the symmetry of gravity. Using just this symmetry of this law, models have been made that replicate the observations seen in nature.

 

As was asked above, your idea has consequences or predictions that would occur if it were true. You should be able to show what those predictions are, and how they are observed in nature. This is how science works. An idea is formed, the consequences of that idea are deduced, predictions are made, and then experiments are conducted to see if the observations agree with the experiments.

 

At this moment, the theory of the molten core and plate tectonics is very well supported by many observations agreeing with predictions. Show us what predictions your idea makes and how they agree with what it known today.