black hole mass

[36grit]

I'm starting to think that balck holes are really just strong force stars. That during the hyper nova explosion the walls of the atoms beome so dense that they push out any electro magnetic behaviour. Even vacuum energy is blasted away. and that black hole mass is made up of only the strong force and gravity.

 

are there any real theorys like this one ?

[ACG52]

No.

[36grit]

No.

 

Well now, that certainly clears things up. Thanks for such an informative and awe inspiriing answer. Now that I no everything I can finally rest in peace.

[ACG52]

You've got a random bunch of words strung together. How in depth does the answer need be?

[Arch2008]

The Strong force allows quarks and hadrons to form. We know the level of the binding energy of the Strong force. We also know that the gravity at the singularity of a black hole exceeds that of the binding energy of the Strong force. So no quarks or hadrons exist at the singularity and gravity reigns supreme. However, I have read that just as Neutron stars exist, where the property of neutron degeneracy halts their collapse into a black hole, so Quark stars may exist, I suppose held up by the Strong force.

[36grit]

I looked up and read some stuff on quark stars. Surely they have a strong force atmosphere. I did read that scientist are studying three or four neutron stars to see if they are really quark stars, and that quasars blasting out huge amounts of gamma rays may be a neutron star going nova.

 

Concerning black holes, I don't see how a timeless structure could have a core, but does seem to be the general consenses. Seems to me like length width and depth would fail without time. Anyway, to say that a black hole has a core is to suggest that it has an atmosphere. If the atmosphere is timeless the particles could easily quantum leap from center to edge. How could an entity that has it's particles existing everywhere, within it's timeless boundry, all at once possibly have a core? I guess the only explanation is that the heavier particles must sink to the center. Hmmm, without time every particle probably forms a layer of like particles according to their own weight. They spaggettify then quntum leap around in paths of least resistance then resinate in their place. This would mean that surface tension between the speggettified mass and the weightless inner particles probably collide. This collision might knock a few gamma rays out to form the spheres that exist at the poles of the milky ways central massive black hole. A brilliant deduction I think. Probably wrong but brilliant just the same

Edited February 12, 2013 by 36grit

[Arch2008]

To quote ACG52, "No."

[36grit]

http://www.greatians.com/physics/universe/black%20hole.htm

 

This site suggests that particle collisions can produce gamma rays and nock them into higher energy orbits within the event horizon and/or out of the black holes atmosphere. I found the texts informative and satisfying.

[Arch2008]

This "site" in your link is poorly written trash.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Arch2008

[36grit]

This "site" in your link is poorly written trash.

Garage sales and trash pickers, and I know, everything is relative.

[siderman]

My reply to "black hole mass" is why is the gravity of the original star multiplied simply because of size and/or density? When the large star explodes does it not release massive energy? Einstine tells us energy is mass, so by exploding the stars mass is some what reduced while it's gravity, in it's victory over fussion, crushes into the atomic level to leave no space between the nucleus [protons & nutrons] and the orbiting or vibrating electrons of each remaining atom. Yes, that's dense, but what is the science behind this atomic density creating this object's gravitational increase? To transform a star into a black hole, by definition, requires a large addition of the gravitational force. Another hic-up of Black holes is the singularity, or the actual object of black holes with no mass and emence gravity. WTF is a super massive black hole's singularity? We believe in the big bang because space did not exist until the bang so, in post bang terms, the singularity of the bang could have been 1000's of light years across. In pre space thought, the same thing could be called a single point. But space and time do exist now, no matter how intertwined, so what is the science behind size? Are stellar and supermassive black holes singularities? One last thing, if gravitons exist, would they reside within the atoms or among them?

Edited March 19, 2013 by siderman

[36grit]

so what is the science behind size? Are stellar and supermassive black holes singularities? One last thing, if gravitons exist, would they reside within the atoms or among them?

 

If you like I could give some answers but you must realize that I"m just pure imagination, and the answers will probably have nothing to do with real physics.

1. I"ll start with gravatons. If protons exist both inside and outside of atoms than gravatons probably do as well.

2. The cores of super massive and stellar black holes are singularities provided the stellar black hole was large enough to form one.

3. Size is defined by the gravity field and the divisions within it. Gravity is an expansion of inward force. The horizon of the black hole is a hole in space and time and/or a division in the gravity field. The singularity is a redefining of size. It is a universe in it's own right. In this way the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite in size and is defined and redefined by gravityies expansion within it's divisions of planes. TIme, space, and size is relative to the plane of gravitational excitements within their relative plane of origin. In this way a bigger universe can exist within a smaller universe because it's all relative to the size of gravitational excitements, that are the gravitons, within the spectrum of gravitational planes.

 

I could bullshit all day like this

[Chrispen Evan]

 

My reply to "black hole mass" is why is the gravity of the original star multiplied simply because of size and/or density?

 

it isn't. if Earth was compressed down a couple of centimetres in diameter then it would form a BH. it's mass wouldn't have changed though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

 

 

To transform a star into a black hole, by definition, requires a large addition of the gravitational force

 

the explosion of the star compressed the matter to get over the atomic forces keeping the particles separate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

 

 

Another hic-up of Black holes is the singularity, or the actual object of black holes with no mass and emence gravity. WTF is a super massive black hole's singularity?

 

the singularity is just a name we give to a region where our current theories no longer can model successfully.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

 

 

 

 

[krash661]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this topic yet,

I have not read it but i plan on it later today but,

in sky and telescope there's an article,

 

sky and telescope magazine

june 2013

" when black holes eat stars "

pg.16

 

here'a a link, but i'm not sure some will be able to access it,

 

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newtrack/st_201306/#/18

 

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel

Edited April 29, 2013 by krash661