Possibility of not having a singularity?

[Sato]

Ello,

 

It isn't possible for there to be some sort of 'length dilation' under the conditions of a black hole is it? Then in those particles' frames of reference the space between them would be greater, possibly avoiding a collapse into each other's volumes.

 

Sorry if this is riddled with conceptual errors, and if so please correct them.

 

Thanks,

Sato

[mathematic]

There is no good physical theory to explain what happens inside a black hole. The singularity concept results from using general relativity by itself. However at small distances quantum theory can't be ignored. When physicists try to work with both theories at the same time, mathematical inconsistancies result.

[Sato]

Yes, but due to that my question was if this could possibly be avoided by some relativistic length dilation within the black hole (since I know length contraction and time dilation can occur in GR). I think the QM violation I'm thinking of is called the Pauli exclusion principle, but I'm not sure. I've read that theoretically, if an object travels at a speed greater than that of light, it could go back in time or the opposite of the normal time dilation would occur (a time 'contraction' I guess). So would the same thing happen in terms of spatial length; instead of length contraction, at the point of gravity of a singularity (such as after the velocity of c), there could be a length dilation keeping the particles from occupying each other's spaces as the space between them (non-existent to an external observer) dilates?

[Arch2008]

Pauli's rule explains how electrons in orbit around a nucleus behave. No two electrons can have the same orbit normally. The gravity in a singularity overcomes this rule. Actually, this rule is already broken by gravity when a white dwarf star collapses into a neutron star.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/white_dwarfs.html

 

Nothing travels faster than light, so the point that it would move backward in time is a myth.

　

[EWyatt]

QUOTE: Nothing travels faster than light, so the point that it would move backward in time is a myth.

 

There was an incredible expansion of the universe (not "space") just after the Big Bang, many times faster than the speed of light. Call it "energy" or primordial soup, or whatever, but this did happen. Perhaps nothing can travel faster than the speed of light only in our minds (thus relativity).

　

[Delta1212]

QUOTE: Nothing travels faster than light, so the point that it would move backward in time is a myth.

 

There was an incredible expansion of the universe (not "space") just after the Big Bang, many times faster than the speed of light. Call it "energy" or primordial soup, or whatever, but this did happen. Perhaps nothing can travel faster than the speed of light only in our minds (thus relativity).

 

 

　

Nothing with mass can be accelerated to light speed. Anything massless always moves at light speed.

 

Space, however, can expand faster than light speed, and still does over large enough distances.

[Arch2008]

To clarify, space expanded faster than light, but a given point in space did not travel anywhere. The space between any two points inflated.

[michel123456]

Wait a moment, just an idea:

if space expanded faster than C, does that mean that it expands backward in time?

[Arch2008]

Exactly.

[EWyatt]

Quote: Nothing with mass can be accelerated to light speed. Anything massless always moves at light speed.
Space, however, can expand faster than light speed, and still does over large enough distances.

 

 

Reply: Perhaps a minor? point, but "space" can't expand. The "universe"
did/does expand inside "space." Correct? I think too many people
equate the known universe (even multiverses) with the much larger,
perhaps infinite open space.

Edited March 17, 2013 by EWyatt

[Delta1212]

 

Quote: Nothing with mass can be accelerated to light speed. Anything massless always moves at light speed.

Space, however, can expand faster than light speed, and still does over large enough distances.

 

 

Reply: Perhaps a minor? point, but "space" can't expand. The "universe"

did/does expand inside "space." Correct? I think too many people

equate the known universe (even multiverses) with the much larger,

perhaps infinite open space.

This is incorrect. Our current understanding is that space itself is expanding between points. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space, not the expansion of matter and energy into space.

[EWyatt]

This is incorrect. Our current understanding is that space itself is expanding between points. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space, not the expansion of matter and energy into space.

Use logic. But first, perhaps it would be good to define "space" and "universe." To me, our universe is the result of the what's left of the Big Bang. It's expanding into and within more "space." To me, again, "space" is the available area (perhaps infinite) where the Universe and the theoretical mulitiverses thrive, expand, whatever. IOW, our Universe could be compared to a small grain of sand in a monstrous ocean.

As some simplistically say, if space is not inifinite, then what lies beyond it boundaries? Answer: more "space." Comment?

[SplitInfinity]

Ello,

 

It isn't possible for there to be some sort of 'length dilation' under the conditions of a black hole is it? Then in those particles' frames of reference the space between them would be greater, possibly avoiding a collapse into each other's volumes.

 

Sorry if this is riddled with conceptual errors, and if so please correct them.

 

Thanks,

Sato

A Black Hole is a Singularity or in other words...an Expression of One Dimensionality within our minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional Universal Reality.

 

Gravity also has this definition but Singularity is the ultimate expression of One Dimensionality. All Geometric Space/Time Dimensionality allows each and every Dimensional State to be connected or adherent to each of the other existing Dimensional States. Thus Gravity being an expression of one dimensionality is created by any amount of Mass existing in our Universal Reality. The greater the amount of Mass...the greater the effect of Gravity and thus the greater the expression of one dimensionality.

 

Since Time is specific to movement of Mass or Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons, Electrons...etc...Time cannot exist within a One Dimensional Universe as Matter and Energy cannot exist in one. However in our minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional Universal Reality...one dimensionality can create effect as a One Dimensional Expression that is known as Gravity. Given this the greater the one dimensional expression or the greater the warping or folding of Space/Time by Gravity...the greater the effect upon and relativistic reality of Time.

 

Thus if a Space Craft with people aboard were to be captured by the Gravitational Effect of a Black Hole...and this craft was captured just on the very outskirts of the Accretion Disc...Time would slow down to such an effect for those on that craft that Millions of Years would pass for an observer away from the Black Holes gravitational Effect as only seconds would pass for those aboard the craft due to the extreme Time Dilation.

 

At the center of the Black Holes Singularity our Universal Space/Time Physics and Natural Laws break down as at the center of such a Singularity exists another Universal Constant of Natural Laws and Reality. Many Physicist and Cosmologists have attempted to mathematically define this Constant only to fail miserably.

 

Split Infinity

[Delta1212]

Use logic. But first, perhaps it would be good to define "space" and "universe." To me, our universe is the result of the what's left of the Big Bang. It's expanding into and within more "space." To me, again, "space" is the available area (perhaps infinite) where the Universe and the theoretical mulitiverses thrive, expand, whatever. IOW, our Universe could be compared to a small grain of sand in a monstrous ocean.

As some simplistically say, if space is not inifinite, then what lies beyond it boundaries? Answer: more "space." Comment?

What is north of the North Pole? It's possible to have a finite distance with no boundaries. Imagine space as the surface of a balloon. When you blow up the balloon, the surface area increases, but there is no "edge" of the area.

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter and energy out into space; it's the expansion of space between all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

It's also important to note that what seems logical is not always actually correct. Using logic without checking it against real world evidence is how Arostotle concluded that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.

[SplitInfinity]

What is north of the North Pole? It's possible to have a finite distance with no boundaries. Imagine space as the surface of a balloon. When you blow up the balloon, the surface area increases, but there is no "edge" of the area.

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter and energy out into space; it's the expansion of space between all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

It's also important to note that what seems logical is not always actually correct. Using logic without checking it against real world evidence is how Arostotle concluded that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.

 

Universal Expansion is defined as the Galaxies in our Universe being driven apart and accelerated by a force or effect known as Dark Energy...a name given to something of which we know almost nothing about.

 

Space is by definition nothingness but Space/Time infers dimensionality. It is the existence of Matter and Energy and their relative position specific to our minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional State Universal Reality. As Matter or Energy expands in distance from other Matter and Energy...Space/Time is created.

 

Split Infinity

[MigL]

We actually know quite a bit about dark energy. We know, for example, that it acts very much like Einstein's cosmological constant and is related to vacuum energy ( what you refer to as space or nothingness has very distinct properties ).

 

The universe is not expanding into anything, as a matter of fact universe means everything there is. It does not matter if finite ir infinite as long as it is unbounded, otherwise you'd have to explain what's on the other side of the boundary. A sphere is finite in size but you can travel forever in any direction, ie its unbounded. Alternatively a sheetof infinite size is also unbounded for the same reason.

 

The separation between objects in the universe ( on a scale where gravitational interactions are overcome ) is growing. That is what is meant by universal expansion, and yes, this separation growth can be superluminal. It is by no means an explosion of 'stuff' into an empty 'void'.

 

But back to the OP...

 

The singularity is nothing more than an indication that GR's field equations become 'undefined' at that point, ie. they are no longer a valid or sufficient description of reality. A theory which takes quantum behaviour into account is needed. See string/M-theory or Loop Quantum Gravity for some current efforts on that front.

 

So yes, the possibility of not having a singularity are probabily very good.

Edited March 18, 2013 by MigL

[SplitInfinity]

We actually know quite a bit about dark energy. We know, for example, that it acts very much like Einstein's cosmological constant and is related to vacuum energy ( what you refer to as space or nothingness has very distinct properties ).

 

The universe is not expanding into anything, as a matter of fact universe means everything there is. It does not matter if finite ir infinite as long as it is unbounded, otherwise you'd have to explain what's on the other side of the boundary. A sphere is finite in size but you can travel forever in any direction, ie its unbounded. Alternatively a sheetof infinite size is also unbounded for the same reason.

 

The separation between objects in the universe ( on a scale where gravitational interactions are overcome ) is growing. That is what is meant by universal expansion, and yes, this separation growth can be superluminal. It is by no means an explosion of 'stuff' into an empty 'void'.

 

But back to the OP...

 

The singularity is nothing more than an indication that GR's field equations become 'undefined' at that point, ie. they are no longer a valid or sufficient description of reality. A theory which takes quantum behaviour into account is needed. See string/M-theory or Loop Quantum Gravity for some current efforts on that front.

 

So yes, the possibility of not having a singularity are probabily very good.

The only things we know for certain as it pertains to Dark Energy is Efeect as we can observe and calculate this effect but we cannot know for certain what is causing or why.

 

For Quantum Mechanics to act as it does it is highly likely a Multiversal System exists.

 

Imagine the Multiverse as beeing an endless Forest with an Infinite number of Trees. Each tree is a Universal Group and each branch upon each tree is a Universal Reality. Now the tree our Universe is but a branch upon has infinite branches like all other trees but all these Divergent Universal States of our tree have the same physical laws of nature. Each other tree or Universal Group has it's own physical and natural laws and some trees or groups have laws that are so alien in theur nature we can neither understand them or even dream of them.

 

Split Infinity

[MigL]

I don't recall being taught that in any of my quantum mechanics courses !

[imatfaal]

Split Infinity - I think you need to understand the difference between Quantum Mechanics (and QFT QED QCD et al which work amazingly well) and the Interpretations of of Quantum Mechanics. You most certainly do not need multiverses to get good theory and predictions - in fact you don't need any of the contradictory interpretations - you just need to "shut up and calculate!" (not Feynman but David Mermin)

 

There is a great video Tom Swanson blogged about in which Sean Carroll laments the fact that of a group of Quantum specialists the most popular interpretation (which is many worlds) only got about 40% of a vote. But Physics works on maths and predictions - and at present these are exactly the same for all the interpretations, and so it doesn't really matter which you choose to put your money on. Until someone can show experimentally which interpretation is correct then we really don't need to care!

 

And BTW 10-11 dimensions is far from accepted either - I have noticed you writing about the necessity for extra spatial dimensions elsewhere. I don't believe these are necessary apart from string, superstring, supersymmetry etc - and the these hypotheses are by no means accepted or even close to being experimentally proven. In fact the space for super-symmetrical particles to exist is being constantly narrowed by the LHC and Fermilab.

[siderman]

U people sound impressive and seem to have given physics some real thought. It also seems these thoughts tend to become competitive. I have some questions and theorys of my own and welcome other points of view and hope to combine the thoughts of others to deepen and perhaps direct my thinking of what is. If my ideas seem strange or "wrong", I'm not competing in a who's right or I'm smart and you are not game. I'd like a place to express myself without fearing ridicule. That said, I welcome you to my brain as I hope I might be welcomed into this neardy, wordy, and wise clan of thinkers. I'd like to know the science behind the gravity difference of a star and its collapsed form called a black hole. How does density relate to gravity? Futhermore, how can a supermassive black hole be a singularity? Isn't what we call a black hole simply a result of the existance of this mysterious singularity [which I'm led to believe is a point with no mass and infinite gravity] in our multi-dimentional universe. A super warping of space-time, like in Einstine's theorys? So why refer to these objects as having "the mass of a hundred of our suns", or any mass at all? are these "supermassive black holes" thought of as actual remenents of mass accumulation from objects entering the singularity and adding to it? Is it common knowledge that the singularities of the supermassive black holes found at the center of galixies have dimentions? Does space have mass? Photons are real yet have no mass allowing the to travel at "warp 1". How does science explain that? I've got more but don't want to throw too much at once. This thread is very interesting and I would be glad to voice my take on some of the points raised, but I haven't even been welcomed yet. Throw stones if you must, this might not be the place I think it is. Peace-out ... MikeL

[Delta1212]

Welcome!

 

Black holes do have mass. Either a source of information has mislead you, or you've confused it with a singularity being a point with no volume (finite mass divided by zero volume equals infinite density).

 

Gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the center of gravity. That means that as you get closer to the center, gravity increases exponentially. However, once you hit the surface, this stops being true. If you were to tunnel under the Earth, you would be getting closer to the center of gravity of the planet, but more and more of the mass would be above you, which leaves less to pull you to the center and more actually attracting you in the opposite direction until, at the very center (ignoring the heat and pressure that would kill you) you would be weightless because the mass in any one direction is balanced by an equal amount in the opposite direction.

 

A black hole, however, condenses all that mass into a much smaller point, which means you can get much closer before hitting the surface and experience the gravity ramping up to a much greater degree. If the sun were to collapse entirely into a black hole right now, there would be no change in the gravity that we experience here on Earth. The planet would still orbit the black hole once a year. However, you'd be able to get much closer to the black hole than you would to the sun, and once you'd gotten well into that distance range that would currently put you inside of the sun, gravity's effects would be much stronger.

 

Denser objects don't have more gravity than less dense objects of the same mass at any given distance, but since denser objects are smaller, you can get a lot closer to all that mass, and the closer you get the more gravity you will experience.

 

The fact that black holes do have mass also explains how they can have the mass of "a hundred suns" and yes, a lot of that is from matter falling into them.

 

Space does not have mass, no.

 

Photons are one type of massless particles. Particles with mass cannot travel at light speed. Particles without mass can only travel at light speed. Mass is just a property and has nothing to do with whether something is real or not.

[SplitInfinity]

Split Infinity - I think you need to understand the difference between Quantum Mechanics (and QFT QED QCD et al which work amazingly well) and the Interpretations of of Quantum Mechanics. You most certainly do not need multiverses to get good theory and predictions - in fact you don't need any of the contradictory interpretations - you just need to "shut up and calculate!" (not Feynman but David Mermin)

 

There is a great video Tom Swanson blogged about in which Sean Carroll laments the fact that of a group of Quantum specialists the most popular interpretation (which is many worlds) only got about 40% of a vote. But Physics works on maths and predictions - and at present these are exactly the same for all the interpretations, and so it doesn't really matter which you choose to put your money on. Until someone can show experimentally which interpretation is correct then we really don't need to care!

 

And BTW 10-11 dimensions is far from accepted either - I have noticed you writing about the necessity for extra spatial dimensions elsewhere. I don't believe these are necessary apart from string, superstring, supersymmetry etc - and the these hypotheses are by no means accepted or even close to being experimentally proven. In fact the space for super-symmetrical particles to exist is being constantly narrowed by the LHC and Fermilab.

Ima...forgive me for the nickname I am giving you...LOL!...as well as forgive me for the way I am about to cut apart your post as it is not malicious in it's nature.

 

You state that Quantum Mechanics works amazingly well. Of COURSE it does...as if it did not we would not exist. What DOES NOT WORK exceedingly well is our explaination or understanding of it as we CURRENTLY have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA or concept how to mathematically represent why Quanta acts as both particle and wave...why Quanta can have teo functions or more....why specific Quanta...such as Quarks...can exist at NUMERICAL WILL at or between a Minimum and Maximum within a Proton or Neutron as well as how Quarks are BLINKING IN AND OUT of our Universal Reality...as well as how, what or where they are going or existing and why.

 

ANYTHING that is currently being taught as far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned is based upon application as we use it in such things as commom as our CELL PHONES and even though we know how to build such a phone...it's network, system and such a phones ability to get such incredible reception which was literally IMPOSSIBLE to have a very short time ago....WE CAN BUILD SUCH THINGS but we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why it works as it does.

 

This statement is akin to...we know that where ever there is Mass....there will be Gravitational Effect. We know that the greater the amount of Mass...the Greater the Effect of Gravity. We know that Gravity acts like an Expression of One Dimensionality. We know that Matter and the Atomic Nucleus of it's Atoms...Protons and Neutrons...are the Atomic Particles that have Mass that are needed for Gravitational Effect to be present. We know that Protons and Neutrons are COMPLETELY COMPRISED OF ENERGY....Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Quarks, Glueons, Mesons, Leptons...etc...and the all important Higgs-Boson which seems to be responsible for giving Protons and Neutrons MASS...thus needed for the Existence of Gravity.

 

In all these things we know....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is known about WHAT AND WHY such Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which make up at the smallest known level...all Matter and Energy in our Universe...with the exception of Dark Matter and Dark Energy...which we only know exist due to effect and have given these effects...NAMES.

 

In order for a Multiversal System to work as a construct for Quantum Transfer and Interconnectivity between Divergent Universal Realities as well as a MINIMUM...and there are probably more...10 or 11 Dimensional States existing within ALL Divergent Universal States specific to just OUR Universal Grouping...just one grouping of an INFINITE QUANTITY...in a Multiversal System. All other Universal Groupings would have Universal Baseline Physics, Geometry and Natural Laws...different either by Quantity or Construct as all Universal Groupings of which each grouping contains Infinite Divergent Universal Realities....have a baseline Universal Physics and Natural Laws or Consrtructs completely different from all other Universal Groupings.

 

When one looks at what is taught or known about the REALITIES of Quantum Mechanics as to WHY, HOW and WHERE....it becomes OBVIOUS to even the person who HATES anything and everything to do with Mathematics, Science and Physics....that WE KNOW LITTLE TO NOTHING.

 

A few VERY glaring issues can be veiwed as far as IMPOSSIBLES when considering our Universal Reality and Geometric constraints of Space/Time and Realities of the actions of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms are concerned if you were to present the idea that our Universal Reality in constrained to 4-D.

1. The actions of Quanta show 4-D Universal Geometry to be IMPOSSIBLE.

2. The very little known about yet observable and quantifiable to a point actions and effects of Black Holes as well as Quasars and other like Celestial Objects absolutely show that our Universal Space/Time Geometry cannot be limited to 4-D.

3. Since Matter is completely comprised of Quanta...there MUST be a conversion calculation...the U.F. Calculation and Theory...U.F. being Unified Field...or UFT or UFC....WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY of either calculating or solving such a Matter/Energy Conversion using only 4-D.

4. All currently taught or used Quantum Mechanic Calculations are based upon the results of cause and effect. Thus is I do this to this THAT happens....or A plus B = C...or A minunus or B plus or C divided....you get the idea. NOTHING currently taught or known about Quantum Particle/Wave Forms allows understanding of what, how or why...but rather gives us the answers to such questions as...BECAUSE....that's what happens! LOL!

 

Split Infinity

[Sato]

Welcome!

 

Black holes do have mass. Either a source of information has mislead you, or you've confused it with a singularity being a point with no volume (finite mass divided by zero volume equals infinite density).

 

Gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the center of gravity. That means that as you get closer to the center, gravity increases exponentially. However, once you hit the surface, this stops being true. If you were to tunnel under the Earth, you would be getting closer to the center of gravity of the planet, but more and more of the mass would be above you, which leaves less to pull you to the center and more actually attracting you in the opposite direction until, at the very center (ignoring the heat and pressure that would kill you) you would be weightless because the mass in any one direction is balanced by an equal amount in the opposite direction.

 

A black hole, however, condenses all that mass into a much smaller point, which means you can get much closer before hitting the surface and experience the gravity ramping up to a much greater degree. If the sun were to collapse entirely into a black hole right now, there would be no change in the gravity that we experience here on Earth. The planet would still orbit the black hole once a year. However, you'd be able to get much closer to the black hole than you would to the sun, and once you'd gotten well into that distance range that would currently put you inside of the sun, gravity's effects would be much stronger.

 

Denser objects don't have more gravity than less dense objects of the same mass at any given distance, but since denser objects are smaller, you can get a lot closer to all that mass, and the closer you get the more gravity you will experience.

 

The fact that black holes do have mass also explains how they can have the mass of "a hundred suns" and yes, a lot of that is from matter falling into them.

 

Space does not have mass, no.

 

Photons are one type of massless particles. Particles with mass cannot travel at light speed. Particles without mass can only travel at light speed. Mass is just a property and has nothing to do with whether something is real or not.

 

Oh okay, but the main wonder was if there could be some sort of internal opposite to Lorentz contraction; a length dilation maybe? Just a thought that might make more conceptual sense of having mass appear to fall into the same space as other mass to me. Say, within that singularity is there a relative length dilation that spreads the particles of the matter farther apart than they appear to be from an outside observer?

[SplitInfinity]

I don't recall being taught that in any of my quantum mechanics courses !

 

That's because it comes from me.

 

Split Infinity

 

Oh okay, but the main wonder was if there could be some sort of internal opposite to Lorentz contraction; a length dilation maybe? Just a thought that might make more conceptual sense of having mass appear to fall into the same space as other mass to me. Say, within that singularity is there a relative length dilation that spreads the particles of the matter farther apart than they appear to be from an outside observer?

 

Although many have tried and failed miserably in their attempt to define mathematically what is going on inside a Black Hole and what are the Physics...I would like to point out that all Geometric Space/Time Dimensionality allows for each and every individual Dimension to be interconnective, specific in it's now relative nature to all other dimensional states and governed by all other dimensionality to a point.

 

Gravity is a perfect example of this as it is an Expression of One Dimensionality and even though Matter cannot exist in a one dimensional state....since our Universal Space/Time Geometry has multiple dimensional states to allow for Matter and Energy to exist...Matter will be both cause and effect in the created one dimensional expression as well as being interconnective to all other Universal Dimensionality.

 

The same can be said for a Black Hole's Accresion Disc...but at the center point of the Gravity Well...there is a Singularity. Now how can there be any Matter or Energy existing in a Singularity? THERE CANNOT. But Matter and Energy can exist at all surrounding points of position.

 

The key here would be Realitivistic Effect. Although such an effect would be considered specific for Space/Time Warpature as such change in Universal Dimensionality would also account for Time Dilation in the EXTREME...it would also account for the Gravitational Effect upon surrounding bodies even though the Mass that was at one time present and has now been swallowed by Singularity and thus all Atomic Particles of Mass such as Protons and Neutron as well as the Higgs-Bosons within them responsible for giving them Mass...no longer can EXIST...nor do they EXIST once swallowed by a Singularity.

 

So even though we calculate the MASS of Black Holes in such ways as saying...SAGITTARIUS A*...a Supermassive Black Hole 25 thousand light years distant at the heart of the Milky Way Galaxy weighs in at 3 Million Solar Masses....99% of the actual stated MASS it has attributed to it's measured effect is GONE and no longer existing in our Universal Reality.

 

What we can calculate is the effect of SAGITTARIUS A*....as the Warping of Space/Time is an effect of Gravitation equal to what 3 Million Solar Masses would create. All that is left is what is surrounding the accretion disc and the SINGULARITY. The Singularity is now self sustaining even though the Matter and Energy that at one time created it no longer even exists within our Universe.

 

Split Infinity

[siderman]

Thanks 2112 and split infinity, your explanition is based on something I didn't know. "gravity increases the closer you get to it's center." is all about relativity. Am I getting what you said? ... Gravity is after all, a force, so gravity doesn't increase, just the force it exerts on matter relative to both objects distance from their centers of their masses. It fits, the extreme smallness of the singularity allowes gravity to exert it's force almost totatlly. So I come away with the question: "Does gravity have limit to the force it exerts?" Could there be a situation when it can be turned up to eleven?__from SpinalTap the movie

Anyway, thanks for the welcome and the basic insights to one of my trouble with Black Holes.

"I Want To Believe"

MikeL aka siderman

Edited March 20, 2013 by siderman