so i have updated due to criticism

[vextryyn]

this is just an idea that i am working on. this is just a semi clear english translation of an idea that i am reasearching

my last post poeple seemed to have trouble with the title my excessive use of the word i believe. i understand now that "i believe" does not mean to you what it means to me. to me saying "i believe" is like saying "i think?" so lets get on with it. revised also for other content that i didnt think through,so thank you for all of the responses.

 

Formation of a black hole

 

stage 1

a star reaches its final days as it produces more and more iron. Once the star produces the iron the energy that kept the star from collapsing inward is gone. all of the matter that once formed the star begins to collapse

 

stage 2.

fusion continues as more and more material is forced to the center of the star. The immense heat and and pressures would be enough to force the elements to fuse. And the larger the star or the more dense the star is more material crushing down on a single point. All of the energy that caused the star to keep its shape being gone would force an uncontrolled fusion into heavier and heavier elements.

 

Stage 3.

eventually the elements become so heavy that the “black hole” is formed. the more ultra heavy elements are created the larger the “black hole” . The “black hole” essentially is a star that fuses the heaviest elements forced by its immense gravitational field caused by the weight of a large star into only a few single elements.

 

The life and death of a “black hole”

 

Stage 1

little or no energy(or potentially negative) is produced by a black hole. Matter that is collected is added to the fusion. Light gets trapped in the immense gravitational field and spins rapidly around inside.

 

Stage 2

 

Eventually the the fusion reaches its limit and stops fusing altogether. At this point all the stored energy begins escaping from its poles.

 

Stage 3.

 

as the “black holes sit in space they are subject to radioactive decay. Without enough material to fuse the black hole remains stagnant until it ultimately dies.

 

 

*note. If the black hole produces negative energy in its fusion process the light that is trapped inside may be used as energy in the heavy element fusion process. Once the process has stopped the light from the quasar may be from the gravitational field having to much light spinning around inside. And the light rotating may likely be spinning around until it forces its way through the field. With no negative energy to consume the energy from the light the light may have the chance to build up and force out the poles (just because the fusion has stopped doesn't mean gravity has).

 

 

 

so i am just looking on opinions potential flaw in my reasoning other concerns etc. knowlege is from a collective not just a single person.

[Strange]

Are you the "element 541" guy?

 

You still have no evidence to support your "thoughts" so they are still just beliefs.

 

Your ideas also contradict what is known about fusion reactions in stars and the behaviour of black holes.

 

For example, what you describe in stage 2 of fusion does not continue without limit. Fusion does not create heavier and heavier atoms. I am fairly confident that it does not produce anything above iron. And then the star goes supernova.

 

And...

 

At this point all the stored energy begins escaping from its poles.

 

This doesn't happen.

 

 

so i am just looking on opinions potential flaw in my reasoning

 

Sadly, in my experience, this means that you will refuse to accept any criticism of your theory. Please feel free to prove me wrong: I would be delighted. But you didn't address any of the comments in your other thread, so I don't hold out much hope ...

Edited April 4, 2014 by Strange

[davidivad]

i see that you understand the iron curtain rule.

for your theory to work, you need to be able to calculate how much distance is between the atoms at the time that the schwartzchild radius can bee described just outside the radius of the mass. so first find out what mass of star you are describing with your theory and then crunch the numbers.

the question?

how much distance is between the atoms before you get a schwartzchild radius?

how much has time dilated at the center?

Edited April 4, 2014 by davidivad

[vextryyn]

so i took away and clarified some things and changed some ideas overall. i took away element 531 because it was irrelivant. if you read the first line you would see that i was not saying there was. most of the comments were so hung up on the title and first line just seeing a numpad typo. so removed. the number was just pulled from my ass. and thats it. my apologies for not responding i read the commments and i felt rather than responding it would be easier to start anew. planetoid has been completely removed. thank you for the thinking content davidivad.

Edited April 4, 2014 by vextryyn

[davidivad]

you are welcome.

[vextryyn]

to strange as well i wanted this to be seperate because this is in response to your response of this post.

 

the quasar thing was horribly wrong my apologies. i cant seeme to edit the original post so i cant remove it.

 

also if two neutron stars collide they can produce a black hole as well just an fyi. but a neuteron star itself does not have the mass required to collapse into a black hole. in my idea two neutron stars might have enough mass to spark the same process with heavy ements as is started with a mass of hydrogen starting fusion(heavier elements smaller space). what im proposeing is that fusion can occur in heavy elements but with an energy loss consumption of energy from the materials around it causing heavy elemental fusion. so a black hole is essentialy using stolen energy to fuse elements in its core.

 

so would it be better to make a new post when i revise this or keep it in the same feed?

Edited April 4, 2014 by vextryyn

[Strange]

OK. But ...

 

You have not provided any evidence for this idea.

 

It still contradicts known physics.

 

 

the quasar thing wrong

 

I didn't even notice the the quasar thing (I had given up reading by then because there were so many factual errors).

 

 

i cant seeme to edit the original post so i cant remove it.

 

You should just be able to click the "Edit" link (to the left of the MultiQuote button).

 

 

also if two neutron stars collide they can produce a black hole as well

 

Can you provide a reference for that?

 

 

in my idea two neutron stars might have enough mass to spark the same process with heavy ements as is started with a mass of hydrogen starting fusion(heavier elements smaller space).

 

There is no fusion in a neutron star because there are no atoms of any elements (except, perhaps a thin layer on the surface).

 

 

is that fusion can occur in heavy elements but with an energy loss consumption of energy from the materials around it causing heavy elemental fusion

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

 

o a black hole is essentialy using stolen energy to fuse elements in its core.

 

What evidence do you have for fusion in a black hole?

 

And what difference would it make to the black hole if there is fusion or not?

 

And going back to the first post:

 

eventually the elements become so heavy that the “black hole” is formed. the more ultra heavy elements are created the larger the “black hole” . The “black hole” essentially is a star that fuses the heaviest elements forced by its immense gravitational field caused by the weight of a large star into only a few single elements.

 

Why would heavier elements create a black hole? It is the mass within the Schwarzschild radius that defines a black hole. The mass of the star is independent of the elements that make it up.

 

 

Light gets trapped in the immense gravitational field and spins rapidly around inside.

 

What evidence do you have that light "spins rapidly around inside"?

 

 

At this point all the stored energy begins escaping from its poles.

 

Energy does not escape from the poles. Or do you have some evidence that it does?

 

 

as the “black holes sit in space they are subject to radioactive decay. Without enough material to fuse the black hole remains stagnant until it ultimately dies.

 

What evidence do you have that black holes "die"?

 

And the Big One: why do believe that Einstein's theory of General Relativity is wrong? How do you propose replacing it?

[vextryyn]

because einsteins theories are flawed. infinity is not an answer it is just a placeholder. and i thought this was speculations where you post ideas and bounce them off eachother prove that my thinking is wrong in points or point ouit weak points in my argument until the idea is finally perfected. so prove im wrong or misinformed and i will change it.ths is intinded to be a small part of a theory of the universe. but the energy escaping from the poles was a misunderstanding a quasar. the entire thing is still going to be rewritten with these things in mind .

 

but picture regular fusion at much hotter tempuratures with much heavier elements. fusion stops at iron but i am proposeing a much hotter tempureatures and muchgreater pressure.

Edited April 4, 2014 by vextryyn

[Strange]

because einsteins theories are flawed.

 

You need to do more than just make assertions. What evidence do you have for that claim?

 

 

infinity is not an answer it is just a placeholder.

 

If you are referring to the singularity at the center of the black hole, then I think everyone would agree. We do not yet have a theory that tells us what happens. Just making stuff up is not the answer.

 

 

and i thought this was speculations where you post ideas and bounce them off eachother prove that my thinking is wrong in points or point ouit weak points in my argument until the idea is finally perfected.

 

Science, not even speculative science, is not just about making up stories with no evidence and with no basis in theory.

 

 

so prove im wrong or misinformed and i will change it.

 

I thought I had already given you a good list of problems to address. So far, you have ignored them.

[ACG52]

 

 

but picture regular fusion at much hotter tempuratures with much heavier elements. fusion stops at iron but i am proposeing a much hotter tempureatures and muchgreater pressure.

Those are the conditions you find only in a supernova.

[vextryyn]

So your point about the supernova?

And to strange I can't get the quoting to work right so this is how I shall communicate. This is the start of my formulas in the best English I can provide. I will not post my formulas until I can get them to work. So I will continue in this form ultil I have reached something concrete. Because the most people wouldn't understand it in terms of an equation also like I said they are incomplete so until I complete my equations you will have to put up with it for now if you want me to put a disclaimer saying speculative I will but once again that's y I put this in speculations. Actual changes will occur in my next main post. For now flaws in my explanation would be nice not just show me evidence. I am at a standstill right now with my equations because all of my ideas revolve around the possibility of heavy elemental fusion which could be possible beyond the event hotizion of a black hole. Soi will respond with a revised version of heavy element fusion because I see that a broad overview explained poorly seems to be too confusing to you I do not have enough space to place all my notes I was just trying to explain as quickly as possible. So I will stick to broad explanations on a single subject due to my poor ability to communicate. So over the weekend I will write a verbal description of my ideas nothing is concrete and I'm not trying to say this is fact. I'm just trying to work towards that.

[ACG52]

So your point about the supernova?

That's the only way you get elements heavier than iron.

[vextryyn]

Also the collision of nutron stars could also create heavier elements.

[davidivad]

don't get discouraged if there are flaws in the topic.

they will be found.

black holes can be daunting abysmal holes in which everyone loves to prey.

in the end not much is known about them except that they can suck.

[ACG52]

Also the collision of nutron stars could also create heavier elements.

Yes, that's what the Hubble appears to have seen.

[Strange]

Also the collision of nutron stars could also create heavier elements.

 

So here is the problem: you make statements like this but provide no reason for anyone to accept them. Anyone can make up a story about how things happen but it is only science if you have evidence to support it and you make quantitatively testable predictions.

 

Evidence to support this statement could be as simple as a reference to a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal descrbing how this happens.

 

You have made many claims about fusion and black holes. Several of these (as noted above) defy known physics. Therefore no one is going to think they are credible unless you can provide some evidence.

 

As I said at the beginning, you sound like the typical crackpot who will refuse to they could be wrong. So, again:

 

1. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that if two neutron stars collide they can produce a black hole as well?

 

2. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that fusion of heavy elements occurs inn neutron stars?

 

3. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that fusion occurs in a black hole?

 

4. Can you explain how a black hole would appear different to us if fusion does occur?

 

5. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show why fusion of heavier elements would create a black hole?

 

6. What evidence do you have that light "spins rapidly around inside" a black hole?

 

7. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that energy escapes from the poles of a black hole?

 

8. Can you provide evidence (peer reviewed paper or calculations) to show that black holes “die”? And can you explain how a “dead” black hole differs from one that is not dead?

[vextryyn]

strange if you are not willing to provide anything to this subjuct i am no longer going to respond to you. this was a written version of WHAT I AM WORKING ON TRYING TO PROVE. if you do not understand what i am asking of you then dont message at all. i am not asking anyone to blindly follow this at all. so if there is something YOU see is wrong in my thinking here fell free to point it out and i will remedy the situation. EVERYTHING HERE IS SPECULATIVE AT BEST. so until i have concrete calculations. if everything that i am working on turns out to be a flop then i will tell you all that im wrong. so there is nothing peer reviewed until it works and when it works it should fit into our standard view of the universe anyway. SO ONCE AGAIN SPECULATIVE AT BEST UNTIL I CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE. so quit asking and provide something useful

[ACG52]

Speculation may be based on the currrent state of knowledge, in which case you take it seriously, or it may be based on sheer imagination, in which case you don't.

 

 

 

SO ONCE AGAIN SPECULATIVE AT BEST UNTIL I CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE

Speculation should be an extrapolation based on evidence.

 

 

 

so quit asking and provide something useful

By provide something useful, you mean do all the work for me.

[Strange]

strange if you are not willing to provide anything to this subjuct i am no longer going to respond to you.

 

As you haven't responded in any meaningful way yet (i.e. answer any questions about the flaws in your idea) I don't think this will make any difference.

 

 

so if there is something YOU see is wrong in my thinking here fell free to point it out and i will remedy the situation.

 

That is exactly what I am doing by pointing out errors and asking questions. Rather than modify your speculation or answer the questions, you decide to ignore me. I suppose that is one way of "remedying the situation".

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Attacking ideas is what scientists do. As long as the attacks aren't personal, they shouldn't be taken personally.

 

If an idea is based on something shaky, pointing this out as quickly as possible saves everyone time and effort.

 

The Speculation forum doesn't require an idea to be perfect, but demonstrating as much rigor as one can keeps the discussion more focused. If you want to discuss your idea, don't shoot it in the foot by first needing to show that Einstein was wrong.

 

And you do need to support your statements as much as possible. I think people will be more forgiving of the communication if you match the strength of your evidence with the strength of your assertions. Don't look at criticism as an irritant, but rather as a chance to grow your idea. Each question is an opportunity to branch out further and more deeply.

[Strange]

so quit asking and provide something useful

 

What do you mean by "something useful"?