Black Holes What are they?

[KHinfcube22]

Welcome to another exciting thread about black holes! be warned, it is quite long.

 

 

____________________________________________________

Black Holes 4/17/2003

by Keith Hillaire

 

There are many beliefs to what belief to what Black Holes, (hereby knownas BH for time's sake,) are. One is that BHs are realy Worm Holes to other parts of our Universe. This is highly unlikely, seeing how anything pulled into a BH is "smashed" into the size of the BH itself. Others say it leads you into a parallel Universe. This is most improbable for the same reason as the above. Most schools, or science programs, will tell you a BH is collapsed star. A star that, instead of going all-out supernova, was big enough to go through all the cycles until has so powerful of a gravitational pull that it emplodes. Seeing how I am no "expert" in this subject, I can't give any explanaition to why this one is improbable, (but if someone can, please tell me.) Now the realy SciFi junkies, nerds; geeks; trekies, believe that it is torn rip in the spacetime continuam! Now this version of a BH can seem logical if spoken by the right person. I propose a diffrent prespective on what a BH realy is, that is quite logical if looked at clearly.

 

I thought this one up one day, and if anyone else came up this same idea and had it copywritten anywhere, I'm truly sorry, but I did come up with this on my own.

 

In my earlier thread THE BIG BANG AND WHY IT WAS, I said the 3-D space of our Universe was "stacked" in a 4-D area. Now if that was true, wouldn't there still be little specks of 4-D space in our Universe, (don't realy answer the question, it's retorical.) Now imagine if we were to put a infinitely small speck of the third dimension on a plane, (for those idiots who use this sight, but have no clue what they, or us, is talking about, a plane is a 2-D surface with infinite width and length, but no depth.) Because there is no depth on a plane, and with our speck we added depth, which we would cause an extreme amount of sucktion. Thus the sucktion would seem as if it were a gravitational pull. It would not only suck in free flyin molecules, light would also get sucked in. It would be like a vacuum in a vacuum. The more it sucked in, the bigger its "Event Horizon," (which was a messed up movie by the way,) would grow to replace the space it took, (please notify me if my last statement cannot be possible, or probable.) Would it not seem to the ones of the second dimension that the only plausible explanaition to such a strong gravitational pull would have to have been the collapse of a star?

 

I know my theory sounds far-fetched, but logical it is. It is one of the very few that explain what happens around, and what is a BH. I would like it to be noted that I learned quite a few about a BH's Event Horizon from the novel EARTH by David Brin.

[fafalone]

Our universe is 4-D.

[KHinfcube22]

is that including or excluding time as a dimension?

[Raider]

It is including time.

[KHinfcube22]

Ok then, but when I say a 4-D universe, I mean it as excluding time as a dimension. A 4 dimension spatial dimension.

[Raider]

which we would cause an extreme amount of sucktion.

 

Why? You are just making stuff up.

[KHinfcube22]

Making stuff up? Me? Huh? Never! ok maybe, but I didn't make it up. Any ways, a 4th spacial dimension is highly logical, it would explain many things. Like wear our socks go.

[Dave]

You must be really desperate for posts to come up with that

[KHinfcube22]

Ok ok, that last one was pathetic, but the bases of this thread stays the same. My theory of balck holes is just as good as any one elses.

[Sayonara]

Oh please, you talk about suction.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Oh please, you talk about suction.

 

gravity doesn't exist, the earth sucks.

[Radical Edward]

the rationale behind a black hole is actually quite sensible, and what follows is a laymans guide, ignoring all the complexities. (as I don't have the time to type it all out, and my memory is a bit rusty)

 

remember that most of everything is actually empty space. nearly all of atoms are empty, and so are the nuclei.... what holds it all int the 'shape that it is" ? a combination of Electromagnetic force and Gravity. Essentially, if you have a load of stuff like the earth, it is held up by electromagnetic forces (against gravity, which is trying to pull everything together). Gravity is a mere perturbation on the EM force over a short scale.... what happens when you have enough gravity for the EM force to be a perturbation on the gravitational field though? then the object collapses to a neutron star, with all the electrons combining with the protons to become neutrons, then the strong force comes into play. over short distances, gravity again is a mere perturbation (even on really big things like neutron stars)... until you pile up enough mass for the strong force to be a perturbaton. so the object collapses again.... but what is there to stop it from collapsing anymore now though? nothing, so it collapses to a singularity.

[KHinfcube22]

and have you personally expirenced this happenig?

[Radical Edward]

no. does it make any difference?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

and have you personally expirenced this happenig?

 

Well, we would use this new fangled mathematics thing to derive the existance of black holes from otherwise empirically proven theories, but then you don't hold with that kind of thing, do you?

[KHinfcube22]

I believe "all is, in the eyes of the beholder" the beholder being one's self. So the universe is only what one believs it to be. It becomes reality when more than one believes it. And this can be mathmatically proven.

[Raider]

If you die, i'll still be here pondering how everything works.

 

Your concern for the universe may end with your death, but its existance certaintly does not. Thus, the conclusion follows that the existance of universe is not dependent on one's own view of such.

 

For future referance, think before you post.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

And this can be mathmatically proven.

 

go on then.

 

I won't bother pointing out all the contradictions in your point.

[KHinfcube22]

If you die, i'll still be here pondering how everything works.

 

Maybe so, but when I die, other people will think the Universe is the way I thought it was. Say everyone here was completely convinced that are world was flat, then to them, the world would be flat. Of course for it to be really flat, everthing inthe Universe would have to truley believe it is flat.

[MajinVegeta]

Just because the universe is flat does not mean that the universe is flat. In fact, a flat universe would, I believe (IOW, help fafalone!), allow c+ travel which is a highly paradoxical issue.

 

Science specifies our perception of the universe. Or, more philosophically, the behavior of reality but not reality itself (as someone dilligently pointed out on another forum). Your physical perception of the universe is essentially the same as anyone elses. The only way you can make people view the universe differently is by creating a new, logical way of describing the universe, that was missed by other scientists. Furthermore, "in the eyes of the beholder" is usually used to describe beauty and beauty is undefined. Basically, "in the eyes of the beholder" doesn't generally apply to the universe. That is, although people will view the universe differently from others, our basic perception of the behavior of reality, of the universe is the same.

 

and have you personally expirenced this happenig?

 

Have you personally experienced experimentation with atoms? Assuming your answer is no, you immediately create a paradox. Seeing is not believing in this case, but not in the case of theoretical physics? (rhetorical)

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

Of course for it to be really flat, it would have to be flat

 

is essentially what you should be saying.

[KHinfcube22]

I don't like the word flat, how about we say unflat-challenged?

[Michael F. D.]

I have some objections against the existing model of Black Hole.

The main is that it does not work.

Is not seen the reasons why the some mass manifests different characteristics depending on volume, which it occupies. If BH was a star earlier and suddenly became the size as orange for instance, then we can not observe it. If we observe it then it has a size of the star at least. If the object after collapse has a size of star, then is not understandable than it has been before one. There was galaxy? Why BH must be formed from something? Why it can not be such the age as the universe? Why it can not been in existence before the stars was formed? It is possible to ask many a questions else, but I think it is enough.

So. Once again.

Black Holes. What are they?

[Preston Taist]

There is speculation that if a craft were to enter a rapidly spinning black hole from its axis that it might be possible to pass through one. The acceleration at the axis wouldn't be "c" if the star were rotating fast enough. Hey Radical Edward, could you tell me where i could read about the perturbation you were talking about? just a link or somthing.thanks

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

Maybe so, but when I die, other people will think the Universe is the way I thought it was. Say everyone here was completely convinced that are world was flat, then to them, the world would be flat. Of course for it to be really flat, everthing inthe Universe would have to truley believe it is flat.

So 500 years ago the world was flat, and now it's a rough sphere?