36 replies to this topic

[zanzibarjones]

What is the shape of a black hole?
Is it a hole, or a sphere, or a funnel?

Personally I don't think they are real at all. I think they are a fabrication to explain unexplainable happenings. Or a filler theory, to complete and uncomplete circle.

For instance, a black hole was supposedly so strong nothing could escape it's grip, now some say they are particles that can escape, and that explains why they are real.

If it is indeed a functional thing, sucking in all kinds of matter into a point of destruction, well shouldn't it then at some point become saturated? A point at which it has sucked in all it can? Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?

If a black hole is a sphere, would not anything that was being sucked into it have a point at which it reaches an apex? If so, isn't that apex a contradiction of escape? An apex is the highest point of an arch, there for there should be no arch in particles being sucked into a black hole, they should all be straight lines.

What do you guys and gals think?

[Bikerman]

zanzibarjones, on 16 August 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

What is the shape of a black hole?
Is it a hole, or a sphere, or a funnel?

None of the above (depending on what exactly you mean). The singularity is a zero dimensional point. The surrounding event horizon is spherical, but you can't see it directly - only as a black zone.

Quote

Personally I don't think they are real at all. I think they are a fabrication to explain unexplainable happenings. Or a filler theory, to complete and uncomplete circle.

Why worry about the shape then? I haven't a clue what you mean by that last phrase...a filler theory to complete and uncomplete circle? huh?

Quote

For instance, a black hole was supposedly so strong nothing could escape it's grip, now some say they are particles that can escape, and that explains why they are real.

You mean Hawking radiation. No mystery. Even in space virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time in the form of particle-anti-particle pairs, like positron and electron. They quickly recombine and annihilate. But if this happens at the event horizon then one of the pair might be pulled-in and the other escapes. That then can be regarded as a particle being 'emitted' by the black hole because it has supplied the energy to keep the pair of particles apart.

Quote

If it is indeed a functional thing, sucking in all kinds of matter into a point of destruction, well shouldn't it then at some point become saturated? A point at which it has sucked in all it can? Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?

There is no theoretical limit. But don't think of it as a beast sucking everything in - common misconception. If the sun turned into a black hole, you wouldn't notice apart from the dark/cold. The earth would carry on orbiting, as would the other planets. A black hole can only attract according to it's mass just like everything else in the universe.

Quote

If a black hole is a sphere, would not anything that was being sucked into it have a point at which it reaches an apex? If so, isn't that apex a contradiction of escape? An apex is the highest point of an arch, there for there should be no arch in particles being sucked into a black hole, they should all be straight lines.

An apex is normally a tip or point and a circle has no tip or point. In fact it is sucked-in to the singularity - an infinitely small dot in space. This is where the science ends because we don't know much about the singularity and probably never will, since nothing, including light, can escape, so we have no way to see it or interact with it in any way. Some say it is a tear in spacetime - it could possibly lead to another spacetime - another universe.

[zanzibarjones]

Man I love these kind of conversations. EVen though I am not a scholar, I still lvoe to ask question and talk about my views. Everyday I learn something new here, and I learn of what others think about my ideas and theories and views. Just amazing.... Thanks for replying

[mahesh2k]

Quote

it could possibly lead to another spacetime - another universe.

I'm not sure how we all (including scientist) possibly think about multiple universe or dimensions. It could be dead zone there or could be space-time loop. I would like to think if there is space-time loop, that way we able to witness the universe back in time. Just like warp gates this space-time loop traveling is also hypothesis but it's interesting.

[Bikerman]

mahesh2k, on 20 August 2010 - 06:55 PM, said:

I'm not sure how we all (including scientist) possibly think about multiple universe or dimensions. It could be dead zone there or could be space-time loop. I would like to think if there is space-time loop, that way we able to witness the universe back in time. Just like warp gates this space-time loop traveling is also hypothesis but it's interesting.

Physicist Lee Smolin has a rather beautiful hypothesis (beautiful in terms of the symmeries involved and the neat way it extends evolutionary concepts).

Basically, Smolin says, imagine that a Black Hole is the birth of another universe. So there are a huge number of universes and any universe with black holes can be regarded as the 'parent' of other universes.
Now you apply evolutionary theory. Obviously universes that produce black holes will be 'selected for' because those that don't will not reproduce. Run this for a few trillion years and you end up with what we see - a universe which appears to have the fundamental constants (like the speed of light) set to such a perfect value to support life. Change any of the fundamental numbers and no life can evolve because the universe would either collapse or not form suns.
With Smolin's theory this is explained. It isn't that the universe is 'fine tuned' to support life. It is evolved to produce black holes and it just so happens that any universe that produces black holes must have the same value of the fundamental numbers - which also allows it to support life.

Lovely theory......

[zanzibarjones]

Bikerman, on 20 August 2010 - 11:03 PM, said:

Physicist Lee Smolin has a rather beautiful hypothesis (beautiful in terms of the symmeries involved and the neat way it extends evolutionary concepts).

Basically, Smolin says, imagine that a Black Hole is the birth of another universe. So there are a huge number of universes and any universe with black holes can be regarded as the 'parent' of other universes.
Now you apply evolutionary theory. Obviously universes that produce black holes will be 'selected for' because those that don't will not reproduce. Run this for a few trillion years and you end up with what we see - a universe which appears to have the fundamental constants (like the speed of light) set to such a perfect value to support life. Change any of the fundamental numbers and no life can evolve because the universe would either collapse or not form suns.
With Smolin's theory this is explained. It isn't that the universe is 'fine tuned' to support life. It is evolved to produce black holes and it just so happens that any universe that produces black holes must have the same value of the fundamental numbers - which also allows it to support life.

Lovely theory......

If Smolin theorized that, why would the birth of another universe be happening on our plane? Conjecture would state that then our universe is the birthplace of all other universes? Once again trying to state that our universe is the center of all other universes?

[Baniboy]

Gravity bends space-time, light particles' route bends with it. A black hole is not a vacuum that sucks light from everywhere. Light CAN'T escape after it has reached the horizon. Light has to 'bounce back' so you can view the object. The escape velocity required to do that is greater than the speed of light. All the paths are bent back to the singularity.

With things coming out of it you either mean the shower or the x-rays. The shower is accelerated matter that has escaped. The x-rays come from matter being heated before it crosses the event horizon. Nobody ever said it comes from the black hole itself. It's said everywhere that you can't have direct information from black holes.

Quote

Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?

What happens to it? I don't know. There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective, get over it.
Who said that matter gets destroyed? Don't assume things which you can't prove.

It's fun to make your own hypotheses and stuff (I do that a lot) but make sure you check the physics first.
I hope you could make some sense out of it though I was a bit harsh, but ask if you need more info.

[zanzibarjones]

Baniboy, on 21 August 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

Gravity bends space-time, light particles' route bends with it. A black hole is not a vacuum that sucks light from everywhere. Light CAN'T escape after it has reached the horizon. Light has to 'bounce back' so you can view the object. The escape velocity required to do that is greater than the speed of light. All the paths are bent back to the singularity.

With things coming out of it you either mean the shower or the x-rays. The shower is accelerated matter that has escaped. The x-rays come from matter being heated before it crosses the event horizon. Nobody ever said it comes from the black hole itself. It's said everywhere that you can't have direct information from black holes.



What happens to it? I don't know. There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective, get over it.
Who said that matter gets destroyed? Don't assume things which you can't prove.

It's fun to make your own hypotheses and stuff (I do that a lot) but make sure you check the physics first.
I hope you could make some sense out of it though I was a bit harsh, but ask if you need more info.

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too?
No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.
Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

[Bikerman]

zanzibarjones, on 21 August 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

If Smolin theorized that, why would the birth of another universe be happening on our plane? Conjecture would state that then our universe is the birthplace of all other universes? Once again trying to state that our universe is the center of all other universes?

Actually quite the opposite. We would simply be the result of a BH in another universe (our parent) and there would be nothing special about this universe at all. Each universe exists in a separate 4-D spacetime and the blackhole punctures that spacetime and brings into existence another universe in its own 4=d spacetime.

zanzibarjones, on 21 August 2010 - 04:41 PM, said:

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too?
No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

I didn't say it was a fact. I said it was an hypothesis - big difference. It is underpinned by some theory and does not contradict current theory, so it is not pseudo-science. Smolin is a respected physicist so it is not nonsense.
There would be no purpose - that is the whole point. This theory says we are here because we just happen to be here - no special reason other than we evolved in a universe that has black holes....

zanzibarjones, on 21 August 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.
Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

No, you are confused about a couple of things.
1st - science makes no claim to truth. The most we ever claim is that we have a good model (theory) which seems to work for all the observations and tests we can throw at it.
2nd - using your 'own head' is not a great idea in science. Science works by collaboration and each person builds on, or uses, the result of others. You cannot expect to apply common-sense and understand the universe - who said the universe had to be built according to the common sense of a brain evolved to shout at other apes about food and sex?
3rd - Scientific theory rarely changes. Hypothesis (scientific estimates or best guesses) do change - but that is the whole point. Science works by opening up the current theory and saying OK - Prove I am wrong. It is the only human world view that does this and that is the great strength of it - which is why the scientific method is so staggeringly successful.
It means that weak or silly theories never make it. Only theories which have fought against the best of the rest actually make it from being a hypothesis to a proper scientific theory.

[Baniboy]

zanzibarjones, on 21 August 2010 - 07:41 PM, said:

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too?
No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

Well now you're not making any sense. Scientists can tell to an extent by using the knowledge available which is consistent with reality. Your false physics on the other hand suggest that you watched a documentary on black holes and decided to write something up without doing the math or researching the subject. You are telling they are made up without bothering with the physics OR math and with no evidence what so ever. About the who says they are right too, what they say is consistent with reality, while what you say is not. And then you continue on saying how it's impossible that something exists and does things in space without purpose. Don't watch documentaries on black holes because most of what they say are what I would call "amazing facts" and speculation which serve no purpose to you without an explanation. You can't understand advanced physics by jumping right in. Ignore the speculation parts and focus on the actual science, which is consistent and can be proven by evidence.

Quote

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.
Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

Science is a self-correcting process, the theories are changed when they are not consistent with the discoveries like when they found that brain cells do renew. While your made-up arguments don't reflect reality.

Yes, like you used your own head and your 'science knowledge' and came up with "they say nothing can escape from it but then say something can and that's why it's wrong", no thanks.

[anwiii]

did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed again, bani? if you listen carefull, you will understand what he is trying to say. he is not trying to say one thing, but many things at once. what he says may not make any sense, but who is to judge who makes the most sense when we are talking about theories. i wont even agree with bikerman when he concludes we are talking about hypothesis. we are talking about theories that are not based soley on fact here

i too am interested in black hole theories. all he is doing is trying to talk about the possibilities and maybe learn something from different perspectives. be patient my dear bani....

bikerman, i liked that one theory you stated. i just don't understand it fully. does that mean when you enter through a black hole, you enter in to another universe that is younger than you exitited from? if so, the when ZAN commented about a funnel, then he was somewhat correct. sort of like a one way funnel. but i am still unlclear as to where you will enter the newer universe from. obviously you are entering from a black hole but that would discredit the possibility that nothing can exit from a black hole. so i am sorta confused with this theory. also would the new universe that was created be a duplicate of it's parent universe? that theory also suggests that you can't have a universe without a black hole? now it's sounding a bit like the chicken or the egg. what came first....the universe or the black hole.... i am misunderstanding that theory i think.

disclaimer for bani- i know nothing about black holes or the physics to even explain them at all!

Edited by anwiii, 21 August 2010 - 07:32 PM.

[Bikerman]

anwiii, on 21 August 2010 - 07:20 PM, said:

bikerman, i liked that one theory you stated. i just don't understand it fully. does that mean when you enter through a black hole, you enter in to another universe that is younger than you exitited from? if so, the when ZAN commented about a funnel, then he was somewhat correct. sort of like a one way funnel. but i am still unlclear as to where you will enter the newer universe from. obviously you are entering from a black hole but that would discredit the possibility that nothing can exit from a black hole. so i am sorta confused with this theory. also would the new universe that was created be a duplicate of it's parent universe? that theory also suggests that you can't have a universe without a black hole? now it's sounding a bit like the chicken or the egg. what came first....the universe or the black hole.... i am misunderstanding that theory i think.

No, it remains impossible (or unknown) to pass through a BH - you would spaghettify as the gravity differential grew and be fragmented before you hit the singularity. You are also accelerating at a huge rate which would itself kill you.
There is no passing between the universes under current physics - thats why it is an hypothesis - we currently have no way to test it. It could be called science-philosophy I suppose, but it contradicts no laws so I call it an hypothesis.

Basically as each universe is 'born' it will have the same or similar values for the fundamental constants as the universe that is the 'parent'. The child universe will then either develop black holes (which is the same as becoming a parent) or it won't - in which case it will evolve as universes evolve and die, if that word can be used, childless.
This process will then favour universes with black holes so they become the norm - though others may still form is the constant still vary a bit...
There are many values possible for the fundamental constants (there are 6 of them) :-
e (elementary charge) = 1.602177×10-19 C
εo (permitivity of free space) = 8.85418782×10-12 F/m
µo (perm liability of free space) = 4π×10-7 N/A2
ћ (Planck constant)=1.05457×10-34 Js
G (gravitational constant) = 6.6726×10-11 Nm2/kg2
c (speed of light) 3*10^8 m/s

Edited by Bikerman, 22 August 2010 - 02:45 AM.

[Baniboy]

Look, science is used to predict the future (or just what happens and why), and because we benefit from knowing what happens in the future, we use it. What this guy is doing is nowhere near it, and it doesn't reflect reality. No I didn't wake on the wrong side of the bed, I'm doing this because I'm trying to show the difference between using information to conclude something and concluding something with incomplete knowledge about the subject, though I do understand that he was just making up his own conclusions. But it's kind of ridiculous to make a conclusion that contradicts evidence unless you can prove that theoretically. A black hole is simply an object that requires a greater escape velocity than the speed of light. That is the definition.

Quote

If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do.

If you have never seen my grandfather die, been there when he died or buried him yourself how can you know my grandfather died?

Through indirect evidence of black holes, they are concluded to exist. You don't have go through a black hole to tell that they pull particles around them. And that is why you are wrong.

[Bikerman]

Baniboy, on 22 August 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

Look, science is used to predict the future (or just what happens and why), and because we benefit from knowing what happens in the future, we use it. What this guy is doing is nowhere near it, and it doesn't reflect reality. No I didn't wake on the wrong side of the bed, I'm doing this because I'm trying to show the difference between using information to conclude something and concluding something with incomplete knowledge about the subject, though I do understand that he was just making up his own conclusions. But it's kind of ridiculous to make a conclusion that contradicts evidence unless you can prove that theoretically.

What evidence is being contradicted? Smolin wouldn't hypothsise in contradiction of existing law - he is a professional physicist and he does know his stuff. Yes, this is speculative as I said before, but not pseudo-science or nonsense.

Quote

A black hole is simply an object that requires a greater escape velocity than the speed of light. That is the definition.

Well, close. If you delete 'simply an object that' and replace it with 'a region of spacetime with a gravitational field so intense that it' then you have it.

Quote

Through indirect evidence of black holes, they are concluded to exist. You don't have go through a black hole to tell that they pull particles around them. And that is why you are wrong.

Yes, the only evidence possible yet is indirect. But it is very good evidence - a lot of binary star systems have now been examined where one of the partners can only really be a black hole, unless a lot of other theory is wrong...

[anwiii]

see bani, we had this debate before about definitions. i will NEVER accept a scientific definition from a theory that hasn't been proven. sorry bud. that means i don't accept the definition you gave because most likely it is incomplete.

my whole point in jumping in is not only am i interested in other peoples views on a very interesting topic, it's nice to imagine the what ifs once in a while even if you say the evidence doesn't support it. the evidence why have NOW may not support it but while new evidence is gathered, i am so the theories will evolve from the new evidence

also, although most of the experts in this field of black hole theories believe they exist, some are still reluctant to believe they do. so bani, are you going to tell an expert that they aren't doing their math? you give a definition of a black hole, but before we can actually PROVE they exisit, how can there be an accurate definition?

[Baniboy]

Bikerman, on 22 August 2010 - 01:22 PM, said:

What evidence is being contradicted? Smolin wouldn't hypothsise in contradiction of existing law - he is a professional physicist and he does know his stuff. Yes, this is speculative as I said before, but not pseudo-science or nonsense.
Well, close. If you delete 'simply an object that' and replace it with 'a region of spacetime with a gravitational field so intense that it' then you have it.

Yes, the only evidence possible yet is indirect. But it is very good evidence - a lot of binary star systems have now been examined where one of the partners can only really be a black hole, unless a lot of other theory is wrong...

A lot of theories are wrong and contradict evidence (they are either incomplete or a part of a greater combination), but they are used in science until something better is made up. Until then, we use exceptions to point out the incomplete parts.

I wasn't smacking your theory, I have been speaking about zanzibarjones' posts all along. And yea, you got me there, but I was trying to simplify the concept.

Quote

see bani, we had this debate before about definitions. i will NEVER accept a scientific definition from a theory that hasn't been proven. sorry bud. that means i don't accept the definition you gave because most likely it is incomplete.

Words have definitions on which most people that have dealt with the concept agree on. What theory are you talking about exactly? Black holes themselves have been proven to exist, if you mean bikerman's hypothesis about what is in the singularity, then that is a hypothesis and I never required you to agree on any of the concepts of it in the first place. I haven't even been talking about it.

Quote

so bani, are you going to tell an expert that they aren't doing their math? you give a definition of a black hole, but before we can actually PROVE they exisit, how can there be an accurate definition?

We can prove that something is releasing a lot of x-rays, sucks stuff inside itself and doesn't release radiation from a select distance near it. And we have live evidence of stars being pulled from their route and ones orbiting something that supposedly isn't there. No, I'm going to ask the expert to present the evidence on which he/she (although women aren't that good in physics in general) relies on and bases the conclusion from.

Edited by Baniboy, 22 August 2010 - 07:41 PM.

[anwiii]

i don't have a theory bani. i just like listening to the possibilities.

black holes have been proven to exist? is that so? who proved they exist? please give me resources that prove they exist and who proved it.

like i said, i will NEVER accept a definition of any word that can have the possibility of meaning more than the current definition. that is my personal choice. you are free to believe whatever you want a definition of a word should be unchangeable for the most part so it is allowed to be accepted by the majority of people. unufortunately, when it comes to scientific definitions based on theories, i tend to not go with those definitions since the definition can always change based on new evidence or facts. i mean bani, the meaning of the definition "black hole" is a lot different that the meaning of the definition "house". everyone knows what a house is for the most part. but you can't definine a black hole when you don't even know what it truely is but again, you go believe anything you want. i wont stop ya

[Bikerman]

There is a lot of loose language and incorrect conceptualising here and if we want to be accurate, as scientists should always seek to be, then a few important points need making.

Ditch this notion of proof/truth/certainty. Science does not do that, that is religion. Science models phenomena and tries to refute, not prove. How many experiments or observations does it take to prove an hypothesis? Answer - indeterminate, since no number of confirmations can be taken as proof.
Simple example: Observation - the sun rose this morning, and for the previous 72,000 mornings of the experiment. Hypothesis - the sun always rises in the morning. Status of hypothesis - false, because one day it will certainly NOT do so.

So you design your experiments to refute the hypothesis. Use the hypothesis to make bold pedictions and then try to design experiments that the predictions are wrong. Why do it this was? Obvious. Number of observations/experiments needed to refute an hypothesis? One.

Likewise words like truth and 'proof' are unscientific. Mathematicians do proofs. Scientists test hypothesese and make theories (models). Proof is only possible in a closed system of logic such as mathematics.

Next - this talk of ambiguity in wording is actually pretty irrelevant. Words are what we use to explain hypothesese to the public, not how we frame the hypothesis or test it - that's maths for physicists, no ambiguity (or almost none) and does what it says on the tin.

So talk about Black Holes, singularities in spacetime = whatever you like. As long as it is understood that you are talking about a phenomenon of intense gravity where r<1/2m-r then we know it is what we commonly call a black hole.

[anwiii]

first of all, i am not a scientist or a physicist so i don't plan on taking the role of one before i die nor will i ever try to understand them or talk like one. i am just not them. in fact, there are more important things in life than technical mumbo jumbo that explains absolutely nothing and proves absolutely nothing. i do agree that science doesn't prove a thing. what may be true one day, is false the next day so you can't really base anything on science. but science does take in to consideration theories and observations and even theories based on factual knowledge that is constant.

so my whole point is, why would i ever take a definition of a black whole as a concrete definition if black holes have yet to be proven to exist? i am not. that was my point. that is me and that's the way i roll with life in general.

also, let's not bring religion in to a black hole topic and let's not say religion is even based on truth/proof/certainty. it's based on faith and faith alone. that's why they call it a belief and that is why there are more than one religion for different faiths.

now let's get back on topic. like i said in my previous post, since bani says black holes exist, i want the evidence behind it and the people behind it who know for sure they exist so i can argue my point. otherwise, nobody should be saying black holes even exisist. just the possibility or even probabability. certainly not a formula based on the definition of a black hole. that would just define further what a black hole is.....not that it exists.

[Bikerman]

I didn't bring religion into it other than an example of something that requies faith not evidence.
As for the rest - as you say, you are not a scientist. As I will add, you have no basic knowledge of science. Therefore why should anyone be bothered what you believe or do not believe? You wouldn't understand the evidence if I bothered to give it to you and I can't really be bothered wasting time typing the reams of evidence out here, because if you were really interested then google and a few hours work would be quite convincing.

As I have seen on other threads, you seen to be quite happy to spout from a position of supreme ignorance. You don't understand basic maths, yet you pontificate about what 'proves nothing'. What you have to learn is pretty much everything, but what you are capable of learning I don't know...

You complain, when people try to explain in terms you might understand, that they are using ambiguous terms. So when I give you the only unambiguous way of describing it you complain about that as well.

One cannot educate someone with that level of ignorance about high level concepts in physics. You have nothing to say worth listening to because you know nothing about the subject and are either incapable or unwilling to learn.

Baniboy, on 22 August 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

We can prove that something is releasing a lot of x-rays, sucks stuff inside itself and doesn't release radiation from a select distance near it. And we have live evidence of stars being pulled from their route and ones orbiting something that supposedly isn't there. No, I'm going to ask the expert to present the evidence on which he/she (although women aren't that good in physics in general) relies on and bases the conclusion from.

(Two of my colleagues are really unhappy with that last bit. They are both physicists - one working on the LHC and the other lecturing on particle physics, and both are women).
That aside, the theoretical evidence is also compelling. We know pretty accurately what the molecular binding energies are. We also know what the atomic degeneracy pressure is (that is the pressure that an atom can stand, before being 'crushed'. Finally we know what the degeneracy pressure is for a neutron (the last bit of mattter that could remain intact). Once the gravitational pressure exceeds the neutron degeneracy pressure then something must give. Before that (if the gravity is a little less) then you get a neutron star when the parent star collapses. Neutron stars have been observed - they have fantastic density and a piece the size of a sugar-lump would weigh about the same as all the humans on earth added together. If the gravitational pressure is greater, then even the neutrons cannot stand-up and collapse continues. The physics tells us that this ends in a rather ridiculous notion - a singularity with no spatial extent (no width, length, breath) and a mass equal to the mass of the material that collapsed. Obviously when you try to work out what the gravity of such a thing could be, you are dividing by a radius value of zero, which gives infinity. For this reason people often say that Black Holes have infinite gravity. It isn't so - that is only at the point of the singularity. This is also a good indicator that General Relativity is wrong at this scale. Infinities in physics normally mean the theory has gone bad. That is where Quantum Electrodynamics comes in - it tries to combine the quantum effects that we see at this scale, with the relativistic effects that we see in the macro universe around us.
QED is the best we currently have, but we cannot apply it to singularities because even then those pesky infinities keep coming and QED describes the outside of the atom (electrons etc) whereas we need an explanation/model of the inside. That study is called Quantum Chromodynamics (the force inside the atom is the strong or colour force - hence 'chromo' which means colour).
My feeling is that we need a breakthrough and that it will come either from string theory (less likely) or Loop Quantum Gravity (more likely IMHO).

Edited by rvalkass, 23 August 2010 - 06:46 PM.

[anwiii]

Bikerman, on 23 August 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

I didn't bring religion into it other than an example of something that requies faith not evidence.

oh god. are you bringing your crappy talk and pointless arguements in this thread too? you don't have to repeat what i already said that i am not a physisist or a scientist but to go so far as to say i don't even have basic knowledge of science is pretty lame considering everyone who has ever gone through pre college and through college have had to take some forms of science classes. oh but no. we don't know 2 physists like you so that is reason enough to try to say someone doesn't know anything at all about science. i have better things to do than learn the mumbo jumbo. just like programming languages now. doesn't mean i don't have knowledge.

i also stated that i find this thread interesting so i would rather talk to people how i would normally talk. not in nerd talk. i think everyone can learn some interesting theories or possibilities in this thread so to limit people because you say they have no knowledge of science is ridiculous. if someone were to read what you just said, and don't have much knowledge of science, they would be afraid just to enter this conversation because you have stated you wont waste your time with those people here.

and btw- this is the third time you have double posted. stop wasting moderators time by having to merge your posts.

i think you owe a lot of people an appology if you are going to scare them off with your high and mighty talk that you know more and others shouldn't be allowed in this conversation because it would be a waste of YOUR time. i mean you brag about being a teacher but can't even teach in this thread unless someone knows the same or more than you do? get off your high horse pal.

[Bikerman]

a) I didn't double post.
b ) I haven't a clue what you studied, but it wasn't science to anything above nursery level.
c) I owe nobody an apology for pointing out that an ignorant person has nothing to say on the matter. If you had asked, rather than pontificated, then I would have been happy to explain.
d) Why would I brag about being a teacher? Not exactly a high status job or the sort of thing one brags about.
e) It is pointless trying to teach someone who is as opinionated as you are because you don't even know how much you don't know.

Edited by Bikerman, 23 August 2010 - 05:32 PM.

[anwiii]

ummm sorry bud. nursery school doesn't teach science. i studied it in college level but not a lot that had to do with knowing about black holes. you did double post. check again. you like trying to discredit me but it never works. i know you wont appologize. i only said you SHOULD. i said the comment about bragging you are a teacher because you keep talking about your credentials.

TRUE! i don't know how much i don't know, but the same goes for you and everyone else. so what was your point in saying that? to just be intentionally offensive to me when it applies to everyone? and why would that dictate that it would be pointless to teach someone that doesn't know how much they don't know? are you trying to scare innocent people away from discussions again because they don't live up to your standards?

i wanted to listen and talk about black holes. i didn't say i would agree with anything you had to say. see, i am just an average joe blow on this subject. why would we talk about black holes if we don't know if they exist? isn't it right to talk about if they even exist first? i mean, if they don't exist, what would be the point of even talking about them or having theories about them? i personally am not a believer that they exist, but i wont rule out the possibility since a couple of the theories which explain how they would be formed(if they do exist) make sense to me on my basic level of trying to understand the physics.

[Bikerman]

anwiii, on 23 August 2010 - 05:59 PM, said:

ummm sorry bud. nursery school doesn't teach science. i studied it in college level but not a lot that had to do with knowing about black holes. you did double post. check again. you like trying to discredit me but it never works. i know you wont appologize. i only said you SHOULD. i said the comment about bragging you are a teacher because you keep talking about your credentials.

I have never mentioned my credentials, and the references to being a teacher are in context of explaining a wider point, not bragging., as is again obvious when you read the postings.

Quote

TRUE! i don't know how much i don't know, but the same goes for you and everyone else. so what was your point in saying that? to just be intentionally offensive to me when it applies to everyone?

No, to point out that you share an unfortunately common fallacy with many others - the fallacy that science should be explicable to people without basic maths. Physics is not explicable without such maths for the reason that you illustrated earlier - 'normal' language is ambiguous and imprecise - that goes for ALL language except the one scientists actually use - mathematics. It is the only language we have with the necessary syntax and conceptual framework to frame the questions and understand the answers. If there is an ultimate designer, the language he/she uses is maths.

So when you ask can the existence of a Black Hole be proved (in fact it would be nice if you had actually asked, rather than assert that it cannot) then you don't have the equipment/understanding to even understand the question properly. That is why I took the time to explain how basic science works and why the notion of proof is not applicable. But your response was that you don't want to understand. Let's see, wow did you put it ?

Quote

nor will i ever try to understand them or talk like one. i am just not them. in fact, there are more important things in life than technical mumbo jumbo that explains absolutely nothing and proves absolutely nothing.

And there you sum-up the reason why you will learn nothing about physics.

Quote

and why would that dictate that it would be pointless to teach someone that doesn't know how much they don't know? are you trying to scare innocent people away from discussions again because they don't live up to your standards?

No, simply point out that people with delusions of adequacy, who think that mathematics is 'mumbo jumbo', have absolutely no chance of understanding the subject or understanding any answers they might be given. They might get a hazy and very imperfect hint about the science, but it is nursery level science.

Quote

i wanted to listen and talk about black holes. i didn't say i would agree with anything you had to say. see, i am just an average joe blow on this subject. why would we talk about black holes if we don't know if they exist? isn't it right to talk about if they even exist first? i mean, if they don't exist, what would be the point of even talking about them or having theories about them? i personally am not a believer that they exist, but i wont rule out the possibility since a couple of the theories which explain how they would be formed(if they do exist) make sense to me on my basic level of trying to understand the physics.

But as I said it doesn't really matter what you believe or don't believe since that belief is based on ignorance. Beliefs based on ignorance are, as I said in another thread, not worth a candle.
You expect the way the universe operates to be comprehensible to you, which is astonishingly presumptuous. You compound that by saying that the language used to frame the questions is mumbo-jumbo. You remind me of a stereotype of my own countrymen when travelling abroad. When confronted by a language they don't understand, they continue to speak English, but LOUDLY and s l o w l y, under the impression that the fault is with the foreigner for not understanding English, and completely oblivious to the fact that the fault is their own.

If you want to understand physics then learn the language. If you are content to have a brief overview explained in non-mathematical terms then fine, but don't criticise the account for being ambiguous and don't think it means you actually understand the concepts because you don't. What you believe is up to you, and matters not one jot. So when you pontificate about 'not ruling out the possibility', you should realise that you sound ridiculously pompous. YOU are not ruling out the possibility. Whoopie do. So what?

[anwiii]

you sure HAVE mentioned your creditials. not once, but several times. that to me is bragging. just to enlighten you. once is enough. people heard you the first time. ok?

who cares what scientists use. i am not a scientist. are you? i could care less if you know two physicists. if you actually knew what you were talking about, or could come up with something original, you'd be working in that field. don't talk to me about how science is is only explicable to those with basic math skills. science is a lot more than just physics and math and can be explained quite well to others without a WIT of math skills. fortunately, i DO have math skills. but does that enable me to know the physics behind all science? absolutely NOT. again, i do not care what scientist use to determine things. i am not an expert in that field so i will leave it up to those experts.

i never asked if the existance of a black hole can be proven. again, you are misunderstanding for some reason. my english is not that hard to understand. what i said was, SHOW evidence that a black hole exists. it was a statement. i want to be shown how a black hole exists. they say there is one in the middle of our galaxy but fail to even know where it is. this was the basis of my statement because i do not know how one can determine if there is a black hole in our galaxy if they can't even determine where it is. i do want to understand how the basic science works around proving if a black hole exists. what i DON'T want to understand is all the mumbo jumbo. i don't need to understand it. all i need is for someone to explain so i can research what is being said further. since i am not sure weather black holes exist or not, i like to take in all information and come up with my own conclusion whether i believe they exist or not.

so now it doesn't matter what i believe? now i am ignorant? hmmm. that's nice coming from a teacher. i wonder why your students are in your classroom to begin with. do you call them ignorant? do you tell them that their beliefs don't matter either? some teacher you are... your true colors come out in every thread you post in. can you please tell me what school you teach at so i can forward all the threads you replied to to them and allow them to determine if you are qualified to teach? if you don't tell me, i understand. i know you would be afraid of being found out....

i don't expect the universe to be comprehensible to me. did i imply that at all? no i did not. if i did, please state a direct qoute. again, you are confused with basic english when i stated clearly already that all i wanted to know more about are black holes, the theories and the possibilities. i will NEVER expect to understand the universe. i have a hard enough time understanding people and the deeper side of life. it's a rewarding challenge.

i stated that scientist use a bunch of mumbo jumbo to explain things. i think they try to be more technical than they have to be. how is it anyones fault if two people don't understand eachothers language? even though i think you are very technical in the language you choose to speak, i never critisized it once. if that is your way of speaking to people, then by all means, speak it that way. but if i don't understand something you said, then i wont hesitiate to tell you even if you are confused by my confusion. you have friends who go to other countries and speak like retards? loud and slow? what does that have to do with anything? you are comparing your friends to me because i am speaking a foreign language? hmmm

again, i do not want to better understand physics than i already do. there is no need for me to waste my time on a language i will never use in my every day life. what i believe and know is more than you will ever know about me. unlike you, i don't go bragging about my credetials when i am talking to someone. have you seen me do this when i am talking to you? no. you have done it several times like it should mean something. well i don't do it because it doesn't mean jack. i have known many people who seem to know alot because they read a bunch of books, but in actuality, know very little because they have little experience outside of their books.

so now let me give you one of my basic philosophies in life. if you aren't making mistakes, you aren't living. it's how we learn. i will be the first to admit i am a dummy. i always have been, but i will tell you one thing. i learn from my mistakes. by doing that i become more knowledgable and wiser. not be learning. by DOING and by QUESTIONING even if i am a dummy in the area in question. now if you have a problem with that or how i choose to live my own life, then that is ok. no skin off my back, but i will have to always disagree with you when you start making false assumtions in things you know abosultely nothing about. i will call you on it every time with your foot in your mouth only making you look stupid until you wise up and admit YOU don't know it all to say half the things you have said recently.

i sound ridiculous and pomous? to you maybe. to some others....maybe that is true too. at least i don't go starting arguements in every thread i am in and disrespect other peoples beliefs and opinions and questions. so again....maybe you should look in the mirror before judging others because again.....i think you are the pot calling the kettle black and i think you are in denial.

my beliefs in black holes or science may not matter one bit, i agree. i am not out to influence science or make a name for myself by coming up with a new theory. but are you? are you going to do anything but cite what you read or are you ever going to come up with something original? maybe whatever your belief in science is not worth a jot if all you are going to do is copy other peoples work for your own beliefs. there is a name for that. it's called a follower. a word i use to describe people who follow any specific religion and live by the rules that religion dictates. in some ways, science is a religion in and of itself....instilling strong beliefs in theories and hypothesES.

Quote

YOU are not ruling out the possibility. Whoopie do. So what?

you are REALLY a muture teacher, you know that? are the words "whooptie do" something you say when you cleary don't have the words to explain yourself because you are just utterly confused in how to communicate properly?