JEROME - Black holes do not exist

And combining several of the current threads here, but in regards to a giant black hole:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-plasma-jets-trace-corkscrew-path

For those that don't read links, it is becoming clear that Black Holes produce the energetic jets coming from Galaxies. By magnetic fields.
Researchers believe that large galaxies such as the Milky Way contain supermassive black holes in their cores that drag dust and gas toward them in a disk and fling it back out via jets of ionized gas or plasma moving at up to 99.9 percent of the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Jets of plasma at 99.9 percent the speed of light. How cool is that?
 
Upchurch said:
I thought this thread was directed at Jerome?
Click to expand...
robinson said:
Perhaps, but it sets a bad precedent to start threads that are only about one person. This is a science forum, not a place for personal discussions and trolling.
Click to expand...
My fault, I'm afraid. I originally started this thread to avoid derailing another thread, in a vain attempt to get Jerome to actually state something concrete. It kinda got away from me.
 
robinson said:
I know.

In a thread that is about Black Holes (BHs), you might think a description of one, as well as the theory describing how it came to be, would be useful if you want to convince a skeptic that such a thing exists.

Or, to discuss a possible problem with such a theory. That nobody has stepped up to the plate, seems a little odd. After all, we have a dozen people battering Jerome over the matter, but nobody has described just what it is they are so mad about, because Jerome doesn't believe them.
Click to expand...


Actualy some very simple things were suggested:

1. gravity appears to bend the path of light.

2. in theory an object could be so massive that lights path would be bent so much it could not escape the area of the mass (this came about early on, some guy named Schwarzchild i think)

3. there are objects that exert gravity through observation of orbits (SagA) being my favorite that are measured to be really huge, like 100s or millions of solar masses.

4. ergo it is likely that by the nature of the bending of light (as observed) and the predictions for the mass of these other objects (SagA) from the observations of orbiting material then these other objects are likely to be so massive that the path of light can not leave the area of the massive object.

1 and 3 are points of observation, 2 is theory and 4 is conjecture
 
Not to mention the simple fact that general relativity - one of the most extensively tested and observationally supported scientific theories of our time - doesn't work without black holes.

In short, if you have general relativity (and we do), then you have black holes. They were predicted by the theory long before there was any observational evidence of their existence.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Not to mention the simple fact that general relativity - one of the most extensively tested and observationally supported scientific theories of our time - doesn't work without black holes.
Click to expand...

It is not science to support something that has no evidence of existence based upon the fact that it's existence is needed to support a Theory.

This is working from a premise and building upon a non-existent foundation.

Black-Holes exist because the Theory states that they exist!

Science should revise the Theory if needed, not presume evidence yet to be found.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is not science to support something that has no evidence of existence based upon the fact that it's existence is needed to support a Theory.

This is working from a premise and building upon a non-existent foundation.

Black-Holes exist because the Theory states that they exist!

Science should revise the Theory if needed, not presume evidence yet to be found.
Click to expand...

It is true that General Relativity predicts black holes however their existence is not a requirement for GR to be true. For example if atoms were incompressible spheres then GR would still be valid but it may not be possible to get a strong enough gravitational field for the formation of black holes.

However it happens that atoms are not incompressible spheres and so black holes can form. One observation of this is the 3.7 million solar masses packed into a radius of 45 AU in the center of our galaxy.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is not science to support something that has no evidence of existence based upon the fact that it's existence is needed to support a Theory.

This is working from a premise and building upon a non-existent foundation.

Black-Holes exist because the Theory states that they exist!

Science should revise the Theory if needed, not presume evidence yet to be found.
Click to expand...

So can we assume you understand why the hammer and feather fall at the same rate?
 
Dancing David said:
Actualy some very simple things were suggested:
Click to expand...


I understand all the factors involved in black hole theory. What I'm waiting for is a description of how a star turns into a black hole. I know it seems absurd, but the actual event, the process, of what happens, is amazingly difficult to find.

Even Wikipedia, which usually has some good sources, has no link to any paper or publication that simply describes what happens.

Anyone feel like trying to fill the gap? We have a star, in theory an old star, with a certain mass, and it goes from being a star, to being a little tiny black hole. How does that happen?

Yes yes, we all know the force of the internal fission/fusion/reaction, whatever, the big hot ball of gas, no longer can counter the force of gravity. So matter is compressed, by gravity.

At that special moment, when the whole thing collapses, what occurs? What happens to the atoms/molecules that the star is made of? What happens when atoms are crushed by gravity, so that they no longer are atoms? What happens to all the energy that special event causes to be released?

That is the interesting part. Especially in regards to what happens to spacetime.

In researching this, it was interesting to discover that before the term "black hole" was thought of, they were called "frozen stars". It was also interesting to find that the concept was around long before Einstein.

I don't really know why Jerome says Black Holes don't exist, or can't exist. Or why a thread about such a thing is so long and so busy.

But in researching the matter, something odd about the whole thing showed up.

These things seem to happen whenever we have a Cosmological "thing" that contains the word "dark".
 
Last edited:
DARK is code for:

not clear to the understanding

closed to the public

revealed only to the initiated

designed to elude observation or detection

containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security

shrouded in or hidden by darkness

not readily understood or clearly expressed

relatively unknown



Or just a :gnome: (gnome). :)
 
robinson said:
I understand all the factors involved in black hole theory. What I'm waiting for is a description of how a star turns into a black hole. I know it seems absurd, but the actual event, the process, of what happens, is amazingly difficult to find.

Even Wikipedia, which usually has some good sources, has no link to any paper or publication that simply describes what happens.

Anyone feel like trying to fill the gap? We have a star, in theory an old star, with a certain mass, and it goes from being a star, to being a little tiny black hole. How does that happen?

Yes yes, we all know the force of the internal fission/fusion/reaction, whatever, the big hot ball of gas, no longer can counter the force of gravity. So matter is compressed, by gravity.

At that special moment, when the whole thing collapses, what occurs? What happens to the atoms/molecules that the star is made of? What happens when atoms are crushed by gravity, so that they no longer are atoms? What happens to all the energy that special event causes to be released?

That is the interesting part. Especially in regards to what happens to spacetime.

In researching this, it was interesting to discover that before the term "black hole" was thought of, they were called "frozen stars". It was also interesting to find that the concept was around long before Einstein.

I don't really know why Jerome says Black Holes don't exist, or can't exist. Or why a thread about such a thing is so long and so busy.

But in researching the matter, something odd about the whole thing showed up.

These things seem to happen whenever we have a Cosmological "thing" that contains the word "dark".
Click to expand...

The atoms become the singularity at the center of the black hole.
Is that the "odd thing"?

There is no connection between black holes and anything "dark" in General Relativity. What is your Cosmological "thing"?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is not science to support something that has no evidence of existence based upon the fact that it's existence is needed to support a Theory.

This is working from a premise and building upon a non-existent foundation.

Black-Holes exist because the Theory states that they exist!

Science should revise the Theory if needed, not presume evidence yet to be found.
Click to expand...
Whoosh! That was the sound of the point going straight over Jerome's head.

#1: We know general relativity is accurate, because we have observational validation of predictions made by the theory.
#2: General relativity predicts black holes.
#3: If general relativity is accurate (which we know it is) then black holes of some kind must exist.
#4: Observational evidence supports the predictions of general relativity. Specifically, the massive stars at the core of the galaxy move in exactly the way that general relativity predicts, if they are orbiting a black hole.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
DARK is code for:

not clear to the understanding

not readily understood or clearly expressed

relatively unknown
Click to expand...
Correct. Astronomers discovered that there was something wrong with the way that galaxies rotated. Specifically, they did not appear to have enough mass to keep together as a coherent hole. They coined the term "dark matter" to represent whatever it is that is keeping the galaxy together. Astronomers would be overjoyed to discover what it actually is, so that they can discard the redundant and quite frankly misleading term "dark matter".

The term "dark matter" is a placeholder for something that we haven't worked out yet.
 
robinson said:
I understand all the factors involved in black hole theory. What I'm waiting for is a description of how a star turns into a black hole. I know it seems absurd, but the actual event, the process, of what happens, is amazingly difficult to find.

Even Wikipedia, which usually has some good sources, has no link to any paper or publication that simply describes what happens.

Anyone feel like trying to fill the gap? We have a star, in theory an old star, with a certain mass, and it goes from being a star, to being a little tiny black hole. How does that happen?

Yes yes, we all know the force of the internal fission/fusion/reaction, whatever, the big hot ball of gas, no longer can counter the force of gravity. So matter is compressed, by gravity.

At that special moment, when the whole thing collapses, what occurs? What happens to the atoms/molecules that the star is made of? What happens when atoms are crushed by gravity, so that they no longer are atoms? What happens to all the energy that special event causes to be released?

That is the interesting part. Especially in regards to what happens to spacetime.
Click to expand...


You will have to look at General Relativity for that regard and it will not be an easy read. I can only say that due to the relationship of space-time curvature to density (or the stress energy tensor) that it becomes more curved, in the local vicinity, (then it was before) as the mass compacts or becomes more dense. As for release of energy there are theories such as the hoop conjecture that propose that catastrophic gravitation collapse will not occur unless the entire body becomes confined within that hoop perimeter, other theories suggest that elements outside that perimeter might be radiated off as gravitational waves. Both of these conjectures fall in line with the black holes have no hair conjecture, that a black hole does evidence the characteristics of the body from which it collapsed. The only aspects that do remain are of course mass, rotational velocity and charge (if I am remembering correctly)

robinson said:
In researching this, it was interesting to discover that before the term "black hole" was thought of, they were called "frozen stars". It was also interesting to find that the concept was around long before Einstein.
Click to expand...


Actually John Michell wrote a paper in the 1783 “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London” which proposed that a star of sufficiently compact mass would prevent light from escaping, as did Marquis de Laplace in his first edition of “The Systems of the World”, a few years latter and apparently independent of Michell, although it was left out of later editions.*

It was not until 1905 that Einstein developed General Relativity which provided the mechanism (you inquire about) of catastrophic gravitational collapse to create such bodies was determined. Both Einstein and Arthur Eddington were opposed to the general relativistic calculations of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar that result form such collapse, but probably for different reasons.


robinson said:
I don't really know why Jerome says Black Holes don't exist, or can't exist. Or why a thread about such a thing is so long and so busy.

But in researching the matter, something odd about the whole thing showed up.

These things seem to happen whenever we have a Cosmological "thing" that contains the word "dark".
Click to expand...


It is not as dark as you might like to think.

*Reference “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen W. Hawking
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How can the force of gravity of the Earth be constant in relation to various objects that have different masses thus different gravity forces of their own?
Click to expand...

I know this is going back a stretch, but I don't think it was addressed.

The force of gravity is a relationship between two objects, Jerome. That is why the formula for the force has two masses mentioned, and the distance between them:

F = g (m1 + m2) / d^2

So, the force of gravity between he earth and the sun is a certain amount (constant only if the masses and the distance remains constant), the gravity between he earth and the moon likewise, and the moon and the sun.

Now, that little "g" in the equation - that is The Gravitational Constant, and it is, indeed, a constant of the universe (as far as we can tell), but it is not a force - it is 6.67 × 10−11 N m2 kg-2.

So, every pair of objects in the galaxy imparts a force on each other, attracting them together. That force varies inversely with the square of the distance - the force is four time stronger on each body when their distance in halved. Force is a vector, and the resulting force acting on any single body in the universe is the vector sum of all the individual forces. As the distances are always changing when the bodies are free to move, the forces are continually changing and a bunch of such bodies interacting perform a complex dance in 3 dimensions. See this simulation of several free bodies reacting with each other due only to simulated gravitational forces:

http://burtleburtle.net/bob/java/orbit/index.html Just click on the window to start it.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
DARK is code for:

not clear to the understanding

closed to the public

revealed only to the initiated

designed to elude observation or detection

containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security

shrouded in or hidden by darkness

not readily understood or clearly expressed

relatively unknown



Or just a :gnome: (gnome). :)
Click to expand...

Ach, it's all in your mind. Darkness is quiet, peaceful, laid back. It removes colorful complication, it cools, it relaxes. You need to live next to a cemetery to really understand dark. I recommend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom