JEROME - Black holes do not exist

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.
Click to expand...

Try this page: supernovaWP; look up the type II supernova and it will go into gross detail about what happens to the star when a stellar-sized black hole results. In the main, it is simple: like squeezing a subcritical mass of Plutonium to a certain limit results in a spectacular change, squeezing any matter down to a certain limit allows it's gravitational field at the surface to increase to the point that light cannot fight its way out of the gravity well. That's all that is required.

Of course, if you do that, the matter you squeeze won't just sit there. Each particle in he mass is also attracted to the center, so hard that nothing - no thing at all - can withstand the pull. The result is a singularity, where that matter is all squeezed down to absolutely zero radius.

Now, like Jerome, I don't suspect you'll be satisfied by that description - "But what <HAPPENS>?" Nothing more than I described, as far as we know. Since, though, you "understand all the factors involved in black hole theory" you know that physicists aren't happy about this singularity, because it breaks relativity. You know that what is needed is a quantum theory of gravity. Can you do that for us, robinson? We'd be oh, so grateful (well, they would; I'd only be confused, I'm sure). You probably know, as it says in the wiki on Black Holes, that physicists speculate that a proper theory of quantum gravity will likely remove the singularity.

These things seem to happen whenever we have a Cosmological "thing" that contains the word "dark".
Click to expand...
Ah, gees, don't get all mystical on us, robinson. A Black Hole is black because it emits no light, not because it has gone over to the dark side.

BTW, you do know, since you know all things Black Hole, why the direct translation of Black Hole into Russian is not used? An exercise for the dark trivia lord.
 
Last edited:
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!
Click to expand...

Then pray tell, Jerome: what's in the center of the galaxy that's causing all that fuss ?
 
Belz... said:
You're conveniently ignoring my second question:

What is a force if not a relationship between two objects, JEROME ?

Second, I believe the answer to your question is that the differences in mass of the two objects is too small. I'd say the moon probably has a greater gravitational interraction with the Earth.
Click to expand...

Well, JEROME ?
 
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...


Fair enough, for one we lack the unification or QM and gravity at this time, if it exists. So the issues of GR and SR don't translate from the macro scale to the QM scale and so from what layman's stuff I have read the two systems don't mesh because we don't have an application of quantum gravity. So at this time there are things used to describe the singularity that just make no sense to me, like 'space time foam''. So how something smaller than the plank scale can be called foam is beyond me. My guess is that it is the usual sort of QM vs. classical translation issue.


As for the construction of a black hole, if I understand the stellar theory right, which is unlikely, the star does not collapse into the black hole directly. Stars do a lot of cool stuff before the turn into really old stars. Which despite some people claims, produce a lot of strange observations. The star according to the theory goes through stages of collapse and fusion, where the internal heat pressure is no longer supported and the star shrinks until another threshold for fusion is reached and the star starts to fuse again, in one case making gas giants. In other cases just compressing and fusing again.

The dynamics get very complex, sometimes the new fusion produces a whole lot of energy that can not be gravitationally bound and instead of becoming a gas giant the star throws off its upper layers. Lack of fusion, compressions, fusion, upper layer blown off. Depending on factors I understand only vaguely this can go through many different forms and patterns, especially if the star is part of a close binary system.

Some stars become stable after they loose enough mass and become white dwarfs of some sort (most likely the dead type that just cool over time), others can go through these cycles repeatedly with all sorts of cool things happening, producing many things that sure look like plasma pinches and the like. So the star can become very chaotic , expanding, collapsing, not fusing, fusing in spots, fusing in shells, expanding rapidly in places, blowing off shells, blowing away little bits, blowing away huge bits. All very turbulent and chaotic in some cases.

So the star can bounce around quite a while in this star depending on it's mass, the fusion threshold and how much of it's matter gets blown away when higher energy fusion does occur. So to say the least the people who study planetary nebulae and the phases of stars lives have enough material to keep them busy for centuries. And so the chapter right before the final one is a mess, especially if you have star going through this chaos that has material coming from another star in a binary system.

And then there is the final chapter, the star reaches a point where is just can't fuses anymore and it undergoes it's final collapse (as if, the compression and expansion can be very chaotic, shrink expand a little, shrink some more) and some reach a point of stability where nothing more happens, they shrink and shrink and shrink and become stable. Then they cool off. (Unless of course they get more matter)

Then I am not sure where the cut offs are anymore, there are some stars that undergo nova or supernova due to collapse and the fusion of elements right below iron, the release of energy is very high and most of the upper star gets blown away.

But then strange things happen to that core, compression waves, fusion of elements past iron in the core and the blown away material in shock waves. And depending on the mass, you can get a neutron star or a black hole. So that is the chapter before the final chapter, I will see what I can find on the final one.

What are you looking for Robinson?
 
Belz... said:
Well, JEROME ?
Click to expand...
I think Jerome has me on ignore. I've answer his several of his questions and requests for proof in gory detail and he hasn't even acknowledged that he's seen them.


robinson, I did a quick google and found this amusing little site. I know PBS's NOVA did an episode on the formation of a black hole once upon a time, but damn if I can find it online.
 
I think robinson is trying to make some sort of point about the way dimensions seem to "move around" inside the event horizon, especially with a charged or rotating hole.

However, I could be wrong. Rather than simply state a point like a rational person, he prefers guessing games.
 
Huntsman said:
However, I could be wrong. Rather than simply state a point like a rational person, he prefers guessing games.
Click to expand...
That's a bit harsh.

The thing to remember is that we don't have all the answers yet concerning black holes. We're still trying to figure them out. However, not knowing all the details about them or how they came about does not mean we can't show that they exist and describe the properties of the ones we can "see".

I still don't know everything there is to know about women, but I can prove they exist and describe them to an extent. :D
 
Upchurch said:
That's a bit harsh.

The thing to remember is that we don't have all the answers yet concerning black holes. We're still trying to figure them out. However, not knowing all the details about them or how they came about does not mean we can't show that they exist and describe the properties of the ones we can "see".

I still don't know everything there is to know about women, but I can prove they exist and describe them to an extent. :D
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I wasn't taking about anything we know or don't know about black holes, just the posting style robinson's displayed. What bugs me is that he obviously thinks he has a point to make, and instead of stating it he has drug out a couple pages of "hints" and no one can still be sure just what property he's trying to get to. At any point in this, he could have simply stated "Have you ever noticed property X of a black hole? That's interesting because..."

Instead, he plays games with the intent (conscious or not) to inflate his apparent knowledge. I find it tiresome.

In any case, I believe he's talking about the "swapping" of space and time dimensions with regard to certain black hole solutions.
 
Last edited:
Huntsman said:
I wasn't taking about anything we know or don't know about black holes, just the posting style robinson's displayed.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. What he's doing (correct me if I'm wrong, robinson) is a modified Socratic Method. I do the same thing sometimes.

It only works if the other person is engaged enough to participate in the train of thought.
 
I think I'd like to go back a few pages where I asked what Jerome's point is. He doesn't have an alternate explaination for all these things that fit the conventional definition of Gravity so well, he just seems to want to argue semantics.

Jerome: if science got this whole gravity thing way wrong, then that would be a very signifigant discovery. I'm sure that you can't be the only person to beleive this, so maybe you could show me some source that supports your beliefs.
 
SeanDamnit said:
I think I'd like to go back a few pages where I asked what Jerome's point is. He doesn't have an alternate explaination for all these things that fit the conventional definition of Gravity so well, he just seems to want to argue semantics.

Jerome: if science got this whole gravity thing way wrong, then that would be a very signifigant discovery. I'm sure that you can't be the only person to beleive this, so maybe you could show me some source that supports your beliefs.
Click to expand...

You’re wasting your time by trying to engage Jerome in a proper discussion. His position is somewhat similar to a particular character’s in Monty Python and the Holy Grail… where after his limbs have been chopped off (in a duel); the chap is still trying to settle for a draw. :rolleyes:

:k:
 
Upchurch said:
Gotcha. What he's doing (correct me if I'm wrong, robinson) is a modified Socratic Method. I do the same thing sometimes.

It only works if the other person is engaged enough to participate in the train of thought.
Click to expand...
You're too kind.

robinson is on record as behaving little different than a troll:
Such terrible logic and huge fallacies. (without saying what, or why)

Yet another fallacy! Marvelous. (without saying why)

Yet another illogical assumption! (without saying what, why, how, or ...)

Not true. (without saying why, or how, or ...)

That claim is utter nonsense (with no explanation)
Click to expand...
Those are robinson's exact words, and the link above takes you to my post which contains links to robinson's posts (so you can see for yourself).

YMMV, but that's indistinguishable from trolling.
 
Dancing David said:
As for the construction of a black hole, if I understand the stellar theory right, which is unlikely, the star does not collapse into the black hole directly. .... And depending on the mass, you can get a neutron star or a black hole. So that is the chapter before the final chapter, I will see what I can find on the final one.

What are you looking for Robinson?
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks David. That brings massive confusion, but illustrates how much more there is than "it collapses", and completely changed my mind about what I was thinking of. Which makes me really glad I didn't say anything. One reason I wanted a consensus on "what happens". Until we know "what the theory says", how can we question it?

Upchurch said:
The thing to remember is that we don't have all the answers yet concerning black holes.
Click to expand...

True dat.

Upchurch said:
I still don't know everything there is to know about women, but I can prove they exist and describe them to an extent. :D
Click to expand...

That made me laugh.

shadron said:
Try this page: supernovaWP; look up the type II supernova and it will go into gross detail about what happens to the star when a stellar-sized black hole results. ...

Ah, gees, don't get all mystical on us, robinson. A Black Hole is black because it emits no light, not because it has gone over to the dark side.

BTW, you do know, since you know all things Black Hole, why the direct translation of Black Hole into Russian is not used? An exercise for the dark trivia lord.
Click to expand...

You must have missed my dark posting on that issue.
extraordinary-evidence.png
 
lupus_in_fabula said:
His position is somewhat similar to a particular character’s in Monty Python and the Holy Grail… where after his limbs have been chopped off (in a duel); the chap is still trying to settle for a draw.
Click to expand...

That would be the Black Knight.

That is pretty funny, and sums up many internet "fights", in which no matter what happens, both parties can continue fighting. The only wise move is to go around a Black Knight, after hacking off his legs.
 
robinson said:
It might help to go back and look at the original contention that spawned this never ending topic.

It was in the Plasma Cosmology thread. It wasn't just about black holes.
Click to expand...
Even better, it might help to actually click on the links ...

HINT: not all are from that thread, and if you go back further into robinson's posting history, you will surely find plenty more examples of the same sort of thing, from well before the cited thread was even begun ...

To quote sol invictus "confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way)", {insert your own conclusion here}.
 
Two physics nitpicks...


shadron said:
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
Click to expand...


The masses should be multiplied, not added together. The strength of the gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses.


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.
Click to expand...


In keeping with standard notation, I suggest using a capital G to represent the Universal Gravitational Constant. A lower case g is often used to represent the acceleration due to gravity, and you wouldn't believe how much it screws people up when you interchange the two.
 
Last edited:
The tell the truth, we all should give a rat's ass of JEROME ever, ever and again ever believes that black holes exist or not.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I don't really care what anyone believes.

Fortunately, science and facts are not influenced by beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom