Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 52 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#54324 - 08/26/15 10:00 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
It seems you would like me to accept and understand all current theory before daring to move forward.

At least enough to make sense of what you are talking about and beyond trash classical physics.

I am sure those involved in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider should just pack up shop and go home now as it is going to be not needed. Perhaps you might just bother to read what they do and why.
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/

Perhaps I should publish on computer graphics without even understanding the basics. smile

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
General relativity is a field theory which is yet to be falsified except for the conclusion that it must fail at the singularity at the centre of a black hole. So must all other theories.

If GR fails then black holes don't exist, I assume you haven't been diagnosed with dementia.

Can you identify any other theory that predicts a black hole?

For exanple Newtonian gravity the one you seen comfortable with creates a dark star rather than a black hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(Newtonian_mechanics)

Is the logic getting thru yet
SR/GR FAILS = NO BLACK HOLE

If you go to any religious sites that can't and don't accept the big bang. They will tell you GR/SR is wrong and black holes don't exist .. even the religious crazies get the logic. Black holes are a prediction of SR/GR and only it.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I believe the other theories may emerge from what I am doing rather than being required. I only have my intuition to guide me in this.

I am struggling to believe you ever published anything in computer graphics/mathematics as that requires logic.

Your intuition and logic are failing you badly and you look like an uneducated Grade A crackpot right now.


Edited by Orac (08/26/15 10:17 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#54325 - 08/26/15 10:03 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The crucial difference is the fact that black holes cannot slow down.

Oh this I have hear about. Why can't a black hole spin slow down smile
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54326 - 08/26/15 10:26 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
I only said GR fails at the central singularity of a black hole - not in my understanding but in the currently accepted theory of black holes. In my development, GR is never broken. It is this fact that for me that confirms it's truth.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54329 - 08/26/15 01:23 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I only said GR fails at the central singularity of a black hole - not in my understanding but in the currently accepted theory of black holes. In my development, GR is never broken. It is this fact that for me that confirms it's truth.

You did mathematics and you use that layman or religious crazy trash terms?

Lets be precise GR simply tends to an infinite singularity or an infinite discontinuity along with almost every other physics that exists or ever existed ... why would bother to single out GR?

I can only think of one glaring physics theory example of something that if fully continuous because it actually has only one answer which is a defined number.

In QM, Born's rule states the sum of the squared moduli of the probability amplitudes of all the possible states is equal to one and explicitly one. Weirdly you can't derive the answer in any meaningful way other than say it is that. Those who believe in Everett's multiverse may say they can but the stupidity has all been debunked many times and you can't (it was revived recently by Sean Carroll in a crackpot blog post).

Every other theory you care to name will have an end at an infinite discontinuity I am pretty sure. I was thinking about all the classical physics laws and I can't think of any that are fully continuous.

Try it yourself even the basics like F=MA fails and is undefined at t=0. Force is the change in momentum over time so as time goes to zero you either can't measure anything or your answers will go to an infinite discontinuity depending on the situation.

So in classic physics some people are usually happy to say that you can't instantly change directions when moving or you would create an infinite force and blow yourself and the universe up ... so they generally use common sense and say it is impossible to do. You on the other hand say all things have to be possible so the good old Newtons laws are another fail case.

Some things are impossible in physics and they usually end at infinite discontinuities at least to normal people.

However for you, I guess all of physics and the universe ultimately fails smile

So my question to you is why worry about a singularity in GR, but not worry you may instantly turn around one day, create and infinite force and blow yourself and the universe up? That is what the formula says can happen and isn't that a big problem?


Edited by Orac (08/26/15 02:17 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54330 - 08/26/15 02:18 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Apart from the selective use of things I say, and the somewhat personal abuse that give your arguments little credit, I seem to be in the position of agreeing with most of what you say in the last post.
We disagree largely on what is the best way forward in physics but that is really just a philosophical debate on the best use of my time. I just do not have time to understand all physics. For now I am concentrating on the small area where I have discovered something new.
I should add that I would never make any claims to be a mathematician. I struggle with it and do make mistakes. I had hoped that I might have any mistakes pointed out but that has not happened yet.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54331 - 08/26/15 05:58 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Unfortunately Orac prefers to run down people who question his wisdom. He just keeps throwing up more obscure references rather than actually addressing the questions which are asked.

In general I doubt if you have actually come up with a new and improved theory of black holes. The current theories are very well developed, although there are plenty of questions that have not been answered. The big problem with developing a new theory is that it does take a huge amount of math. I certainly do not have enough to even start to evaluate any theories.

And of course I agree with one of Orac's questions. Where did you get the idea that a black hole cannot slow down?

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54332 - 08/26/15 09:53 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Quote:
Where did you get the idea that a black hole cannot slow down?

That follows directly from the theory I have proposed and detailed on my website. The maths required is not that testing.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54333 - 08/26/15 10:45 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Unfortunately since a spinning black hole interacts with space then as it spins it will lose energy. As it loses energy it will slow down. It will take a long time, but it will slow down. The interaction I am thinking of, which assumes the black hole is not interacting with gas and dust, is based on frame dragging. Frame dragging has been demonstrated. So as the black hole causes space around it to twist it will dissipate energy. At least that's what it looks like to me. I'm not sure if a spinning black hole generates gravity waves, but there is a good chance that it will. Gravity waves of course would definitely take energy from the rotation of the black hole.

I have no quantitative calculations of this, it is an extrapolation of the fact that nothing spins forever. It always interacts with something that will cause it to slow down. Of course what happens is that the angular momentum of the black hole will be shared with everything else in its vicinity, since angular momentum is conserved.

Edit: I forgot one effect that would definitely take energy from the black hole. When light passes a gravity well it is deflected. That requires energy, which has to come from the black hole.

Bill Gill


Edited by Bill (08/26/15 11:19 PM)
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54334 - 08/27/15 01:44 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Bill G has actually said something fully correct and understood something profound. It must be because it's classical but I have hope it is a start.

SideBar: I don't answer stupid questions directly Bill G because I assume the person asking them will have enough intelligence and logic to work it out, if I show problems with there answer. People should be able realize the logical science answers in there own way not have me preach an answer at them. If I am being honest I really don't care what you believe, it isn't my concern, all I can do is show the problems with a belief smile

Now there is nothing special about a black hole it is a basic gravitational object and as such it exchanges gravitational energy as does any celestial object.

Other bodies can do all the normal gravitational things with a black hole like orbit it, gravitational sling shot off it and deflect past it. The body itself frame drags if it rotates which Bill G correctly noted radiating energy away.

ALL THOSE INTERACTIONS EXCHANGE GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY WITH THE BLACK HOLE

The only way we even detect a black hole is by noticing that energy it exchanges with other things because we can't see the black hole itself.

Do you see the irony of your suggestion when put that way Dave, you couldn't detect the black hole if it didn't interact.

The interactions are so normal we have big black holes in the middle of most galaxies.

So we can confidently say a black hole will definitely slow down like every other celestial body UNLESS it feeds on more energy that it is losing .... LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

Anyhow we got there in the end and we finally have black holes exchanging energy correctly.

Now if you are really clever and really logical you can see since the black hole is conserving energy with the rest of the universe then it's no different to F=MA going to infinity situation. The singularity predicted by GR must be either impossible (like you can't change direction infinitely fast, it will be truncated by something) or the singularity itself is linked with the rest of the universe in some way and the physics doesn't end there (Wormholes etc).

Either of those two answers is perfectly acceptable and logical and it isn't up to me to preach which is correct. If you were interested in my opinion I am guessing it is truncated most likely by QM but it is just that an opinion not a fact.

Now if you got to there you DEFINITELY CAN'T HAVE BORN RIGID BODIES IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLACK HOLE IN GR.

So you have to choose Dave which is wrong GR or the BORN RIGID BODY you can't have both as you now have the full continuum. I am happy to accept either answer but not both, they are mutually exclusive (which is why it is a definition in SR). So which do you choose?

For me I am going to be completely logical and choose relativity because I can go from inside the atom to inside the black hole with the one same consistent theory. I suspect most logical people will do the same and your convert and uptake rate is going to be very very low but I wish you luck with it all. smile


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 03:08 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54335 - 08/27/15 03:32 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
This is probably going to be to complex but it is sort of topical to this.

Lumo has put up a review of the paper Hawkings has in pre-print at the moment and many of us are digesting.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/stephen-hawking-solves-information-loss.html

I found the article interesting because Lumo basically and forcefully argues that gravity must be Quantum in nature. The article was actually more interesting than Hawkings paper.

For my part I hadn't even realized and thought about a couple of things he says, so I am currently trying to debunk them because they are important. He would probably berate me as much as he does poor Sabine because I have always left open the possibility the gravity is entirely classical.

His example of one boson in Stockholm and one boson in Boston is driving me nuts, I can't break the lack of localization. I think I just took the RED pill and I now officially hate string theorists and I am going to hunt them all down.

Lumo has put me in Dave's position I can have QM OR I can have a classical gravity field but I can't have them both.


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 03:49 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54336 - 08/27/15 05:51 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Thanks for giving me so much to think about. It may be some time before I can answer your points. First off, you do not gain energy by changing direction. So light waves are bent without colour change. Second, their is no radiation from a rotating black hole. Kerr is the asymptotic solution and contains no radiation.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54337 - 08/27/15 06:16 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
First off, you do not gain energy by changing direction.

NOONE SAID YOU DID.

What was said is you create an infinite force !!!!!!!!

Force = change in momentum / change in time

As change in time goes to zero force goes to infinity.

I will ignore the light bit it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Second, their is no radiation from a rotating black hole. Kerr is the asymptotic solution and contains no radiation.

WOW maybe we need to stay in mathematics you actual make sense in that domain.

You are correct if and only if the black hole is absolutely perfectly symmetrical.

Now try the solution on a feeding spinning black hole on even just one object and tell me what happens.

I will give you a statement of the solution, that gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration where that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric.

Now use your mathematics to prove or falsify that statement.


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 06:43 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54338 - 08/27/15 06:16 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
As I understand it, the energy gain from a slingshot is derived from the translational energy of the more massive object, and not from the spin. The slowing down of celestial object's spin is due to tidal effects, not possible with a Born rigid material. The spin of neutron stars has been shown to decrease but as yet there is no similar demonstration for black holes.
None of this is conclusive but it keeps me hoping for real confirmation.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54339 - 08/27/15 06:22 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
As I understand it, the energy gain from a slingshot is derived from the translational energy of the more massive object, and not from the spin.

I have heard that said and GR isn't my thing but I would check that, layman say all manner of dumb things. It could just be you can ignore it for stuff NASA has done because the objects are rotating slowly like Earth. My gut feel is if the object isn't perfectly symmetrical then there must be an effect from the frame drag.

Wiki says frame drag matters at the bottom deals with issue ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist ) but I would like to see a calculation first.

I know for example the moon orbit and recession is still out fractionally from what is predicted so you need to check these things. Creationist are all over that one and I actually once wondered whether anyone had done the calc.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The slowing down of celestial object's spin is due to tidal effects, not possible with a Born rigid material.

You know my answer .. not worth wasting time to look at ... they can't exist by too many lines of evidence to be wrong. Leaving that to you to worry about.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The spin of neutron stars has been shown to decrease but as yet there is no similar demonstration for black holes.

How would you "conclusively measure" the spin of a black hole if it's inside an event horizon smile

You have obviously made the choice of a born rigid body in the middle still so I guess we wait for your full theory before I can comment further. I will leave you to it.


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 06:55 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54340 - 08/27/15 09:17 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Orac, you seem to be constantly harking back to your statement that a Born rigid object cannot exist if GR/SR are true. I accept that a Born rigid object supported by nuclear or electronic forces cannot exist but a black hole is not one of these.
On thinking about it further, I have now come up with a simple proof that a black hole is Born rigid without delving below the event horizon:
In Schwarzschild coordinates time has slowed down to a standstill at the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole. Consequently, no two points on the event horizon can move closer (or further) away from each other. This is almost a definition of Born rigidity.
The Kerr case would be more difficult; I must find time to look at this.
Anyway I must express my gratitude for making me think this through again.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54342 - 08/27/15 03:41 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
In Schwarzschild coordinates time has slowed down to a standstill at the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.


Surely this apparent stopping of time is only in the reference frame of a distant observer. It would not occur for an observer at the event horizon.

Would that not mean that it is inaccurate to say that time stops at the EH? Any two points on the EH could move relative to each other, but not in the reference frame of a distant observer.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54343 - 08/27/15 03:49 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
I have had time only to skim quickly through this thread, so if this point has already been made - sorry.

There was an exchange earlier about rotating BHs losing energy and slowing down. I can see that, but as they lose energy they become smaller, so would their angular momentum not be conserved by an increase in rotational speed?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54344 - 08/27/15 04:05 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Surely this apparent stopping of time is only in the reference frame of a distant observer. It would not occur for an observer at the event horizon.

Bingo Bill S you have worked it out he thinks it is real in an absolute frame reference smile

You know the story from the torture I put you thru with a photon view of universe and really understand it. Now you see why people get confused and lost because of classic physics.

You are correct time is running normally for the infalling observer because in GR we are allowed to have to observers not agree on the same observations. That is what is freaking him out and he has pulled the old "god" frame of reference and let the humour begin.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Would that not mean that it is inaccurate to say that time stops at the EH? Any two points on the EH could move relative to each other, but not in the reference frame of a distant observer.

No he really thinks that time stops at the EH and that is his justification for being able to break the laws of SR/GR inside it.

Read the comment about his justification carefully he has "reality" and "observation" as the same thing. The confusion leads directly to his theory.

Think about it time has stopped at the black hole EH and can't collapse any further because all your forces must stop as time is stopped. You must also have a solid because nothing can move because time is really stopped. He doesn't have the background to understand that isn't what a solid is and probably more correctly it should be called a "Dave Rigid". It actually isn't even a Born Rigid Body although it shares some common properties basically because time has stopped.

So when he says time has stopped he means it in an absolute frame reference manner. Get why we have no EM or nuclear forces in his black hole but can still have a solid according to his thinking.

So it's obvious you therefore face plant into a "Dave Rigid" at the event horizon and you didn't violate GR/SR... that is the logic.

Think about it in his mind you can't move inside the EH there is no time there how can one move at all.

Oh man don't tell me classic physics can't lead you seriously up the garden path. You know the other half of the story and without understanding there is no chance to convince him.

LOL he is probably wondering why we don't get it as it's so logical, nothing hard about black holes smile

I vote Bill G is the man to explain it all to him. I am not doing the Pole-Barn paradox with Dave I would rather slash my wrists.


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 06:57 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54345 - 08/27/15 04:15 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
There was an exchange earlier about rotating BHs losing energy and slowing down. I can see that, but as they lose energy they become smaller, so would their angular momentum not be conserved by an increase in rotational speed?

Bingo again but I think it's that time stopped thing that is causing him to not see the issue.

We usually discuss it in reverse that the faster a black hole spins then the smaller is its event horizon but you have nailed it that the formula's go both ways.

You are really good at this now Bill S and see you didn't need a single equation to work it out just a few first principles. I tried to get him to work it out himself but he is closed minded, that time thing is really throwing him a loop.

I could say it reminded me of someone else with a reference on a photon smile


Edited by Orac (08/27/15 06:31 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54347 - 08/27/15 07:50 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Let us be clear thinking on this. There is no preferred reference frame - the Einstein equivalence principle is fundamental to GR and assumes this. If time stops in my reference frame, this is what I measure. It may not agree with the time measured by an in-falling observer but it is the only measurement available to me. Orac seems to believe that the supposed impossibility of Born rigidity that he has read about is more significant than the equivalence principle but he is simply wrong in this.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.