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 (), 61 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
Today at 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Today at 12:22 AM
recently I've been thinking about this video
by paul
10/20/19 10:48 PM
Gravity Wheel ( SCIENCES VERSION )
by paul
10/20/19 10:38 PM
Snow Cover Data aka Global Warming Data
by paul
10/20/19 09:30 PM
does the forum work again?
by paul
10/20/19 09:01 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 9
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#54289 - 08/14/15 10:26 AM Black hole theory
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Can I posit a different theory? I have been developing an alternative theory for the inside of a black hole (inside the event horizon, that is) and to date have put this on a website at blackholeinside.com
I would greatly appreciate any comments anyone can make - good or bad.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
.
#54290 - 08/15/15 02:05 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Dave it is very hard to take you seriously when you can't even get the basics right. I try not to discourage people who are passionate about science but unfortunately because of the your misunderstandings this is going to be all bad, so brace yourself.

Lets start with first basic, a "singularity" and an "event horizon" are in no way directly related. They may occur in the same location such as a black hole under some situations but they can also exist without each other.

Try the wikipedia entry on event horizon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

So lets be clear what it is
Quote:
In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In layman's terms, it is defined as "the point of no return", i.e., the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible.

They go on to talk about it most commonly associated with black holes but it is not always.

A gravitational singularity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

So lets be clear
Quote:
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Now Dave Proffitt says this
Quote:
That the event horizon 'singularity' that exists in Schwarzschild coordinates is somehow fictitious.

You will first have to explain what "event horizon singularity" is because no scientist is going to have a clue what you are talking about. You joined two non related things to make a nonsensical statement.

Then you take this complete mess and go on some weird journey about something that makes even less sense as you mix in more errors.

Can you please just watch the layman friendly movie here
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150508-what-happens-when-you-fall-into-a-black-hole/

So then you will have at least some understanding what science says correctly and you will see the event horizon and the singularity are very different things.

The rest of your pages get even worse as you get more muddled.

Lets also cleanup another thing a static or non rotating black hole probably doesn't exist in nature. Most matter in the universe when it is undergoing accretion spins as does every star we have observed. Thus when these objects form black holes they are almost certainly spinning because of conservation of momentum expect black holes to be spinning in nature or convince me how they could form not spinning.


Lets show you the confusion ... your first page shows a spinning black hole graphic ... this one


Then on your second page called "Inside the Schwarzschild black hole" you start dribbling on about a stationary black hole and mathematics.

So be clear you can't relate these two things directly and you need to take care with this sort of detail to be taken seriously.

So I suggest you ignore static black holes they are just a science toy construct to simplify things and likely don't exist in nature. Any "theory" using a static black hole detail and mathematics is equally just a "toy" theory.

So can you first fix all that up, so I can remotely understand what your theory is and I will go from there.


Edited by Orac (08/15/15 02:36 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54291 - 08/15/15 02:46 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Dave I just read a couple of your publications and no wonder they get ignored they contain this

The singularity that exists at the event horizon

Where are you getting this idea from ... explain?

All I can think confused you is the famous conjecture (called cosmic censorship) that every singularity is within an event horizon (It still doesn't say is exactly at the event horizon). That is also a very challenged conjecture and there are many known solutions to Einstein's Equations in GR where that is not the case.

The most famous example of the above is the naked singularity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity

See a singularity without an event horizon at all and you will note we are dealing with a spinning black hole.

I was wondering where you got the idea from so I tried googling the exact phrase "singularity that exists at the event horizon" and no surprise to me that your publication is the only match.

When we get thru all that we are going to need to talk about Birkhoff’s theorem because you have some real issues understanding it.


Edited by Orac (08/15/15 03:02 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54292 - 08/17/15 08:45 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Orac Thanks so much for taking the time to look at some of my work. As you have made quite a lengthy post I will stick to the two main points.
First you seem to have a problem with my expression "The singularity that exists at the event horizon". By this I mean the mathematical singularity in the Schwarzschild metric - what is described in Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler) as "the Schwarzschild singularity". As this seems to have caused confusion, I will change my use on the website to their usage. As for physical singularities, I fail to fully accept the notion that they can ever exist without associated and unresolvable paradoxes.
The second point is that you would appear to advocate ignoring the Schwarzschild solution and working solely with the Kerr solution. I fully accept that non-rotating black holes probably do not exist in nature, but the Schwarzschild solution is a mathematically valid solution to the Einstein field equations and to fail to take advantage of this fact in achieving a solution for all black holes would be perverse and probably not achievable, at least by me. In this I am following a well-trodden path followed by every graduate text on black holes that I have come across. In fact I would have thought the commonest approach in all theoretical physics.
I should also add that if you had persevered to the fifth page of the website, I do extend the solution given to the Kerr solution, so I hope you are now happy with this.
Dave
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54298 - 08/21/15 04:08 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Dave Proffitt
By this I mean the mathematical singularity in the Schwarzschild metric - what is described in Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler) as "the Schwarzschild singularity". As this seems to have caused confusion, I will change my use on the website to their usage.

I wondered if that is what you meant and then I have a huge issue with your use of it.

The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations in empty space, and is valid only OUTSIDE the gravitating body. We can put more constraints that it is also only useful approximation for the outside of slowly rotating black holes. You can not take any of this detail inside the black hole where it is totally meaningless.

Extending the Schwarzschild metric inside the black hole are interesting and I want you to do the reading. Prepare for a shock smile

If you need a start point you have it on your website under Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates which is the extended solution.

You do the same thing with Birkhoff’s theorem you fail to realize it is an exterior solution even with it highlighted red in wikipedia. You can't use it when any part under discussion isn't on the exterior.

Originally Posted By: Dave Proffitt
In this I am following a well-trodden path followed by every graduate text on black holes that I have come across. In fact I would have thought the commonest approach in all theoretical physics.

You are taking a path very different to the usual student in that your website professes to give answers, and those answers are silly like naive layman answers can be.

I loved the slamming into a rotating Born rigidity solid at the event horizon ... which is doubly impossible and gave me a morning laugh. I know of no textbook that would ever propose that ridiculous idea, that is layman crazy at it's best smile

You need to tread the usual path of what you can rely on in different circumstances and why.

Dave I have opened an account on your site and will talk to you there in a more direct manner.


Edited by Orac (08/21/15 08:56 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54300 - 08/22/15 04:38 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Hi
The thought that you have been holding back so far in your criticism is challenging. I hope you are not in fear of offending me - I thrive on criticism. You cannot reject answers you do not like out of hand. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation is a solution for non-rotating mass throughout all space. You can no more claim is does not work inside a black hole than you can claim it does not work in your back yard. Oppenheimer/Sneider's paper (1938) claimed that you cannot extend the solution through the event horizon because of the nature of the singularity there. This leads one to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid in all space and in all coordinate systems with the exception of Schwarzschild coordinates. I find this so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but for the doubter, I provide a proof that the singularity in Schwarzschild coordinates will remain in any coordinates as the metric function is an invariant function. An infinity in one coordinate system is infinite in any coordinate system.
I believe the same woolly thinking invades your attempt to limit the scope of Birkhoff's theorem to a particular region of space. They are after all closely related.
You seem to think the conclusions I eventually reach are preposterous. The existing solutions lead to(among others) wormholes, time travel, baby universes, multiple realities x, .....
I think I may be on safer ground, so far - not nearly so ridiculous.
Most importantly, and to my mind, conclusively, Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken, by my proposal. Does anyone else have a view?
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54305 - 08/23/15 05:18 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Hi Dave I really have trouble with your site postings don't seem to work so are you happy to work here.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
You cannot reject answers you do not like out of hand. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation is a solution for non-rotating mass throughout all space. You can no more claim is does not work inside a black hole than you can claim it does not work in your back yard. Oppenheimer/Sneider's paper (1938) claimed that you cannot extend the solution through the event horizon because of the nature of the singularity there. This leads one to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid in all space and in all coordinate systems with the exception of Schwarzschild coordinates. I find this so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but for the doubter, I provide a proof that the singularity in Schwarzschild coordinates will remain in any coordinates as the metric function is an invariant function. An infinity in one coordinate system is infinite in any coordinate system.

A long way to come up with an answer that I totally agree the only reference frame available at the event horizon is the speed of light which is expressly forbidden in GR. The actual problem is the same as trying to "view" the universe from a photons perspective. GR is a classical theory and that is it's classical limit.

I expressed this to Bill S in another chat a similar interface exists at the atomic level, you can't extend classical physics inside that boundary either so there is nothing unique about these sorts of interfaces.

The smooth over is to attempted to take classical spacetime across a time discontinuity which I think we both agree exists. Try taking your smoothed over version of space inside the atom and see how you go.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I believe the same woolly thinking invades your attempt to limit the scope of Birkhoff's theorem to a particular region of space. They are after all closely related.

They are and what I was trying to make you realize is there are interior and exterior solutions. Hence the equivalence between Birkhoff's theorem and gravity shell theorem. The fact you have to treat it differently tells you it's an interface just like the surface of earth or any matter is an interface.

I had real issues with one of your papers when you missed you had to change from the outside solution to the inside solution the moment a ball hit the horizon the same as you do with a ball falling to earth. The point of contact instigates the change the same as it does here on earth as it becomes part of the main mass.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Most importantly, and to my mind, conclusively, Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken, by my proposal. Does anyone else have a view?

You expressly break GR in many of your ideas.

Lets deal with one, GR inherits everything from SR and if GR doesn't cover it then you use SR, they are so to speak joined at the hip. SR states it expressly breaks Born Rigidity and Born Rigidity is a definition in the same way the speed of light is.

There was a nice technical discussion of it on one of the science forums covering all the angles
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wh...ativity.723683/

It doesn't matter how you try and attack the question you arrive at the point GR/SR are incompatible with Born Rigid bodies.

So you claim "Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken" in your theory but it has a Born Rigid body in the middle of it defies that smile


Edited by Orac (08/23/15 05:19 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54306 - 08/23/15 12:17 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
If you want a really detailed analysis leave it to a string theorist who study all these sorts of things

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rigid-bodies-are-prohibited-by.html

I have to agree with Lubos the paradox's that would open up if such a things was possible means you might as well throw all physics out.
Originally Posted By: LM
A simple Internet search finds lots of pages, books, and papers that say that perfectly rigid bodies aren't allowed according to relativity. But for certain reasons, this obviously true, fundamental, and catchy slogan isn't generally known and appreciated and if you say it and watch the reactions, you might even think that it's controversial! It's crazy.

I think that one reason why many laymen – including third-class physicists – don't like the correct answer is that the answer says that "one can't do something". They prefer the moronic "yes we can" answers to every question, even if these answers are incorrect.

The amount of stupidity and lack of understanding around basic physics on the internet at times is breath taking.

So please don't ever put a born rigid body in the middle of a black hole (worse still a rotating one) and try and tell me it is compliant with Einstein's relativity .... that is a lie.

So your theory is compliant with SR/GR up to the event horizon then takes a sharp left turn, breaks into Dave's physics on the interior which no-one but Dave can understand.


Edited by Orac (08/23/15 12:35 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54307 - 08/23/15 01:20 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Site posting now resolved.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54308 - 08/23/15 05:04 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
The danger of sticking with established theory because everyone of notes says it is so, is that it leaves one stuck in the days of plogiston and the ether. I am not suggesting that the opposite is true, but the only reason to stick to an existing view is because the underlying theory shows it to be correct, and experiment confirms it. Don't have an unduly open mind but never close it entirely.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54309 - 08/23/15 06:45 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
From http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rigid-bodies-are-prohibited-by.html
Quote:
If there existed a material that is perfectly rigid and cannot stretch or bend or tear, then it would be impossible to make it spin.

Well, the material does exist inside a Schwarzschild black hole.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54311 - 08/24/15 06:28 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 danger of sticking with established theory because everyone of notes says it is so, is that it leaves one stuck in the days of plogiston and the ether. I am not suggesting that the opposite is true, but the only reason to stick to an existing view is because the underlying theory shows it to be correct, and experiment confirms it. Don't have an unduly open mind but never close it entirely.

The problem comes back to if such a thing could happen then relativity falls as a theory, as it is built on this. As black holes are only a prediction of relativity and only relativity then lets just say black holes don't exist then shall we smile

See the problem you face, you can't rely on a theory on one hand to predict the black hole, and then pull a central tenant out and say it's all ok with hand waving.

You want a born rigid body in the middle of a black hole you can't use relativity and we have no black holes ... the end.


Edited by Orac (08/24/15 06:49 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54312 - 08/24/15 06:41 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Well, the material does exist inside a Schwarzschild black hole.

You assume it does ... whats your evidence smile

You may want to consider does classical material exist inside an atom?
Could you show me a theory that includes classic material in the atom and hasn't been falsified?

See my problem is to have a born rigid body, I need classical material smile

The densest thing we have evidence of is a neutron star and that isn't very classical matter and even according to you it opposes further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure (I saw you discuss it on your site). The even funnier part is the only classical model of a neutron star is a superfluid, do some reading smile

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity

For a very dense object it's not very rigid one would hope it's going to get rigid very quickly on it's way to the Born Rigid Body in a black hole laugh

Another problem for you a free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes. You are going to need to fix that up as well in your theory.

As you can see I haven't even got started on the problems I have with your theory. I did however dismember your theory without a single calculation and in 10 minutes before my morning coffee when I first saw it.

I have no problem with those who want to extend GR as a classical theory inside the event horizon because that is what we do as science test extensions to theories.

I even have no problem with people who want to propose a change and follow the extensions both in our normal world and inside the event horizon. Those extensions make funny things like wormholes etc and I can go look for evidence of them.

What I can't tolerate is those like many of the crackpots who want to just make up random rules that make no sense. Your theory at the moment is a stock standard version of this.

If you want to move from crackpot status, given you don't trust relativity what you need to do is go back to the start. I need a full theory explaining even why you predict a black hole to exist, and then why it has a born rigid body in it and give me some predictions of your theory.


Edited by Orac (08/24/15 09:17 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54313 - 08/24/15 12:46 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Quote:
Another problem for you a free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes.

But what about neutron stars? Do they only exist for 15 minutes?
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54314 - 08/24/15 12:48 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Quote:
given you don't trust relativity

I absolutely trust relativity - special and general.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54317 - 08/25/15 04:37 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Good luck in the search for wormholes. I am puzzled by your criteria for what is believable and what is not. The only evidence that I can offer to date is the high spin of black holes after billions of years of slowdown. Not conclusive I know. There is also the model proposed for the origin of supermassive black holes. Again, not conclusive but a better explanation than the other ad hoc processes.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54320 - 08/26/15 01:32 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
But what about neutron stars? Do they only exist for 15 minutes?

As I said QM stops it by conservation of energy and the electron-degenerate pressure.

Problem is nicely summed up here
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-a-neutron-star

The big problem is when you take a neutron inside a black hole what mechanisms are available to stop the decay smile

Historical detail related to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

So your question you need to think about:
What stabilizes neutrons against beta decay in a black hole in your theory?

You won't easily find a standard science answer on that with google this is getting a little QM specific and very layman unfriendly. So I will give you a lead in hint for it's treatment under QM

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter

"The strength of the color force makes the properties of quark matter unlike gas or plasma, instead leading to a state of matter more reminiscent of a liquid" ..... Oh Oh there goes the Born Rigid Solid again smile

Since your theory does away with all this I guess we can stop work and research on it, I just need the full theory.

Can I take a guess at the real problem here, that you didn't know that classic physics died 100 years ago, it's a reasonable approximation so we still teach it ... but we know it's wrong. You live in a Quantum universe and you can't answer these problems in classical physics.


Edited by Orac (08/26/15 03:37 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54321 - 08/26/15 02:09 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Good luck in the search for wormholes. I am puzzled by your criteria for what is believable and what is not.

I didn't say I believe in worm holes smile

What I said was you can construct a scientifically consistent model which predicts such things. Those models also predict other things that I can falsify thus I can make a scientific decision on those theories. Whether they are just "toy" models I can then evaluate.

Your theory is completely inconsistent you just randomly patch things together and I can't for the life of me work with it.

Would you accept that your computer science papers mathematics is incorrect because mathematics is not consistent and varies according to my mood and time of day and how I decide mathematics works today.

Make no mistake that is what you are doing, Born rigid bodies are as inconsistent with SR/GR as the speed of light varying. It is a drop dead condition of the theory and you can't hand wave your way out of it, as the mathematics and physics in SR/GR is very detailed.

So give me a physics and mathematics consistent theory is all I ask.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The only evidence that I can offer to date is the high spin of black holes after billions of years of slowdown.

Lets deal with that

1.) What is the evidence that says they are slowing down.
2.) I imagine hawking radiation also says they slow down so does your idea predict a different rate to hawking radiation model.


Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Not conclusive I know. There is also the model proposed for the origin of supermassive black holes. Again, not conclusive but a better explanation than the other ad hoc processes.

When I looked at your pages on supermassive black holes it looked like the standard accretion disk model, you will have to explain the differences to me.

My understanding is the problem with supermassive black holes is not creating them in the universe today it is in the early universe which was much smaller and hence denser on average than it is today. I suspect your theory will collapse in the younger denser universe which is a common problem with these theories. So you need to look at your theory consistency within the framework of the big bang.

In some ways supermassive black holes are trivial. If we could enclose space in the milky way at the radius of neptune from the sun with a latex film and filled it with the air pressure of earth a black hole would open up. It doesn't take much matter in a very large volume to create one, they are much more difficult to create in smaller volumes.


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

Top
#54322 - 08/26/15 06:23 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
It seems you would like me to accept and understand all current theory before daring to move forward. 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. 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.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54323 - 08/26/15 09:27 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Quote:
What is the evidence that says they are slowing down.

There is a vast outpouring of energy from supermassive black holes and the only mechanisms proposed are that the energy comes from the initial spin. In order to justify this, the researchers then have to posit that more spin is donated by accreting matter over time than is lost.
As I indicated, this is far from conclusive for either them or me.
Quote:
supermassive black holes it looked like the standard accretion disk model, you will have to explain the differences to me

The crucial difference is the fact that black holes cannot slow down. I then propose that occasionally, neutron stars merge with a combined spin that is unusually low, and these grow to the size they are today. Normal black holes have high spin which limits their ultimate size.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
Page 1 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.