Black holes are scientific fictions.

Discussion in 'General Science' started by socratus, Mar 8, 2016.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Black holes are scientific fictions.
    ==..
    In 1783 John Michell wrote that a big massive star would have
    such a strong gravity field that light could not escape. Such objects
    was called "black holes".

    In 1928 Chandrasekhar realized that a star of more than about
    one and a half times the mass of our Sun would collapse to a zero size.
    In the other words Chandrasekhar mass-limit law says that stars mush
    bigger than our Sun cannot exist in Nature ( it is impossible to create
    snowball as big as the mountain Everest) Chandrasekhar's limit law
    was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983.
    So, in my opinion, "black holes" are scientific fictions.
    ==..

    a) But astronomers observed regions in the Universe without any light.
    For example: unseen object called Cygnus X and a number of other
    objects in our galaxy. Using entropy , quantum fluctuation ,
    uncertainty principle astrophysicists say that the temperature of these
    regions are only one ten-millionth of a degree above absolute zero.
    The difference is so slight that I can say these regions have the absolute
    zero temperature: T=0K.
    ( P.S.
    Without entropy , quantum fluctuation . . . etc. their temperature is T=0K).

    b) The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
    is so small (the average density of all substance in the
    Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it
    cannot ‘close’ the Universe into a sphere and therefore
    the Universe as a whole is ‘open’, endless, infinite.

    c) Only in local, limited regions this T=0K is broken.
    In these limited, local regions the Newton’s and Einstein’s
    Gravity limited laws are worked.

    d) Book.
    “There has also been mounting evidence that so-called
    “supermassive black holes” lurk in the cores of most galaxies,
    including our own Milky Way. Today, many physicists suspect
    that giant black holes may be among the most ancient and important
    objects in the universe, likely guiding the evolution of the galaxies
    that now harbor them”.
    / Book: “Universe on a T-shirt” , page 113, by Dan Falk./

    My commentary.

    1) Chandrasekhar mass-limit law forbid existence of stars much
    bigger than our Sun and therefore the source of so-called
    “supermassive black holes” must be another.

    2) As infinite cosmic continuum the Universe has the absolute
    zero temperature: T=0K and it is core / harbor / source of all galaxies.

    3) The evolution of all galaxies was begun from T=0K by the scheme:
    a) first chemical element Helium II ( T=2,17K)
    b) second chemical element Helium I ( T=4,2K)
    Every scientific amateur knows about strange behavior of He-II and He-I.
    ===…
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
    ============…
     
  2. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
  3. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,771
    930
    I wish all these celestial secrets could hurry up and be found already.
    They are delaying some serious electronics work, and how can I solder without the aid of a unified theory of everthing?
    I mean, come on! Find them answers already. PCB's don't assemble themselves ya know.
     
    panic mode, wayneh, nsaspook and 2 others like this.
  4. profbuxton

    Member

    Feb 21, 2014
    233
    68
    Probably no more than "dark matter" or "dark energy" but probably somewhat less.
     
  5. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,090
    3,027
    Nope. The limit regards stable white dwarfs and is in fact an argument in support of black holes.
    Per the Wiki:
    "This limit was initially ignored by the community of scientists because such a limit would logically require the existence of black holes, which were considered a scientific impossibility at the time."

    And your data source is? Scientists can't agree on the temperature of our planet, let alone the universe that lays beyond our observational limits. The little bit we CAN see does appear to have mass and energy in it, so not an average of 0K.

    And again, your data? Are you implying that elements formed in situ out of the void as the universe warmed somehow?
    I doubt it. I've worked in the sciences for over 35 years and never heard of it.

    Outrageous claims without data are just idle chatter not worth writing down.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    There is some very good indirect evidence besides. Imagine suns bigger than ours whipping around an invisible mass in the center of our galaxy like comets do our sun. This in fact has been observed. Part of the thing is, when they do this rather neat near 180° they do it at extremely high speeds, just like comets. So whatever it is it is both very dark and much more massive than the suns it is so casually slinging around.

    There there are the gravitational wave detections that made the news. Something incredibly massive created them.

    Lensing from a dark source has also been observed.

    You can not pick and choose your facts, reading is your friend. Observed evidence beats theory every time, but in this case the evidence backs the theory you so casually discard.
     
  7. tracecom

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 16, 2010
    3,869
    1,393
    No? It seems to me that picking and choosing "facts" is the favorite pastime of all humans. One man's fact is another man's fiction.
     
  8. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    Facts can reflect truth, but are not equal to it. The truth is important.

     
  9. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    Facts don't care if you believe them or not. They exist. As with a lot of science the old guard has to die off for the evidence to be accepted as it is. This was true with tectonic plates and many other examples.

    In this case we have one individual ignoring a fairly large spectrum of observed well document evidence to push a theory that frankly does make sense. There are a lot of debates in science that need to be worked out, but this is not one of them IMO.

    For those who think we can have all the facts I would point out that the more we learn the more questions it generates. May it always be so.
     
  10. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    Absolutely. Most things are a lot more right today than wrong. Our current knowledge is vastly incomplete from the status of knowing everything but IMO we can say with a high level of confidence that whatever theory we develop in the future has to be compatible with our current theory of the universe we see and measure. Even the 'wrong' flat-earth theory is close to right for people who only lived and traveled short distances with flat latitude and longitude lines because of the small curvature of the earths sphere per mile.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong
     
  11. tracecom

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 16, 2010
    3,869
    1,393
    Man has always treated his current beliefs as facts, many of which turned out to be wrong, and many more of which will also turn out to be wrong. We should exhale, and realize how small, insignificant, and ignorant we really are.
     
  12. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    Every time I see a 'free' energy device I have the same thoughts.
     
  13. hp1729

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2015
    1,939
    218
    Just because some concepts don't hold up does not mean the overall concept of black holes is invalid.
     
  14. tracecom

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 16, 2010
    3,869
    1,393
    I agree. A few wrong assumptions doesn't disprove a theory any more than a few right ones prove it.
     
  15. vhenuscam

    New Member

    Mar 9, 2016
    3
    0
    same sentiments here. everything needs some more testing and proof.
     
  16. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    a) A- bomb destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    b) Where did A-bomb’s masses come from?
    They came from U-238
    c) . . . etc.
    =====…
    a) Cold stars created black holes.
    b) Where did cold star’s masses come from?
    They came from hot stars.
    c) Where did hot star’s masses come from?
    “Hmm . . . . if I know where hot star’s masses come from,
    then I didn’t need the rest scientific foolishness.” / Socratus /
    ==..
    P.S.
    The origin of supermassive black holes remains an open field of research.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
    =.
     
  17. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    Cold stars? You really are weak on theory here. Black holes are born in the most violent events of the universe, where a single star outshines the entire galaxy it is in while it dies. AKA, a super nova. Stars rarely go cold, unless you are talking about neutron stars, which are born from more conventional nova. They take a while to cool though, and are formed from degenerate matter.

    Some of the most spectacular pictures from Hubble are the aftermaths of the supernova, the expanding gas clouds, which are loaded with newly formed heavy elements, like iron and above.

    Clump enough hydrogen together and there will be heat. Even Jupiter seems to create more heat than it takes in.
     
  18. Glenn Holland

    Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    I have a question about the temperature associated with the collapse of large stars and the supernova process.

    When iron is created by fusion of the previous lighter elements, the process is "endothermic" where both thermal energy and potential energy are converted into mass (in accordance with E=mc Sqrd). So the temperature drops during this process, but how low can the temperature go?

    Also, what specifically causes the star to explode (supernova) during this process? The supernova explosion must be caused by the conversion of thermal energy into a sufficiently large amount of kinetic energy so the mass can be expelled at escape velocity. From my research on the supernova process, it is poorly understood and the current theories don't make much sense.
     
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,535
    I have always been fascinated by black holes, so have read everything I could on them. The thermal energy is not converted into mass, mass itself is fused into new configurations, such as iron. I couldn't tell you the processes involved with that, but it is similar to how 2 hydrogen atoms are fused to make helium, and hydrogen and helium are fused to make lithium. Usually iron is the last element formed in the star before it blows.

    As to where the energy comes from, when the fuel is burned out (at this point a lot of it is converted to iron) the pressure from the nuclear processes are no longer sufficient to prevent the collapse of the star into a black hole. As I understand it, several processes occur at this point. You have the condensing of a star sized mass (a red dwarf) into a really small mass (before the black hole itself starts to form) so all that heat is also compressed into a much smaller area. You also have a refiring of exotic nuclear processes at a much higher energy level that can be achieved conventionally. The real kick is from the black hole itself, as gravity (normally a weak force) starts tearing individual atoms into small pieces in vast numbers before they fall into the unstable event horizon.

    So there is a preliminary explosion that blows off the outer shell of the star (remember, these are much larger than our sun, giant stars) and forms a nebula. Then the real show begins, as processes not seen since the big bang start coming into play. A neutrino can pass through a light year of lead without interaction. Yet it has been speculated that the neutrino flux around a super nova is so dense that it alone would kill living matter. The few neutrino detections we have occurred when a supernova radiation front passed the earth.

    Theoretical side effects of black holes.

    If you could spin up a black hole to really high rotations you could (in theory) create a hole to somewhere else as the black hole assumes the shape of a donut. I think this is a wormhole, but am not sure. Where this hole goes is anyones guess, perhaps into another universe.

    There there is the double event horizon effects from static charges, where it is possible to go into an event horizon and come out again (I suspect fragile matter would not survive).

    The discovery of super massive black holes in the centers of galaxies is relatively new.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2016
    nsaspook likes this.
  20. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,163
    The 'explosion' is gravity driven in opposition to the radiation pressure of the fusion process and electron degeneracy pressure. When the fusion stage goes endothermic it loses the radiation pressure causing a rapid implosion of the stars material as electron degeneracy is overcome (electrons to merge with protons to become neutrons chandrasekhar limit) by gravity that generates a massive shock-wave as the still falling outer material bounces off the rebounding solid fusing/neutron core of the star and begins to move outward in a Type I/II supernova.

     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2016
    cmartinez likes this.
Loading...