Black holes are scientific fictions.

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
A supermassive black hole (SMBH) is the largest type of
black hole, on the order of hundreds of thousands to billions of
solar masses (M), and is found in the center of almost all
massive galaxies.
#
The origin of supermassive black holes remains an open
field of research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
======.

My research.
Participants:
1) A supermassive black hole with temperature T=0K.
2) Zero vacuum with the temperature T=0K.
3) Ideal Gas with the temperature T=0K.
4) Quantum Theory that says: zero vacuum (as a cosmic fabric)
gives birth to “virtual” quantum particles.

My scenario.
According to QT the Zero Vacuum (as an Ideal Gas) gives birth
to the potential k-molar particles. The potential molar k-particles have
two forms of modifications:
a) Their collective movement creates conditions of heat: E=kT (logW)
and
b) Their individual movement create energy: E=(kb)*f .
The interaction between energy and heat created surrounded material
world of galaxies. But until today nobody explained the interaction
between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).
===.
Socratus
=========.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,472
Judging from your previous posts, I suspect you haven't done the research. You also keep using absolutes, which is very rare in nature. There is no such thing as absolute zero, for example.

Temperature for black holes is an artifact cause by vacuum foam. In and of themselves they do not really have a temperature.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,222
until today nobody explained the interaction
between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).
It's wonderful to see somebody changing the limits of human knowledge, but I wanted to ask, is your avatar a photo of Paul Simon, a little blurred out?
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
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.

Here's my theory (which may be wrong as hell), but I'll throw it out anyway.
The fusion process that creates iron from the previous elements consumes energy (both thermal and gravitational) and the absorption of energy rapidly cooled the core.

The process is like a fission bomb going off in reverse and it causes a very rapid implosion rather than an explosion. However, the implosion creates an acoustical shock wave which actually radiates outward. It's like how the backward motion of a speaker generates a wave that actually moves away from the diaphragm.

Imagine running a video of an atom bomb in reverse and watching the implosion of the products of the explosion. However, the implosion would also create a shock wave that radiates away from the site. I might also suggest that recalescence (the sudden release of heat due to a phase change) may also play a role in generating shock waves.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,518
Here's my theory (which may be wrong as hell), but I'll throw it out anyway.
The fusion process that creates iron from the previous elements consumes energy (both thermal and gravitational) and the absorption of energy rapidly cooled the core.

The process is like a fission bomb going off in reverse and it causes a very rapid implosion rather than an explosion. However, the implosion creates an acoustical shock wave which actually radiates outward. It's like how the backward motion of a speaker generates a wave that actually moves away from the diaphragm.

Imagine running a video of an atom bomb in reverse and watching the implosion of the products of the explosion. However, the implosion would also create a shock wave that radiates away from the site. I might also suggest that recalescence (the sudden release of heat due to a phase change) may also play a role in generating shock waves.
It's mainly correct for the Type II supernova that leaves a neutron star behind from the iron core implosion but for a Type Ia supernova the core compresses so quickly when the electron pressure fails the fusion energy generated at the center of the carbon core explodes the entire star in seconds as the reaction moves to the surface of the core.

 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
It's mainly correct for the Type II supernova that leaves a neutron star behind from the iron core implosion but for a Type Ia supernova the core compresses so quickly when the electron pressure fails the fusion energy generated at the center of the carbon core explodes the entire star in seconds as the reaction moves to the surface of the core.

So does the fusion of the heavier elements in the core region (Co/Ni) generate energy or absorb energy?
 

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
a) Thanks to science we know that the earth doesn’t
stay on three turtles.
Thanks to science we know that the heavens don’t
stay on the shoulders of the Atlas.
. . . . etc.

b) Thanks to modern science we know that existence began
from “big bang”.
Thanks to modern science we know that more than 90%
of masses in the universe are “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
Thanks to modern science we know that “supermassive black
holes” can “eat” all “big bang” matter.
Thanks to modern science we know that “string-particles”
exist in the 11-D or even in the 27- dimensions.
==.
My conclusion.
Even having high modern technology doesn’t prevent scientists
to create myths on the physical / mathematical basis.
===.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,472
You throw we know around way too loosely. We have some good theories and observations, but folks who say they know don't. That does not include most reputable scientists. What they know is what they observe, they they try to explain the evidence, with the proviso the theory will be modified to adjust for new observations.
 

profbuxton

Joined Feb 21, 2014
419
No really convinced that the "three turtles" idea is wrong. But it could be four so one can have a break.
We don't "know" that the "big bang" actually happened.
We don't "know" that "dark matter,dark energy" are real.
We don't "know" exactly what "black holes" are or do.
We don't "know" anything about "string theory".
And last of all we don't "know" if a creator exists.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,518
Absolute scientific certainty of known facts is meaningless, there are still people who think the earth is flat in this country who 'allegedly' have completed a grade school education.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
No really convinced that the "three turtles" idea is wrong. But it could be four so one can have a break.
We don't "know" that the "big bang" actually happened.
We don't "know" that "dark matter,dark energy" are real.
We don't "know" exactly what "black holes" are or do.
We don't "know" anything about "string theory".
And last of all we don't "know" if a creator exists.
I do know that if you give enough monkeys enough time and enough keyboards and access to the Internet...
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,222
I guess I'm not going to find out if the avatar is Paul Simon.
Can't have a conversation with a person who doesn't respond.:(
 

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
No really convinced that the "three turtles" idea is wrong. But it could be four so one can have a break.
We don't "know" that the "big bang" actually happened.
We don't "know" that "dark matter,dark energy" are real.
We don't "know" exactly what "black holes" are or do.
We don't "know" anything about "string theory".
And last of all we don't "know" if a creator exists.
we don't need a creator to know the truth
the truth is on the surface
a) at first was “singular point”
b) when the "big bang" actually happened.
c) later “big bang was swallowed by black holes"
d) as result of this “swallowing” the “singular point” was created

the cycle regenerated …..and today it is in the state of T=2,7K
====.
 

profbuxton

Joined Feb 21, 2014
419
Socratus, its good to see that you are so positive in your "facts". Please come back when you have definite proof of your statements.
While we do have many observations and measurements its all still theory. But I doubt we will ever know for sure.
 

scheua

Joined Mar 17, 2016
9
Unfortunately, obscurantism is very widespread nowadays. In my countries, there are even people who argue that gravitaty pushes things apart, not pulls them together :)
 
Top