accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

a thing of quasars?

Luigi Caselli

Silly!
Gone berserk?
Brick by brick,
You say ~
Point x point,
Coordinate
Ordinary day.
Order say,
Her\y!
Earnest One.
N _+
\8
|.....*..........*..............~(@:


_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

12's clock.
Rock.

Lock.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Once a great dreamer I was of the Cosmos but over time I have found less
dream and more reality binding my thoughts.

If I understand correctly, one of the big prize questions in physics,
both quantum and astro, is the relationship between atoms (and other
subatomic particles) and gravity. I understand the conversation in this
thread about how when a black hole forms it doesn't suddenly take on a
new and increased amount of gravitational pull on it's surrounding. I
also understand the BB analogy in that if you take 100 BB's and it's
melted equivalent there is no change in it's mass yet if you take that
mass of 100 BB's and crush it into the size of 1 BB it's gravitational
effect at the surface of the BB will indeed be much stronger than if it
were just 100 BB's in a jar. Radius, mass, and gravity work together
but it's important to visualize the relationship as dependent upon where
your measurements are being taken.

Something I've pondered about concerning black holes in particular, is
the organization of the atoms inside. I flounder to produce the name of
the researcher who studied the shapes of solids 100's of years ago;
the one that concluded that some shapes are inherently natural. I
visualize atoms as BB's that are squashable. If you put BB's in a jar
you can see that they rest in a certain way naturally. In a black hole,
or even all black holes, are the atoms that exist inside organized in
such a way? Do atoms even exist inside as we know them or are they
completely unbound and crushed further into the various quarks that make
up protons and neutrons? Do electrons survive the transformation or are
they completely removed from the mass? Is a black hole susceptable to
ground -state fluctuations?

I ask the questions but expect no answer as they very well might not be
valid questions at all and just the musings of an idiot or just more dreams.

Once a great dreamer I was

Dear Ms. Shirley,
I'll get back to you.
I knew you'd write,
An abbot's cabinent.
Gotta go
Shower my soul,
Stand under the rain.
Back in half,
Before you No.

I understand the conversation in this
thread

Yes, but do you know
Ms. B? Fancy dancer
Without her habit's
Madder? Goose down
Pillow, she's made
For me. Quack,
Quack!

important to visualize the relationship as dependent upon where
your measurements are being taken.

O, yes, I do know.
Matter's value
For me.

Long-delayed date,
Our destiny of choice
Voice.

just the musings of an idiot or just more dreams.

[Just]in! True,
Wizzard blew
In. Answer, who?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Mark Oliver:

Mark Oliver wrote:

The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics.

[clip]


The problem with that argument is that you would ultimately need to justify
the validity of the concept, "accepted".

Social acceptance, e.g., acceptance by one or many persons as a
justification for any scientific claim claim is fallacious. That would be
an example of the fallacy of 'primacy of consciousness' rather than of the
primacy of existence. What people say, is not scientific justification.
Only the facts of existents in the universe pertaining to the subject
matter being identified, and logical proof are proper justification.

The idea of, "accepted physics," implies a selected or chance number of
physicists who presumably would agree on the subject matter being claimed
true. The number of such endorsements has nothing to do with the truth of
the scientific identifications being claimed. That is the fallacy called,
'ad populem', or the appeal to quantity. In fact some theories could be
true, and at the same time no physicists would endorse the theory. Would
that mean the theory is false? No. Social metaphysics is no justification
for anything whatsoever.


The matter of "accepted" physics implies a certain level of quality of
claims submitted as well as a group of esteemed, tenured, approved,
degreed, licensed, or even, employed physicists who would decide the
acceptance of the claims being made. They would determine the social
metaphysical 'truth'. That is the fallacy of the 'appeal to authority', and
that is no justification for any claim. Simply because one or more famous
people approves of a claim or can be used as a reference for any claim does
not make that claim true.

Lastly, there is the claim that you make in the subject line that there is
indeed an agreement between the concept of the BH and what physicists
think. That is the fallacy of, 'non-sequitur', meaning that the premises
given do not result in in the conclusion stated. You allow the ready to
place commonly used notions as the premises for the statement. You have not
offered any type of scientific evidence for that claim. My guess is that
most physicists are probably highly suspicious for any claim of the
existence of, or functioning of, a Black Hole. Again, you provide and
explain no evidence.

You assert, as if it is an axiomatic truth, that there is in reality an
existent that is a Black Hole. You have not justified that. That is just
one more 'non-sequitur'.

BTW, the correct spelling is, "violates." Use a spell checker on your posts.

Ralph Hertle

Mark Oliver wrote:

The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics. Here are the problems;

1) All accepted calculations of gravitational pull are based upon mass and
the distance between two objects. It is not based upon the density or
dimensions of the same "singular" mass. Thus, when a quasar collapses it is
still the same amount of mass, only denser (smaller dimensions). Then why
would we assume that its gravitational pull will change, when its mass does
not change? Here is proof, measure the mass of 100 steel ball bearings on a
scale, then melt all of the steel bearings to a single mass from the 100
smaller bearings. The mass will not change, thus its gravitational pull
does not change either.


That is a well reasoned argument - one of a type that is exceedingly rare
in discussions of science these days.

The universal premise that you use is that mass is independent of the
shape, or shapes, of the thing, and that the mass is a property of that
existent that is the amount of its substance. Mathematics, as a measurement
science, can identify and calculate the precise amount of the mass of a
particular thing.

I would add, that the identification of that type of concept, whereby all
the specific properties except for the defining characteristic in a
scientific context, as a universal premise, is a fundamental discovery of
physics by Archimedes. He clarified for science Aristotle's concept of the
defining characteristic of a concept, one that differentiates the
discovered concept from all others.

Ralph Hertle

In which realm Macro(our realm of locality? or the micro realm with
nonlocality? Bert

In which realm Macro(our realm of locality? or the micro realm with
nonlocality? Bert

Mac!
Want fingered French Fries!

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Luigi Caselli wrote:


Since quasars are very old (high z = high distance) how so many
ultrapowerful black holes could be formed in the early ages of universe?
And why we don't have quasars with low z? Now we have a lot of black holes
formed in the last 13,7 billion years and some of these black holes could be
the power source of new quasars.

Or maybe I don't understand a thing of quasars?

Luigi Caselli

The current model for a quasar is a supermassive black hole at the center of a
galaxy (possibly driven to the levels of energy generation we calculate for it
for the distance they are determined to be by a collision with another galaxy -
based on HST images of distant quasars that show they are at the center of such
galaxy collisions). This black hole is being fed by an accretion disk
surrounding the black hole, possibly formed from gases and disrupted stars in
that region.

Quasars are believed to be more common in the early universe simply because
galaxies were being constructed at that time through the merger of clouds of
newly forming stars and gas (based again on some of the recent images from the
HST ultradeep field), so there would be more raw material to feed them. Given
time, they would sweep up the material near them and have reduced input from
greater distances, reducing the energy output. This takes time, say nearly the
current age of the universe, such that the black holes still reside at the
center of galaxies, but their feeding frenzy has been greatly reduced. But it
also implies the the collision of galaxies which result in material being
brought in close proximity to these black holes might fire them up again as
additional fuel is made available for a renewed feeding frenzy.

As to their existence at this early epoch - likely formed from the merger of
star-produced black holes in the crowded environments of the core of galaxies.
Massive stars, made mostly of hydrogen, could become more massive than those
today polluted with such heavy elements as carbon, iron, silicon, nitrogen (the
stuff we are made of). These higher mass stars would evolve even faster than
the massive stars formed today (as they are more massive than the current round
of stars), allowing them to reach the stage of forming black holes faster and
populating the cores of galaxies at the time those galaxies were forming.

Hope that helps (though it is not a complete scenario by any stretch).

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:41:56 -0400, Mark Oliver wrote:

The current accepted theory of a black hole is NOT consistent with current
accepted physics. Here are the problems;

Actually, it looks like your misunderstanding of what a black hole is and
is not is not consistent with both accepted laws of physics, and the
accepted model of a black hole.

1) All accepted calculations of gravitational pull are based upon mass and
the distance between two objects. It is not based upon the density or
dimensions of the same "singular" mass. Thus, when a quasar collapses it is
still the same amount of mass, only denser (smaller dimensions). Then why
would we assume that its gravitational pull will change, when its mass does
not change? Here is proof, measure the mass of 100 steel ball bearings on a
scale, then melt all of the steel bearings to a single mass from the 100
smaller bearings. The mass will not change, thus its gravitational pull
does not change either.

Absolutely correct. But since black holes are not purported to have
stronger gravity than any other object of the same mass, what does it have
to do with your contention above?

A black hole with a mass of one million suns does not have a stronger
gravitational pull than one million suns. It has exactly the same pull.
But a the black hole in question has the mass of one million suns in a
relatively tiny volume (mathematically, it's treated as a dimensionless
volume, a singularity - in reality, we may never know).

If you were to collapse our sun into a black-hole-sized volume, it would
be a black hole (I'm not certain, but I think the earth's mass would also
be sufficient, if you could get it down to that size). The reason the sun
isn't a black hole at its current volume is because the event horizon for
a black hole of solar mass is smaller than the sun's radius. That is, by
the time you get close enough to make the field strength large enough to
prevent the escape of light, you're below the surface of the sun.

If you were to head directly towards the center of the sun, you would
experience a steadily increasing gravitational field. As soon as you hit
the surface, the field strength would begin dropping, because more and
more of the mass is being left behind you. By the time you get to the
center, you have a net field strength of zero, since all of the mass is
(roughly) distributed equally around you, pulling equally in opposite
directions. The tidal forces would be pretty extreme in practice, of
course, since different bits of your body would be closer to different
amounts of mass. It would be a bit warm as well.

The maximum field strength is at the solar surface, and at that distance
from the center of mass, light can escape. Only by shrinking the volume
can you ever get closer to the center of that same solar mass.

2) A black hole would be a self-feeding energy force, and grow at such a
fast rate, it would swallow the entire Universe at an accelerated rate.

Nonsense, because a black hole is no attractive on large scales than its
mass equivalent in other forms. A supermassive black hole of many million
solar masses is still pulling with a tiny fraction of the force of a whole
galaxy, when measured from the same distance.

This is an economic concept of a compounded gain. If you save a dollar, you
also didn't spend a dollar, thus your theoretical gain is 2, not just 1.
The same idea applies to a black hole, as it pulls matter and energy to its
surface, its mass and subsequent gravity would increase. Thus its
gravitational pull would reach further and further, pulling in more and more
mass, this would become a self-fulfilling cycle until it pulled in the
entire mass of the Universe.

If matter weren't in motion, and the universe weren't expanding, this
would be true of the gravitational center of the universe, not any black
hole. That is, a static universe (no initial movement, no expansion)
would collapse to the point one would calculate as its gravitational
center (given the information required to calculate it, which we certainly
don't have).

But that's not our universe, and even if it were, black holes would figure
in the calculation of gravitational center exactly the same as normal
stars of the same mass, as well as diffuse gas and dust of the same mass.

NEW BLACK HOLE THEORY - a black hole is a region of space that has been
perfectly balanced, as matter and energy are separated to singular values
when a quasar expels its nuclear fuel. Matter and energy are different
manifestations of the same, thus as energy is released, matter no longer
exists. Therefore, since force and inverse square resistance are now
perfectly balanced (1=1 squared), this is a highly resistive region of space
that light cannot penetrate, as there is no distinction between force and
resistance. We observe this space as a vacuum, as force and resistance begin
to balance, yet in reality they negate each other, and become ambiguous.
This is the same effect as in noise cancellation. When force and resistance
become equals, a black hole is formed, and since light is energy, it cannot
penetrate this highly resistive region of space. Therefore, a black hole is
indeed just a black hole, where nothing can exist distinctly, not even light
energy.

This is not a theory. It is incoherent babble, where words are used
without respect to their accepted meanings.


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.