accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

Southern Hospitality wrote:

[snip]

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?


Consider neutron stars, which are much less dense than black holes,
but even they no longer have any atomic structure. They're thought to
be made of 'degenerate' matter, sometimes called "neutronium", in
which all the empty space has been squeezed out of the atoms, fusing
the protons and electrons into what's in effect a gigantic nucleus. I
don't know much about what the substance of a black hole is supposed
to be like on a microscopic scale, but whatever it is I'm pretty sure
it's nothing at all like 'ordinary' atomic matter.

Were you perhaps thinking of Kepler, who (beside his more famous
astronomical work) did some research into polyhedra, IIANM
discovering a number of stellated forms?

--
Odysseus

S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert

S.H.
There can be no atoms inside
a BH.

Got milk?

_______
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

Odysseus wrote:


Consider neutron stars, which are much less dense than black holes,
but even they no longer have any atomic structure. They're thought to
be made of 'degenerate' matter, sometimes called "neutronium", in
which all the empty space has been squeezed out of the atoms, fusing
the protons and electrons into what's in effect a gigantic nucleus.


This has been my thinking as well. Going only by the laymans
explainations, I'd thought it similar to the newly witnessed
'Bose-Einsteinian Condensates'. Similar in that as a whole mass, it's
makeup is bound as one piece, if that makes any sense.

Were you perhaps thinking of Kepler, who (beside his more famous
astronomical work) did some research into polyhedra, IIANM
discovering a number of stellated forms?


I did some research on this and I don't think it's Kepler but more like
Archimedes or Euclid (or any of the other hundred or so geometers of the
past).

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert


No argument there. Is there any possibility that the particles that
make up a black hole are the same ones that made up the universe before
the big-bang?

Mark Our sun is 99% of the mass (gravity force ) of the solar system.
Mark ask yourself why everything has not fallen into the sun. Bert

Hi S.H. Particles formed after the BB Before the BB the cosmos was in a
quantum foam state.(bubbles) Don't be a wise guy and ask where the
bubbles came form. nightbat will tell you I;ll throw a dart,and give you
a sci-fiction answer(better than none) Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi S.H. Particles formed after the BB Before the BB the cosmos was in a
quantum foam state.(bubbles) Don't be a wise guy and ask where the
bubbles came form. nightbat will tell you I;ll throw a dart,and give you
a sci-fiction answer(better than none) Bert

I prefer no answers than sci-fiction answers.
It's not so difficult to admit that we don't have an answer at all about the
before BB.

Luigi Caselli

In message , Southern
Hospitality writes
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert


No argument there. Is there any possibility that the particles that
make up a black hole are the same ones that made up the universe before
the big-bang?

The question doesn't have meaning. For one thing, Bert's wrong about
atoms inside a black hole. Conditions inside the event horizon are the
same as those outside, as far as anyone knows, just that there's no
communication with it so we can't really know. It's only at the region
where tidal forces destroy matter that atoms can no longer exist..
And if the standard big bang theory is right, there was nothing before
it. Certainly nothing we can know about. AFAIK, we can't know anything
about conditions before the collision in an ekpyrotic universe, which
seems to be the most popular alternative to the standard model.

On 6 Oct 2004 17:27:05 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

"Mark Oliver" wrote in alt.astronomy:


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.

It is. Escape velocity is the critical factor that makes it impossible
for anything, including light, to escape a black hole.

So, how do the gravitons get past the event horizon to pull things
into the black hole?