Black hole question....

What determines the edge of a black hole? The theory was explained in a
small way but, it doesn't seem to make sense.

If a black hole is is sort of like a tornado in shape.. That really
doesn't make sense. If it were true, then there would have to be no way
of getting to the bottom or underside of the Vortex unless, the sphere
of mass at the center of the vortex is actully fluctuating and is not
really the center. Which in all actuallity, is probably the case The
induction does not rely on the fineness of the circulation, only that
the circulation is. So to presume that the bottom of the vortex is sort
of rounded (for lack of the proper term) makes sense, but I don't
believe the set shape of the vortex actually is that fine of pattern. I
know of course, that even if there is no fluctuation of the mass at the
bottom of the vortex, would continue to have the rounded shape on all
sides.

That's a little confusing to me... Now, saying that...

Okay, If a person approaches a black hole, to me it would seem to have
that person always aligned to the center of the vortex. Otherwise, if
all black holes have defineabble edges that you could approach, then the
universe to me would reveal itself to be finite especially if all of the
vortices aligned themselves toward a central point in the universe. Kind
of like tornadoes or even vortices caused by toilet flushes. The water
at the top determines the edge of the vortex. The same with Tornadoes,
they have an edge that is determined and limited by the atmosphere or or
land.

Or, is the directional positioning of black holes purely random?


Just fishing,

NS

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the group you
posted it to? You would be better off posting in sci.astro or even alt.astronomy.

But more to your question....

NS wrote:
What determines the edge of a black hole? The theory was explained in a
small way but, it doesn't seem to make sense.

If a black hole is is sort of like a tornado in shape.. That really
doesn't make sense. If it were true, then there would have to be no way
of getting to the bottom or underside of the Vortex unless, the sphere
of mass at the center of the vortex is actully fluctuating and is not
really the center. Which in all actuallity, is probably the case The
induction does not rely on the fineness of the circulation, only that
the circulation is. So to presume that the bottom of the vortex is sort
of rounded (for lack of the proper term) makes sense, but I don't
believe the set shape of the vortex actually is that fine of pattern. I
know of course, that even if there is no fluctuation of the mass at the
bottom of the vortex, would continue to have the rounded shape on all
sides.

Okay, you are confusing the model of a black hole with a map of its gravity
field (and a two-dimensional map at that). In its simplest form (a nonrotating,
noncharged black hole), the model is that of a region of space where the escape
velocity is the speed of light (the "surface" of the black hole) and its mass
concentration - the singularity. Think of the energy of escape getting higher
and higher as you get closer and closer to this mass concentration, requiring
higher and higher velocities to escape. When you are at that distance where the
escape speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole. No
solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.

Now if you map the curvature of space-time produced by the presence of that mass
singularity, it is simplest to map it onto a 2-D surface as a warping of that
surface, with the steepness of the warp corresponding the the increase in
gravity (which is just strongly curved space-time). In 2-D, this results in a
third dimension of depth into 3-D. But that is just a convenience for drawing,
even perspective drawing. Since space-time is 4-D, we have not come up with a
way of picturing this conveniently. So, we reduce to the dimensions we can
portray and we get that funnel you allude to.

Getting back to our black hole model, when spin is added, additional "parts" of
the black hole appear. But you are still talking about an object that is
spheroidal (not necessarily spherical) in shape defined not by a surface but by
a region of space where the escape speed is the speed of light.


That's a little confusing to me... Now, saying that...

Okay, If a person approaches a black hole, to me it would seem to have
that person always aligned to the center of the vortex. Otherwise, if
all black holes have defineabble edges that you could approach, then the
universe to me would reveal itself to be finite especially if all of the
vortices aligned themselves toward a central point in the universe. Kind
of like tornadoes or even vortices caused by toilet flushes. The water
at the top determines the edge of the vortex. The same with Tornadoes,
they have an edge that is determined and limited by the atmosphere or or
land.

Okay, now you are really on the confused side. Black holes, especially spinning
black holes, are probably randomly oriented, just as stars seem to be. Makes
sense since it is the massive stars that probably produce black holes. The
vortex/tornado is not the black hole but a calculation of its gravitational
field strength at different distances rendered in 2-D since we cannot render
4-D, as I mention above.

But the other point of confusion is this misconception of a center of the
universe. In current cosmology, with the Big Bang model (or its inflationary
variants), there is no center nor is there an edge. For those to exist, you
would have had a preexisting space into which the universe flooded. That is not
what the Big Bang theory implies (though many not liking it or not understanding
it or both set up that scenario in order to attempt to knock the theory down).
Space and time came into existence with the Big Bang and has been expanding
since that time.

And, no, there is no explanation of what initiated that initial expansion within
the Big Bang models for what they actually do is attempt to explain what we
observe today. Our current physics is inadequate in describing the conditions
of the universe at the time of the initial expansion and a little beyond it.

Now, if you or anyone else replies to this thread, please consider replying with
alt.astronomy or sci.astro as the newsgroup rather than this one as they are
more appropriate for the discussion of these topics.

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the group you
posted it to? You would be better off posting in sci.astro or even alt.astronomy.

But more to your question....

NS wrote:
What determines the edge of a black hole? The theory was explained in a
small way but, it doesn't seem to make sense.

If a black hole is is sort of like a tornado in shape.. That really
doesn't make sense. If it were true, then there would have to be no way
of getting to the bottom or underside of the Vortex unless, the sphere
of mass at the center of the vortex is actully fluctuating and is not
really the center. Which in all actuallity, is probably the case The
induction does not rely on the fineness of the circulation, only that
the circulation is. So to presume that the bottom of the vortex is sort
of rounded (for lack of the proper term) makes sense, but I don't
believe the set shape of the vortex actually is that fine of pattern. I
know of course, that even if there is no fluctuation of the mass at the
bottom of the vortex, would continue to have the rounded shape on all
sides.

Okay, you are confusing the model of a black hole with a map of its gravity
field (and a two-dimensional map at that). In its simplest form (a nonrotating,
noncharged black hole), the model is that of a region of space where the escape
velocity is the speed of light (the "surface" of the black hole) and its mass
concentration - the singularity. Think of the energy of escape getting higher
and higher as you get closer and closer to this mass concentration, requiring
higher and higher velocities to escape. When you are at that distance where the
escape speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole. No
solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.

Now if you map the curvature of space-time produced by the presence of that mass
singularity, it is simplest to map it onto a 2-D surface as a warping of that
surface, with the steepness of the warp corresponding the the increase in
gravity (which is just strongly curved space-time). In 2-D, this results in a
third dimension of depth into 3-D. But that is just a convenience for drawing,
even perspective drawing. Since space-time is 4-D, we have not come up with a
way of picturing this conveniently. So, we reduce to the dimensions we can
portray and we get that funnel you allude to.

Getting back to our black hole model, when spin is added, additional "parts" of
the black hole appear. But you are still talking about an object that is
spheroidal (not necessarily spherical) in shape defined not by a surface but by
a region of space where the escape speed is the speed of light.


That's a little confusing to me... Now, saying that...

Okay, If a person approaches a black hole, to me it would seem to have
that person always aligned to the center of the vortex. Otherwise, if
all black holes have defineabble edges that you could approach, then the
universe to me would reveal itself to be finite especially if all of the
vortices aligned themselves toward a central point in the universe. Kind
of like tornadoes or even vortices caused by toilet flushes. The water
at the top determines the edge of the vortex. The same with Tornadoes,
they have an edge that is determined and limited by the atmosphere or or
land.

Okay, now you are really on the confused side. Black holes, especially spinning
black holes, are probably randomly oriented, just as stars seem to be. Makes
sense since it is the massive stars that probably produce black holes. The
vortex/tornado is not the black hole but a calculation of its gravitational
field strength at different distances rendered in 2-D since we cannot render
4-D, as I mention above.

But the other point of confusion is this misconception of a center of the
universe. In current cosmology, with the Big Bang model (or its inflationary
variants), there is no center nor is there an edge. For those to exist, you
would have had a preexisting space into which the universe flooded. That is not
what the Big Bang theory implies (though many not liking it or not understanding
it or both set up that scenario in order to attempt to knock the theory down).
Space and time came into existence with the Big Bang and has been expanding
since that time.

And, no, there is no explanation of what initiated that initial expansion within
the Big Bang models for what they actually do is attempt to explain what we
observe today. Our current physics is inadequate in describing the conditions
of the universe at the time of the initial expansion and a little beyond it.

Now, if you or anyone else replies to this thread, please consider replying with
alt.astronomy or sci.astro as the newsgroup rather than this one as they are
more appropriate for the discussion of these topics.

J.Scott Miller managed to scribble:

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the
group you posted it to?

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering
questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some
people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.


You would be better off posting in sci.astro or even alt.astronomy.


Personally, I didn't know about the other groups or I would have posted
there (as well). Thanks for trying to demean ...then inform... geez...


When you are at that distance where the escape
speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole. No
solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.


The Vortex (of gravity) I speak of is and has been repeated in
documentaries very frequently and was/is part of the model that Mr.
Hawking has listed in his book. Are these people wrong? I have even seen
other documentaries where there is a core to a black hole and it has
matter that is highly gravitational.

I don't doubt that there are black holes that swirl. I do doubt that
there is a swirling motion to debris falling into a black hole as
represented. Especially, when the closer you get to the center the
higher the gravitational force. Now, if there was a coexisting
gravitational force applying itself to the black hole coming from the
side or where ever then a swirling pattern may appear but if I drop a
heavy object from a 10 story building then it immediately falls to the
ground. It does not swirl on its way to the ground.


NS

J.Scott Miller managed to scribble:

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the
group you posted it to?

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering
questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some
people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.


You would be better off posting in sci.astro or even alt.astronomy.


Personally, I didn't know about the other groups or I would have posted
there (as well). Thanks for trying to demean ...then inform... geez...


When you are at that distance where the escape
speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole. No
solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.


The Vortex (of gravity) I speak of is and has been repeated in
documentaries very frequently and was/is part of the model that Mr.
Hawking has listed in his book. Are these people wrong? I have even seen
other documentaries where there is a core to a black hole and it has
matter that is highly gravitational.

I don't doubt that there are black holes that swirl. I do doubt that
there is a swirling motion to debris falling into a black hole as
represented. Especially, when the closer you get to the center the
higher the gravitational force. Now, if there was a coexisting
gravitational force applying itself to the black hole coming from the
side or where ever then a swirling pattern may appear but if I drop a
heavy object from a 10 story building then it immediately falls to the
ground. It does not swirl on its way to the ground.


NS

NS wrote:
J.Scott Miller managed to scribble:

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the
group you posted it to?

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering
questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some
people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.


Shouldn't talk about your shortcomings. Effective communication starts with
knowledge and some has been imparted to you. Use it to communicate more
effectively.


When you are at that distance where the escape
speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole.
No solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.



The Vortex (of gravity) I speak of is and has been repeated in
documentaries very frequently and was/is part of the model that Mr.
Hawking has listed in his book. Are these people wrong? I have even seen
other documentaries where there is a core to a black hole and it has
matter that is highly gravitational.

Further proof that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Go back and review
said documentaries and texts. You will find the descriptions give are of the
gravity field strength, not the appearance of the black hole.



I don't doubt that there are black holes that swirl. I do doubt that
there is a swirling motion to debris falling into a black hole as
represented.

Then please feel free to rewrite the laws of conservation of angular momentum.
We all anticipate this new hypothesis. Oh, you have never heard of conservation
of angular momentum (like you have never heard of other astronomy related news
groups). Then I suggest you grab yourself a physics book and have at it. Maybe
you will then figure out why material falling from one body in motion around
another body will not fall directly on it but move about it.

NS wrote:
J.Scott Miller managed to scribble:

Okay, first off, what does this have to do with solar astronomy, the
group you posted it to?

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering
questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some
people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.


Shouldn't talk about your shortcomings. Effective communication starts with
knowledge and some has been imparted to you. Use it to communicate more
effectively.


When you are at that distance where the escape
speed is the speed of light, you are at the edge of the black hole.
No solid surface here, just a region of space you cannot escape from.



The Vortex (of gravity) I speak of is and has been repeated in
documentaries very frequently and was/is part of the model that Mr.
Hawking has listed in his book. Are these people wrong? I have even seen
other documentaries where there is a core to a black hole and it has
matter that is highly gravitational.

Further proof that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. Go back and review
said documentaries and texts. You will find the descriptions give are of the
gravity field strength, not the appearance of the black hole.



I don't doubt that there are black holes that swirl. I do doubt that
there is a swirling motion to debris falling into a black hole as
represented.

Then please feel free to rewrite the laws of conservation of angular momentum.
We all anticipate this new hypothesis. Oh, you have never heard of conservation
of angular momentum (like you have never heard of other astronomy related news
groups). Then I suggest you grab yourself a physics book and have at it. Maybe
you will then figure out why material falling from one body in motion around
another body will not fall directly on it but move about it.

NS Posted:

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.

Its not arrogant at all. Its a simple fact that the group alt.astronomy.solar
is for the discussion of the sun and solar observations. Black holes and
similar topics are off-topic according to the charter, and questions about
them would be more effectively answered on groups like alt.astronomy or
sci.astro. You run into these groups in the sci and alt hierarchies *before*
you run into alt.astronomy.solar, so they would be the ones to look at first
before you go into the deeper-level groups for discussion of specific topics.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

NS Posted:

Very Arrogantly put! This is and should be a forum for answering questions not trying to demean the people asking questions. But some people don't know how to communicate effectively...do you.

Its not arrogant at all. Its a simple fact that the group alt.astronomy.solar
is for the discussion of the sun and solar observations. Black holes and
similar topics are off-topic according to the charter, and questions about
them would be more effectively answered on groups like alt.astronomy or
sci.astro. You run into these groups in the sci and alt hierarchies *before*
you run into alt.astronomy.solar, so they would be the ones to look at first
before you go into the deeper-level groups for discussion of specific topics.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************