Blackholes

Hey dudes I have a question for you guys.What happens to the matter that enters into a black hole.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Hey dudes I have a question for you guys.What happens to the matter that enters into a black hole.

Whatever mass, electric charge, and angular momentum the matter has is
probably transferred to the black hole. Whatever other properties the
matter has disappear. Since physics is largely unable to explain what
happens inside the event horizon, any understanding of what happens to
the matter itself is currently poor and speculative.

On 04/09/2012 14:25, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Hey dudes I have a question for you guys.What happens to the matter that enters into a black hole.

Whatever mass, electric charge, and angular momentum the matter has is
probably transferred to the black hole. Whatever other properties the
matter has disappear. Since physics is largely unable to explain what
happens inside the event horizon, any understanding of what happens to
the matter itself is currently poor and speculative.

That which happens inside a black hole is invisible to the universe outside.

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

In fact the last stable circular orbit for a non rotating black hole
radius Rs is at 3Rs and for a maximally spinning one at Rs and 9Rs
depending on the sense of the orbital angular moment wrt that of the BH.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.

On Sep 4, 7:21*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown

wrote:
Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.

None of you get the joke - 'big bang'/black hole are both the same
side of the same no center/no circumference ideologies,a figment of
the imagination for people who have lost all connection to astronomy
and the amazing celestial arena where so many things are happening
with so many effects on the Earth.

People are required to snap out of these things where unfortunate
people like yourself and Brown imagine a spinning moon or can no
longer associate one rotation of the Earth with one 24 hour day and
things like that.

It is a joy to quietly explain historical and technical details to
people who actually love what our ancestors achieved,some people more
than others like to hear of these facets of astronomy,and looking to
the past or to the future there are so many topics to consider and
work,none of which involves impossible entities and events.

On 9/4/12 12:21 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.


When we are able to measure the mass of a stellar size black
hole accurately and then again after some gobbling event and
the mass has increased, we can not use the "infinite time"
argument. Of course, that is an unlikely scenario.

THE MASS OF THE BLACK HOLE IN CYGNUS X-1
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/...18A5FD6DE4B.c2

Abstract
Cygnus X-1 is a binary star system that is comprised of a black hole and
a massive giant companion star in a tight orbit. Building on our
accurate distance measurement reported in the preceding paper, we first
determine the radius of the companion star, thereby constraining the
scale of the binary system. To obtain a full dynamical model of the
binary, we use an extensive collection of optical photometric and
spectroscopic data taken from the literature. By using all of the
available observational constraints, we show that the orbit is slightly
eccentric (both the radial velocity and photometric data independently
confirm this result) and that the companion star rotates roughly 1.4
times its pseudosynchronous value. We find a black hole mass of M = 14.8
± 1.0 M ☉, a companion mass of M opt = 19.2 ± 1.9 M ☉, and the angle of
inclination of the orbital plane to our line of sight of i = 27.1 ± 0.8 deg.

On 04/09/2012 18:21, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.

As far as an observer on the outside of the event horizon is concerned
the object just gets ever more redshifted without ever quite crossing
over, but for an observer sat on the infalling matter nothing special
happens as they cross the BH boundary (except that they can never leave
again) provided the thing is big enough that they are not ripped apart
by tidal forces. They will hit the middle of the BH with certainty and
in a time that is not too many multiples of the free fall time. This is
from classical Misner, Thorne & Wheeler Gravitation. At some point tidal
forces will inevitably spagettify them - a nasty way to go.

The tricky bit is the singularity right at the centre which is extremely
unfriendly to physics and I kind of hope does not exist.

But don't take my word for it here is a one way trip simulation :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lack-hole.html

It is also possible that an as yet undiscovered repulsive force kicks in
at ultra high energies and inside the BH envelope is actually a finite
sphere of degenerate quark soup or whatever quarks are made of soup.
Since we cannot ever observe it directly this would have to be inferred
from high energy physics or by interpreting observations of ultra high
energy gamma ray bursts as BH coalesce.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 4, 8:25Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/4/12 12:21 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:









On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.

Â* Â*When we are able to measure the mass of a stellar size black
Â* Â*hole accurately and then again after some gobbling event and
Â* Â*the mass has increased, we can not use the "infinite time"
Â* Â*argument. Of course, that is an unlikely scenario.

Â* Â*THE MASS OF THE BLACK HOLE IN CYGNUS X-1

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/...=345507C211B3C....

Abstract
Cygnus X-1 is a binary star system that is comprised of a black hole and
a massive giant companion star in a tight orbit. Building on our
accurate distance measurement reported in the preceding paper, we first
determine the radius of the companion star, thereby constraining the
scale of the binary system. To obtain a full dynamical model of the
binary, we use an extensive collection of optical photometric and
spectroscopic data taken from the literature. By using all of the
available observational constraints, we show that the orbit is slightly
eccentric (both the radial velocity and photometric data independently
confirm this result) and that the companion star rotates roughly 1.4
times its pseudosynchronous value. We find a black hole mass of M = 14.8
± 1.0 M ☉, a companion mass of M opt = 19.2 ± 1.9 M ☉, and the angle of
inclination of the orbital plane to our line of sight of i = 27.1 ± 0.8 deg.

Isn't it amazing that people miss the joke - infinite volume/zero
density is the same as zero volume/Infinite density as it effectively
describing 'nothing' !.

On Sep 4, 8:30*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 04/09/2012 18:21, Chris L Peterson wrote:









On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Physics probably only breaks down within a few Planck lengths of the
central singularity or at the point where kinetic energy of the
inflowing matter exceeds anything we have ever observed (whichever
happens first). We can say with near certainty that there are no stable
orbits inside the event horizon and that whatever finds itself on the
inside will eventually collide with the central singularity.

I think we have to consider the possibility that _nothing_ is inside a
black hole, since from our frame of reference, it takes material an
infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. A black hole may
be nothing more than a shell defined by material which is very, very
close to the event horizon, but which has not crossed it. Unless, of
course, we try to account for the initial material that was inside Rs
when the black hole formed. None of this is well described by any
physics I'm familiar with.

As far as an observer on the outside of the event horizon is concerned
the object just gets ever more redshifted without ever quite crossing
over, but for an observer sat on the infalling matter nothing special
happens as they cross the BH boundary (except that they can never leave
again) provided the thing is big enough that they are not ripped apart
by tidal forces. They will hit the middle of the BH with certainty and
in a time that is not too many multiples of the free fall time. This is
from classical Misner, Thorne & Wheeler Gravitation. At some point tidal
forces will inevitably spagettify them - a nasty way to go.

The tricky bit is the singularity right at the centre which is extremely
unfriendly to physics and I kind of hope does not exist.

But don't take my word for it here is a one way trip simulation :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...it-look-like-t...

It is also possible that an as yet undiscovered repulsive force kicks in
at ultra high energies and inside the BH envelope is actually a finite
sphere of degenerate quark soup or whatever quarks are made of soup.
Since we cannot ever observe it directly this would have to be inferred
from high energy physics or by interpreting observations of ultra high
energy gamma ray bursts as BH coalesce.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

All that holds these laughable novelties together,apart from the
lovable jargon,is the inability to stop.For as long as a person has a
perception of some object in front of them whether visible or beyond
the sense of sight,they are bound to take the proposer at their
word.Black hole/big bang are from a range of mental junk that are
couched in meaningless terms - nothing more and nothing less.

What it does is draw attention away from conditions that can't be seen
but have real effects - something like the interior of the Earth the
the fluid dynamics acting on the crust.Show a person a spinning
celestial object with a viscous composition and they can't make the
connection between the shape of the Earth and crustal dynamics - this
is what is being lost among many things due to the dominance of
imaginative junk that has long since passed its shelf life.

Martin Brown wrote:
As far as an observer on the outside of the event horizon is
concerned the object just gets ever more redshifted without ever
quite crossing over, but for an observer sat on the infalling
matter nothing special happens as they cross the BH boundary
(except that they can never leave again) provided the thing is big
enough that they are not ripped apart by tidal forces. They will
hit the middle of the BH with certainty and in a time that is not
too many multiples of the free fall time. This is from classical
Misner, Thorne & Wheeler Gravitation.

If the BH is rotating, it seems that the singularity is not a point but a
ring, and this ring is repulsive.
You must approch it by its equatorial plan if you want to hit it.

At some point tidal forces
will inevitably spagettify them - a nasty way to go.

And this will happen before you can see the singularity ...

The tricky bit is the singularity right at the centre which is
extremely unfriendly to physics and I kind of hope does not exist.

But don't take my word for it here is a one way trip simulation :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lack-hole.html

The original videos are here
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html
You can choose the kind of BH you want to test and in HD if you want

--
Norbert.
======================================
knowing the universe - stellar and galaxies evolution
http://nrumiano.free.fr
images of the sky http://images.ciel.free.fr
======================================