Black Holes

[noblackhole]

Dear Forum participants,

I must inform you that owing to my last post in reply to that by Chris L. Peterson, I received two emails from the moderators of this site, telling me that I will be banned if I continue to say things about Mr. Peterson that are not nice. I wonder if Mr. Peterson received a similar threat from the moderators for the perjorative remarks he has leveled at the author of the paper cited by Harry, and at me.

It is quite indicative that when presented with evidence, scientists flatly refuse to even look at the evidence, when the evidence clearly rebukes their claims, and in place of scientific response, resort to anything but science to dismiss the facts out of hand. Apparently Einstein's recommendation is strictly adhered to: if the facts don't suit the theory, change the facts!

[Doum]

FROM THAT LINK :
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf

I extract this:

" Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found."

false

"No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter."

Black hole contain an enormous amount of matter( wich is mass). Thats why they exist.

"The black hole is fictitious..."

No it isnt. LOL.

"The search for black holes is destined to find none."

Again it's false.

"Curved spacetimes without material cause violate the physical principles of General Relativity."

That's why curve spacetime happen only around material cause (wich is mass) and of course from the Big Bang and the universe being create since then.

"There is no experimental evidence supporting the notion of gravitational fields generated without material cause."

Yea and material cause ( wich is mass) is required in so much quantity that experimental is taken into space to test it with the earth mass and/or the sun and/or a black hole.

"No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse."

It will be an incredible luck if we see one. That is why we look at those that have already collapse (Black hole).

"All claims for black hole interactions are invalid."

Not true. The center of many galaxy have black hole with the mass of billion of suns. Wich was accumulate to that level of mass by many interactions between black hole and suns and all matter in that galaxy that are close to the center of that galaxy.

So i think that link and those who spew it are worst then blinds mans and an elephant.

It's as if they are telling the wordl that all humans are all equaly 2cm tall and we should trust them on that. Of course everyone smile at that because human sise is between 3 to 9 foots tall usualy.

May be this place should be lock now.

[Doum]

I did not know that noblackhole had receive warning when i made that post (I was writing mine while he was writing his). Tho it does not change my point of view. Have fun elsewhere if you are ban.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

noblackhole,,,,, mate we all get warnings its just a way of controlling our emotions.

All forums are the same, some support The BBT, others support alternative theories. There are hundreds of forums.

These days I just keep on reading so that one day I may get some form of understanding backed by science.

Moving right along

I read this paper.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ralc.conf...98N

AA(National Astronomical Observatory of Japan), AB(Department of Physics, Ochanomizu University)
Relativistic Astrophysics Legacy and Cosmology - Einstein's, ESO Astrophysics Symposia, Volume . ISBN 978-3-540-74712-3. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, p. 98

Equilibrium Configurations of Degenerate Fermionic Dark Matter and the Black Hole Mass Hierarchy
Abstract

We propose degenerate fermionic dark matter to explain the flat-top density profile of the cluster A1689 recently observed.

[aristarchusinexile]

Dear Forum participants,

I must inform you that owing to my last post in reply to that by Chris L. Peterson, I received two emails from the moderators of this site, telling me that I will be banned if I continue to say things about Mr. Peterson that are not nice. I wonder if Mr. Peterson received a similar threat from the moderators for the perjorative remarks he has leveled at the author of the paper cited by Harry, and at me.

It is quite indicative that when presented with evidence, scientists flatly refuse to even look at the evidence, when the evidence clearly rebukes their claims, and in place of scientific response, resort to anything but science to dismiss the facts out of hand. Apparently Einstein's recommendation is strictly adhered to: if the facts don't suit the theory, change the facts!

I have to support noblackhole in that if one poster is to be corrected for making unflattering comments about other posters, all posters should be chastised. Chris does make unflattering comments, even moderators make unflattering comments. I wish noblackhole had posted his 'unflattering comments' in his 'Dear Forum participants' so they could be evaluated.

[aristarchusinexile]

The center of many galaxy have black hole with the mass of billion of suns. Wich was accumulate to that level of mass by many interactions between black hole and suns and all matter in that galaxy that are close to the center of that galaxy.

The centre of many galaxies are observed to exhibit characteristics which are said may be caused by Black Holes. That does not say the characteristics are caused by Black Holes.

[Chris Peterson]

The centre of many galaxies are observed to exhibit characteristics which are said may be caused by Black Holes. That does not say the characteristics are caused by Black Holes.

Galaxies are observed to be made up of many point of bright light, which exhibit characteristics which may be caused by Stars. That does not say the characteristics are caused by Stars.

[aristarchusinexile]

I have my beliefs , but i fear most on here do not want to here it. because it involves a radical new way of thinking.

plus it upsets me to see peoples hard work go down the drain. I wish i,d never read that paper. 20 years ago i told my missus that would happen one day..it does not please me.

mark

You're a genuinely humourous invidividual, especially if you think you might persuade everyone to think the same as you do. Disagreement seems an inviolable part of human discussion.

[The Code]

I have my beliefs , but i fear most on here do not want to here it. because it involves a radical new way of thinking.

plus it upsets me to see peoples hard work go down the drain. I wish i,d never read that paper. 20 years ago i told my missus that would happen one day..it does not please me.

mark

You're a genuinely humourous invidividual, especially if you think you might persuade everyone to think the same as you do. Disagreement seems an inviolable part of human discussion.

They not learn you to spell in Canada?

mark

[The Code]

Just to make it clear...I have no intent of making people sway, in there thinking to any comments or questions i have asked.
I may at times ask some pretty way out questions..But when you type the questions i want answered into the net, most sites have not got a clue.. I did not introduce myself,, I am Mark A Swain.. I am a director of my own company. and i am from England. I have been interested in the cosmos since i was five, 40 years ago. And i,m a bit rusty with the facts. Please bare with me...

The question, i can not get answered is: Hard.. Its about anti-matter and matter. If They both got created in the same place the universe would not exist? Was they created separately? How the hell could this happen? What is the force that brings them to kill each other? Because Anti-matter/matter comes together to make energy, What is the opposite of them both?

Mark

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

The basic particles have spins these spins determine what the matter and its charge is going to be.

Matter in its various forms changes from one to the other.

Matter has not been created from nothing.

It has always been in one phase or the other.

=============================================================================

As I read papers I tend to share them.
There accuracy is always in question. But! they offer some understanding.

Numerical Simulations of Black Hole Formation
00/2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009LNP...769..177S

Using recent advance in numerical relativity, three-dimensional simulations of the formation of black holes through gravitational collapse of rotating stars have been performed with unprecedented accuracy. In the case of rotating neutron stars, unstable to quasi-radial oscillations, the complete transition from one stationary solution of Einstein's equations to another, including the formation of horizons and gravitational wave emission has been demonstrated. In the case of differentially rotating supermassive stars, non-axisymmetric dynamical instabilities can lead to fragmentation and prompt collapse to supermassive black holes. Here, we present a summary of recent, detailed numerical simulations by Baiotti et al.

[apodman]

... about anti-matter and matter. If They both got created in the same place the universe would not exist? Was they created separately? How the hell could this happen? What is the force that brings them to kill each other?

Strong theoretical evidence suggests that an episode in the very early universe, perhaps during one of the force splits, endowed the universe with a remarkable asymmetry, in which particles of matter barely outnumbered particles of antimatter by a billion-and-one to a billion. That small difference in population hardly got noticed amid the continuous creation, annihilation, and re-creation of quarks and antiquarks, electrons and antielectrons (better known as positrons), and neutrinos and antineutrinos. The odd man out had plenty of opportunities to find someone to annihilate with, and so did everybody else. But not for much longer. As the cosmos continued to expand and cool, it became the size of the solar system, with a temperature dropping rapidly past a trillion degrees Kelvin. A millionth of a second had passed since the beginning.

This tepid universe was no longer hot enough or dense enough to cook quarks, and so they all grabbed dance partners, creating a permanent new family of heavy particles called hadrons (from the Greek hadros, meaning "thick"). That quark-to-hadron transition soon resulted in the emergence of protons and neutrons as well as other, less familiar heavy particles, all composed of various combinations of quark species. The slight matter-antimatter asymmetry afflicting the quark-lepton soup now passed to the hadrons, but with extraordinary consequences.

As the universe cooled, the amount of energy available for the spontaneous creation of basic particles dropped. During the hadron era, ambient photons could no longer invoke E = mc2 to manufacture quark-antiquark pairs. Not only that, the photons that emerged from all the remaining annihilations lost energy to the ever-expanding universe and dropped below the threshold required to create hadron-antihadron pairs. For every billion annihilations—leaving a billion photons in their wake—a single hadron survived. Those loners would ultimately get to have all the fun: serving as the source of galaxies, stars, planets, and people.

Without the billion-and-one to a billion imbalance between matter and antimatter, all mass in the universe would have annihilated, leaving a cosmos made of photons and nothing else—the ultimate let-there-be-light scenario.

By now, one second of time has passed.

The universe has grown to a few light-years across, about the distance from the Sun to its closest neighboring stars. At a billion degrees, it's still plenty hot—and still able to cook electrons, which, along with their positron counterparts, continue to pop in and out of existence. But in the ever-expanding, ever-cooling universe, their days (seconds, really) are numbered. What was true for hadrons is true for electrons: eventually only one electron in a billion survives. The rest get annihilated, together with their antimatter sidekicks the positrons, in a sea of photons.

Right about now, one electron for every proton has been "frozen" into existence.

[Chris Peterson]

The question, i can not get answered is: Hard.. Its about anti-matter and matter. If They both got created in the same place the universe would not exist? Was they created separately? How the hell could this happen? What is the force that brings them to kill each other? Because Anti-matter/matter comes together to make energy, What is the opposite of them both?

This has absolutely nothing to do with black holes. If the conversation is going to spin off into a discussion of the matter/anti-matter ratio (which is a valid area of research), maybe a moderator could split this topic into a new one (and maybe lock the old one at the same time). These multi-topic threads are very confusing to follow.

[apodman]

... very confusing to follow.

Or impossible to follow. There will be nothing lost if we cut this topic here and let all the separate topics start fresh. Anyone can always link back to a post in this topic if they think it is important and pertinent enough and don't want to duplicate it.

[The Code]

Thanks apodman

That,s pretty well clued me up.. brilliant read.. And i can see now, that black holes are not related to the big bang in any way..they are another thing completely..

Mark

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

The BBT and Black holes have a direct relationship.

Nucleosynthesis of matter coming out of black holes is quite similar to the BBT.


one more thing this maybe of interest on Preon particles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

[Chris Peterson]

The BBT and Black holes have a direct relationship.
Nucleosynthesis of matter coming out of black holes is quite similar to the BBT.

Factual errors:
(1) There is no obvious relationship between black holes and the Big Bang.
(2) Nucleosynthesis is a high energy process whereby elements are formed out of nucleons. It happened early in the Universe, and it happens today in stars. It does not happen in black holes, and matter does not come out of black holes. Nucleosynthesis may happen in relativistic jets that are powered by black holes, but those jets don't come from the black holes, they are merely redirected. But calling such nucleosynthesis a "direct relationship" to the BB is as meaningless as saying stars have a direct relationship to it. Nucleosynthesis is a fundamental process that is found anywhere you have nucleons and high temperatures.

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

"It does not happen in black holes, and matter does not come out of black holes. Nucleosynthesis may happen in relativistic jets that are powered by black holes, but those jets don't come from the black holes, they are merely redirected."

Indeed, nucleosynthesis cannot occur in black holes since the latter are figments of the imagination. Schwarzschild's solution actually forbids black holes. Here again is Schwarzschild's paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

The relativists claim that nothing, including light, can escape from a black hole. In fact, they claim that nothing can even leave a black hole, as C. Petersen reiterates above. On the other hand they also claim that the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum. But in that case, by the very definition of escape velocity, light can both leave and escape, and ponderable bodies too can leave, but not escape. The claims are contradictory.

[Chris Peterson]

Indeed, nucleosynthesis cannot occur in black holes since the latter are figments of the imagination.

Factual error.
The best supported theory and observation very strongly suggest that black holes are real. Scientifically, it is nonsense to say with certainty they don't exist. The proper skeptical attitude is that while it is possible another explanation might explain observations, it is not likely.

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

"Factual error.
The best supported theory and observation very strongly suggest that black holes are real. Scientifically, it is nonsense to say with certainty they don't exist. The proper skeptical attitude is that while it is possible another explanation might explain observations, it is not likely."

Black holes were conjured up theoretically, not from observations. The theory came first, and observations have been subsequently misconstrued in attempts to legitimise the theory. The theory is demonstrably false - neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict them (the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole). Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. Since the black hole is a false theoretical entity it does not exist. It is indeed a figment of the imagination. Scientifically, it is nonsense to say that a false theoretical entity actually exists.

C. Petersen has also ignored the contradictions of the relativists concerning black hole escape velocity. Assuming, for the same of argument, that black holes exist, all the claims relating to black hole escape velocity are nonsense - black holes have no 'escape velocity', since, according to the relativists, nothing can even leave a black hole. But black holes are fallacious anyway. That Schwarzschild's solution forbids black holes is easily verified - one merely needs to read Schwarzschild's paper: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

[The Code]

Noblackhole:

Take part in my thread, Before the big bang.. I am going to post something very interesting soon.
Which may make you think of that guys paper, in another way..

mark

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It is true that Main stream says that nothing can escape a black hole.

But! than again there are scientists like Steven Hawkings and others that feel that is not the case.

Scientists keep on working on this issue.

An interesting paper late last year.

On the electrodynamics properties of nuclear matter cores
00/2008
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008cosp...37.2667R

It is by now clear that Gamma ray Bursts originate from an electron positron plasma formed during the process of gravitational collapse to a Black Hole. It is crucial to identify the initial conditions in the neutron star core originating such a collapse which give origin to the vast electrodynamics process originating such an electron positron plasma during the late phases of the collapse as the horizon of the Black Hole is reached. We present a new approach, based on a ultra-relativistic Thomas-Fermi approach, to the nuclear matter in bulk enforcing the condition of global charge neutrality as opposed to the local charge neutrality usually imposed. A new ground state is found that can differ by 1049 ergs from the ones where local charge neutrality is implemented. Electric fields close to the critical value can exist at the surface of the core at the onset of the gravitational instability. We outline consequences of these results in nuclear physics, in the formation process of neutron stars and the supernovae emission in the X and Gamma rays as well as possibly in the process of ejection of the remnant.

If a black hole existed with a singularity than I would agree that nothing could escape from a black hole. Since singularities do not exist in reality than the center of the so called black hole must obey the laws of physics. This will allow the compact core to create magnetic instabilities and form a magnetic vortex ejecting matter from the core.

The problem lies in not able to see what is happening.

[Chris Peterson]

It is true that Main stream says that nothing can escape a black hole.
But! than again there are scientists like Steven Hawkings and others that feel that is not the case.

Clarification: Hawking and others have developed their quantum analysis in a way that suggests that black holes should give off black body radiation. The level of this radiation is many orders of magnitude below our ability to detect it for ordinary black holes. If microscopic black holes were produced during the BB (an unverified hypothesis), they should evaporate much faster, and produce a measurable amount of gamma radiation at the end. People are looking for that signature.

I don't think there are any scientists who believe that anything measurable or significant is coming out of ordinary black holes.

[Chris Peterson]

If a black hole existed with a singularity than I would agree that nothing could escape from a black hole. Since singularities do not exist in reality than the center of the so called black hole must obey the laws of physics.

Correction:
There is no reason that physical singularities cannot exist. They may, or they may not; current theory is not advanced enough to make that determination. A physical singularity and a mathematical singularity are not the same thing. A physical singularity is simply a point where theory breaks down.

By definition, everything obeys the laws of physics. But we have not determined all those laws. It is completely possible that the physical laws that describe what is going on inside a black hole, including at a possible singularity, are simply different (and unknown) from the laws that are in play outside the black hole.

Physically, a black hole does not need a singularity at the center to behave as it does, with nothing escaping. All that is required for that is a particular density: a mass and a radius. Most of the physics of black holes says nothing about the interior. It has even been suggested that there is no interior in the usual physical sense, and that a black hole is similar to a subatomic particle. Physics has no mechanism for describing the "interior" of an electron, for instance. It is treated as if it were a point, although that makes it a physical singularity. Yet few people doubt electrons exist.

[Chris Peterson]

Black holes were conjured up theoretically, not from observations. The theory came first, and observations have been subsequently misconstrued in attempts to legitimise the theory.

Indeed, it is a beautiful example of the power of science. There are many similar examples, such as most subatomic particles. Their existence is first proposed on theoretical grounds, with that theory predicting observable phenomena, which are subsequently observed to be consistent with the theory. The same with black holes. Very solid theory predicts their existence, from that theory we predict observable behaviors, and these are actually seen. Conclusion? Black holes are probably real.

The theory is demonstrably false - neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict them (the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole). Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes.

Here we have factual errors again.

Since the black hole is a false theoretical entity it does not exist. It is indeed a figment of the imagination. Scientifically, it is nonsense to say that a false theoretical entity actually exists.

Here we have a highly non-scientific statement, apparently from somebody who doesn't understand science. There is no such thing as a "false theoretical entity". Even if you prefer to emphasize theories that propose alternate explanations for black holes, perfectly good theories also support their existence. If you are scientifically honest, the farthest you can go is to state that you prefer the theories that support alternate explanations for our observations. Any statement of absolute certainty (black holes are "a figment of the imagination") immediately tells us we are dealing with a non-scientist or a pseudoscientist, and thus our BS filters should all be pegged.