Black Holes Don't Exist! (remix)

giphy.gif
 
Rift Zone said:
aint pretty in here. lol
Click to expand...
@ruji My favorite self depreciating mockery is along the lines of "seriously batshit crazy". Truth is I'm made of little more than passion and it's pretty much all wrapped up with mother nature. It ain't so bad in here. It's more about showing a modicum of humanity / humility on one hand while I do bad things to prevailing theory with the other.
 
Some of my best friends are INTJs, but they're all aware that theoretical physics (and astronomy) are the baliwick of INTPs. Black holes are torroids. There is no such thing as the singularity at the core of a black hole. Matter escapes the black hole through a tunnel down the core of the black hole, which is at the center of the torroid, and I'm afraid I'll have to use this word twice, via quantum tunneling. The fantastic energies and fields produced at the spinning (near light speed, or angular velocities) core force whatever tiny bits of matter are able to quantum tunnel and escape at huge velocities, normal to its rotation.
 
Quarkmaster said:
Matter escapes the black hole through a tunnel down the core of the black hole, which is at the center of the torroid, and I'm afraid I'll have to use this word twice, via quantum tunneling.
Click to expand...

Why wasn't this notion considered originally 🤔
Where are the white holes 💮
 
Wyote said:
Why wasn't this notion considered originally 🤔
Where are the white holes 💮
Click to expand...
One could just as well inquire why we didn't discover cell phones during the dark ages.

That's just one answer. The Great Library of Alexandria held all of the knowledge of the of the known world, but for some reason was burned down three times by mauraders. Each time it was ressurected and began collecting again, starting over with nothing.

How much farther ahead could we be were it not for power-hungry dictators and monstrous "world conquerers".

Is there a spell-check on this thing? I'm new. I can't even get my image loaded.
 
Oh, forgot about the latest White Hole theory. The latest is that our entire known universe is inside of a white hole, where the rules of a black hole are reversed. In other words, whereas in black holes, light cannot get out, in white holes, light cannot get in. Hence, the dark universe we stare at in the night sky. So light cannot get in from the outside, and whatever light leaves our universe is gone forever.

But it's really just a theory and probably not a very good one.
 
Quarkmaster said:
But it's really just a theory and probably not a very good one.
Click to expand...
I can't believe I'm responding to my own post...

I was considering this and wondered at the notion that while matter and energy are sucked into a black hole, the reverse might be the case for white holes, which we think we're inside of (well, some of us think this), matter and energy are sucked out. I wonder if this has anything to do with the "expanding universe." Are we really expanding or are we just getting sucked out.

Maybe we're stuck in here and somebody's trying to help us get out.

And look at that - I've been upgraded to Regular Poster.
 
Quarkmaster said:
Some of my best friends are INTJs, but they're all aware that theoretical physics (and astronomy) are the baliwick of INTPs.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Would seem I'm producing evidence to the contrary.

Sounds like you're talking about Kerr style. Yea, torus...that's how the math goes anyway. Can't really expect anything collapsing to have zero angular momentum, so if black holes do exist, then the "singularity" should be a ring. Lot's of points of contentions about what can be done with that ring though. Some interpretations allow travel through it, others don't. ...and the ones that do tend to require "negative energy" to keep stable. Fascinating stuff!
 
Soooo, OP sucks. Here's a better treatment of the topic:


Black Holes Don’t Exist!​


Black holes were born of Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes. Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers measure light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be. It’s not wrong! The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent. It is every bit the profound and cherished innovation it is taken to be. Still, we have a very pertinent point to contend with: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens within those circumstances, but there is more for us to consider.

For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity. It would mean black holes exist. If we were being completely fair about the situation we have to acknowledge a problem exists there pertaining to electromagnetism is an afterthought. The theory considers only gravitational properties found within our universe; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation. The universe isn’t made of idealizations, however. And it’s comprised of much more than gravitational properties. The particles of our universe bear gravitational and electromagnetic traits, as well as others. Properly and fully understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models. When we do so we find system collapse into singularity* and black holes to be a far less likely outcome. *Please Note: Planck Length (and quantizing Relativity in general) hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a long while now; the use of the term here is mostly out of convenience and nostalgia.

It is known gravity is the weakest of all forces, by far. Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. Idealized balls of gravity would be dominated by gravity, but our universe involves other circumstances as well. When we factor in electromagnetism, it absolutely follows that Schwarzschild radius is ~10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. It is a ball of energy, far more so than gravitation. Fortunate for us, we already have understanding of what happens when particles lose self-cohesion, thus becoming little balls of energy. It is the implications of e=mc^2 fully and efficiently realized. It is exactly what we’ve come to expect out of matter and anti-matter pairs annihilating another: POOF! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. When particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.

Before we move too much further forward let’s take a moment to consider prevailing theory. Modern theories pertaining to astrophysics, particle physics, and cosmology are confident about a lot of their knowledge for a lot of good, solidly justified, purely scientific reasons. And there are parts of those models that are pure “fudge factor”, conjecture, even wishful thinking. Unfortunately, those iffy parts are seldom properly identified and explained, giving the general public the impression that all claims made by those models have equal value. This is not the case. For instance, modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation of some galaxies. At best, using accretion disks to power jets [Seyferts, AGNs, quasars] is a hypothesis; it has zero mathematical support. There is also no trait within any arena of physics that can explain how those structures manage to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet. Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets. Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge that constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don’t add up, no matter what. 

Another problem is supernova, hypernovae, and the whole story behind one star outshining its own galaxy is likewise not mathematically supported within prevailing physics. The collapse/rebound approach and neutrino pressure often cited is likewise pure conjecture that actually cannot account for observation.

It was mentioned above “when particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.” Most importantly, observation supports that claim. Please consider what if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when the universe achieves (neutron degeneracy) Schwarzschild radius. I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass trapped in those circumstances, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of “nova”. The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn’t related to shockwave, it’s a change in the state of matter/energy. It’s exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: poof! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of “nova” to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that’s collapsing. We know it’s going to achieve Schwarzschild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzschild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Hmm, perhaps that’s how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source. It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn’t be explained previously. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of “nova”. Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that’s the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars [“active” galaxies, like our own own was as recently as 50 million years ago] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we’ve discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. Active galaxies don’t thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they are able maintain Schwarzschild radius as long as they keep acreeting mass. Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Active quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are being continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzschild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy’s chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, subsequently establishing cosmic jets.

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that’s the only viable model of quasars humanity has ever produced; before this, humanity didn’t have a legitimately plausible explanation. Prevailing theory can not explain Gamma Ray Bursts either. It leads me to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! This will certainly help us sort out what’s going on here.

“Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.

Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.

“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”


-Courtesy of Science Rocks My World

What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation (and subsequent similar ones) consistent with black hole theory? Sadly no, it isn’t. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there, and it’s a one way street once you’re inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. We’re left with a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything we could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzschild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. The singularity approach fails to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions precisely because it undermines the tools needed to explain the most energetic objects in the universe.
And with that we have a mathematically consistent explanation of observation; a feat prevailing theory is not set up to achieve.
 
Rift Zone said:
Black Holes Don’t Exist!
Click to expand...
I guess even on the basis of current scientific consensus they can't exist - yet. At least not from our point of view - that's because as we watch things fall into an intense gravitational field their time becomes slower and slower relative to ours, and they appear to be frozen onto the event horizon. We can never see anything falling through the horizon, which would take an infinite amount of our time. Of course if you are falling in with them then you'll pass through all too easily in finite time.
Rift Zone said:
It is exactly what we’ve come to expect out of matter and anti-matter pairs annihilating another: POOF! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. When particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.
Click to expand...
I'm not clear this is a valid argument - energy gravitates just like matter. The equation E = mc^2 really shows this strongly because it says they are equivalent. Which means that if you convert all mass into electromagnetic energy within an event horizon it will still warp space and time gravitationally to exactly the same extent as if it remains matter. Of course if all the matter were converted to energy before an event horizon formed then that might prevent it from forming as the energy escaped - but in a supernova we are talking about a core embedded within an unimaginably dense neutron and plasma soup and it seems to me that the photons could not escape. Even in the sun, as it is on the main sequence, it takes thousands of years for a photon to get from the core to the surface.
 
John K said:
I guess even on the basis of current scientific consensus they can't exist - yet. At least not from our point of view - that's because as we watch things fall into an intense gravitational field their time becomes slower and slower relative to ours, and they appear to be frozen onto the event horizon. We can never see anything falling through the horizon, which would take an infinite amount of our time. Of course if you are falling in with them then you'll pass through all too easily in finite time.

I'm not clear this is a valid argument - energy gravitates just like matter. The equation E = mc^2 really shows this strongly because it says they are equivalent. Which means that if you convert all mass into electromagnetic energy within an event horizon it will still warp space and time gravitationally to exactly the same extent as if it remains matter. Of course if all the matter were converted to energy before an event horizon formed then that might prevent it from forming as the energy escaped - but in a supernova we are talking about a core embedded within an unimaginably dense neutron and plasma soup and it seems to me that the photons could not escape. Even in the sun, as it is on the main sequence, it takes thousands of years for a photon to get from the core to the surface.
Click to expand...
Well, at least we can't watch them eat. =)

Funny thing about neutron stars is they basically exist hovering just clear of Schwartzchild radius. I mean, in practice they have crusts of iron and are not pure "neutronium". However, the difference between a compact ball of pure neutronium and potential event horizon is a Planck Length.

Another point is that event horizon is asymptotic. Relativity doesn't necessarily produce a black hole at schwartzchild radius, it produces infinities. That's the math freaking out and saying it doesn't know what's happening anymore. What the math shows even neutrons have their breaking point. They too will get destroyed given enough pressure.

Then we make assumptions/interpretations. -At that point, there's nothing to prevent collapse of the system and singularity will result,,,is an interpretation. A fine, fair, and consistent interpretation, certainly; but still just an interpretation. Again, infinities at the event horizon = math cannot pass. So now we take that interpretation: collapse and all that, and build a parallel set of mathematics to explain that system. All good; as long as we're clear relativity ends once we start breaking neutrons.

My interpretation is the event horizon never forms. Black holes seem to operate from the premise that once you have that compact ball of neutronium that it CAN be compressed more. That once you reach that neutron degeneracy pressure and they can't hold out any more the volume they occupy shrinks, somehow...get that planck length, bam, black hole. I disagree; the volume they occupy does not compress. If the neutrons can't hold their structure then they get destoryed on the spot. It's a fundamentally different intrepretation, beginning at those infinities. Modern theory reads beyond them to mean collapse, while on the other side of my asymptote is phase change. ...annahilation, poof!

Cuz of those infinities, Relativity favors neither approach. It's all a matter of what mother nature seems to prefer at this point. ...and needless to say If you ask me I'd be inclined to tell you observation is incompatible with the collapse interpretation.
 
Rift Zone said:
Soooo, OP sucks. Here's a better treatment of the topic:


Black Holes Don’t Exist!​


Black holes were born of Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes. Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers measure light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be. It’s not wrong! The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent. It is every bit the profound and cherished innovation it is taken to be. Still, we have a very pertinent point to contend with: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens within those circumstances, but there is more for us to consider.

For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity. It would mean black holes exist. If we were being completely fair about the situation we have to acknowledge a problem exists there pertaining to electromagnetism is an afterthought. The theory considers only gravitational properties found within our universe; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation. The universe isn’t made of idealizations, however. And it’s comprised of much more than gravitational properties. The particles of our universe bear gravitational and electromagnetic traits, as well as others. Properly and fully understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models. When we do so we find system collapse into singularity* and black holes to be a far less likely outcome. *Please Note: Planck Length (and quantizing Relativity in general) hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a long while now; the use of the term here is mostly out of convenience and nostalgia.

It is known gravity is the weakest of all forces, by far. Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. Idealized balls of gravity would be dominated by gravity, but our universe involves other circumstances as well. When we factor in electromagnetism, it absolutely follows that Schwarzschild radius is ~10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. It is a ball of energy, far more so than gravitation. Fortunate for us, we already have understanding of what happens when particles lose self-cohesion, thus becoming little balls of energy. It is the implications of e=mc^2 fully and efficiently realized. It is exactly what we’ve come to expect out of matter and anti-matter pairs annihilating another: POOF! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. When particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.

Before we move too much further forward let’s take a moment to consider prevailing theory. Modern theories pertaining to astrophysics, particle physics, and cosmology are confident about a lot of their knowledge for a lot of good, solidly justified, purely scientific reasons. And there are parts of those models that are pure “fudge factor”, conjecture, even wishful thinking. Unfortunately, those iffy parts are seldom properly identified and explained, giving the general public the impression that all claims made by those models have equal value. This is not the case. For instance, modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation of some galaxies. At best, using accretion disks to power jets [Seyferts, AGNs, quasars] is a hypothesis; it has zero mathematical support. There is also no trait within any arena of physics that can explain how those structures manage to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet. Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets. Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge that constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don’t add up, no matter what. 

Another problem is supernova, hypernovae, and the whole story behind one star outshining its own galaxy is likewise not mathematically supported within prevailing physics. The collapse/rebound approach and neutrino pressure often cited is likewise pure conjecture that actually cannot account for observation.

It was mentioned above “when particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free; it’s going to produce gamma ray bursts, not singularity.” Most importantly, observation supports that claim. Please consider what if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when the universe achieves (neutron degeneracy) Schwarzschild radius. I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass trapped in those circumstances, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of “nova”. The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn’t related to shockwave, it’s a change in the state of matter/energy. It’s exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: poof! -complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of “nova” to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that’s collapsing. We know it’s going to achieve Schwarzschild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzschild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Hmm, perhaps that’s how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source. It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn’t be explained previously. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of “nova”. Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that’s the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars [“active” galaxies, like our own own was as recently as 50 million years ago] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we’ve discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. Active galaxies don’t thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they are able maintain Schwarzschild radius as long as they keep acreeting mass. Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Active quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are being continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzschild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy’s chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, subsequently establishing cosmic jets.

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that’s the only viable model of quasars humanity has ever produced; before this, humanity didn’t have a legitimately plausible explanation. Prevailing theory can not explain Gamma Ray Bursts either. It leads me to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! This will certainly help us sort out what’s going on here.

“Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.

Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.

“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”


-Courtesy of Science Rocks My World

What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation (and subsequent similar ones) consistent with black hole theory? Sadly no, it isn’t. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there, and it’s a one way street once you’re inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. We’re left with a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything we could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzschild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. The singularity approach fails to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions precisely because it undermines the tools needed to explain the most energetic objects in the universe.
And with that we have a mathematically consistent explanation of observation; a feat prevailing theory is not set up to achieve.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your synopsis of the current state of physics and astronomy. While I'm fairly certain that black holes really are torroidal "things" at the centers of black holes, and there are already many papers on this subject, the description of "ring" probably doesn't describe things well. Things dropping into a black hole will approach light speed very quickly, thus requiring millions or even billions of year before actually getting near the "core" if such a core exists. While there is some agreement that "some" black holes could be torrodal in nature, and this has been shown theoretically, it is currently believed that most black holes are not.
The issue at hand is to show, theoretically and mathematically, that all black holes are torroidal and can be nothing else except so. As matter moves near the speed of light near to the core, its mass must increase and that mass must influence the other mass around it. But what you will see is that, at the core, there is yet another event horizon, one that has a very sharp event wall, not a "soft" event horizon, but a very hard one. Here, matter moving at mear-light-speed velocities around the core, which is empty, must be influenced by other matter in its proximity. But if there is no matter at the core, there is nothing to attract other matter - it must remain attracted to matter in the torroid.
There being a second event horizon inside the core of the torroidal structure, as loose as this structure may be found to be, matter will be close to this event horizon, and will not be pulled "inward", thus being close enough, as it spins around at near light speed, some of it will tunnel through the event horizon and escape into the core. The more "pressure" from the outer layers of the torroid, the closer matter is to the inner event horizon, and the more matter that can escape out through what we might consider the spinning core of the black hole. This matter, typically being charged, one way or another, will experience massive electromagnetic fields that will eject the matter, again, out the north and south poles, at near light speed.
As for showing this, I posit that matter, falling to the center of a black hole at near light speed, cannot possibly avoid being slung around the core, as an asteroid being slung around a planet. Granted that there is likely a great deal of other matter "in the way", it can only add to the existing rotational momentum of the core. It's not well known, perhaps, that a photon, created at the core of the Sun, takes about 35 million years to rise to the surface and get ejected into space.
But you've inspired me to continue my work along this avenue. Taking into account that matter acquires mass as it accelerates to near light speed, which complicates this calculation to no end. Perhaps matter falling into a black hole finds a similar issue, in that it cannot fall quickly because there is other stuff in the way, and rather than the stark, hard event horizons that we see in the movies might be better describled as "big soft fuzzies" with lots of stuff inside them. But we have photos now of these black holes, so we're pretty sure they exist - I'm just not convinced about this singularity thing.
As for galaxy formation, what I see here might be that the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies are the "galaxy engines" and they are what give galaxies their appearance. This is, yet another, theory that I'm working on, to show that the spiral arms of galaxies are the results of ejecta from the black holes at the galaxy centers. Stars that we can see are "lit up" by the matter from the black holes. If this reall is the case, then galaxies aren't really what we think they are. It means that this "loose matter" is everywhere in the universe, and only stuff that is lit up by black hole activity is what we can see. Think of those supermassive black holes as giant lawn sprinklers, spitting out huge amounts of energy in a spiral pattern as they spin slowly for eons around off their axis', giving the impression of a "spinning galaxy."
 
Quarkmaster said:
But we have photos now of these black holes, so we're pretty sure they exist
Click to expand...
Yea, that's all pretty consistent with prevailing theory. I don't think reiterating it is much of a defense though. That is to say I much prefer if you challenged my physics than try to talk over me, Do keep in mind there is only one authority in physics, mother nature; the theory that is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better is the more accurate theory.period. I wish you and your arguments the best of luck.


^we have pictures of accretion disks. What's inside those disk is a matter of interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top