+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! (/showthread.php?tid=3589)
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 10th March 2006
It would seem some scientists have calculated an alternative explanation for what had previously been called black holes. The major attraction to this explanation? It doesn't violate the current understanding of quantum physics. Essentially, rather than forming a singularity, a colllapsed star forms a sort of shell with a vacuum inside. Now, of course a vacuum doesn't actively suck things into it, otherwise the universe would suck away our atmosphere so very isntantly. Apparently, the shell has a very strong gravitational pull, and the vacuum has some sort of odd property that actually results in antigravity. The thing is, when they modelled a universe sized "dark energy star", it managed to generate as much dark energy as we currently see in the universe today.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925423.600.html
Readinate it.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - lazyfatbum - 10th March 2006
i'll read up on it later tonight, but quantum cosmology nor gravity explains why they are formed and how they're able to exterminate everything on a molecular level, even invisible energies and light.
there's that Hawking theory called Hawk's light or whatever, but it's still up in the air. 'uh... the gravity moves so fast it moves faster than light so it sucks up light too." yeah, not buying it.
oh, it's called hawking radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
but it makes no sense, gravity does not effect light, only what's percieved as light. A black hole is litteraly suck it up like a kid drinking koolaid.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Great Rumbler - 10th March 2006
I call it a Hawking Hole.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Darunia - 12th March 2006
Great reference, GR.
Fascinating stuff.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 14th March 2006
lazyfatbum Wrote:i'll read up on it later tonight, but quantum cosmology nor gravity explains why they are formed and how they're able to exterminate everything on a molecular level, even invisible energies and light.
there's that Hawking theory called Hawk's light or whatever, but it's still up in the air. 'uh... the gravity moves so fast it moves faster than light so it sucks up light too." yeah, not buying it.
oh, it's called hawking radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
but it makes no sense, gravity does not effect light, only what's percieved as light. A black hole is litteraly suck it up like a kid drinking koolaid.
Ah, lazy has a masters in quantum physics now eh?
And actually, gravity DOES affect light, and this has been directly observed many times. This is not in dispute. Light travels in a "straight" path in euclidian space, but it is clear that our space is not based on euclidian geometry, but rather more akin to relativistic space. It "bends" as we percieve it. Light travelling near a strong gravity well will change course. It will not change speed as light's speed is an absolute in all frames of reference. As such, when a star passes behind the sun, it will appear to "hop" a bit because the light has been distorted by gravitational lensing. In fact, gravitational lensing can create magnified images of distant galaxies, or even "split" the same galaxy's light into what appears to be 4 galaxies of the exact same type.
In fact, gravitational lensing is currently being used to detect planets in distant star systems. When a planet passes in front of a star, it can briefly focus a burst of light towards us, which we can now detect.
So yes lazy, gravity DOES affect light. Do some research next time.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html
http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/lenses.html
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html
But moving along, the idea behind a black hole is that it does not "exterminate" everything. It compresses it into a single point that is zero size and infinitely dense. That is not to say it is infinitely massive. Only it's density is infinite.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 14th March 2006
So, this wave function walks into a bar and promptly collapses. He turns to the bartender and yells, "What are you looking at?!"
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - lazyfatbum - 14th March 2006
You idiot, that's percieved light. like looking at something that's half-way underwater seems to bend, but the object does not bend. If you're saying that a black hole creates the perception of bending light then you're wrong here as well because it actually destroys it.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 15th March 2006
The object itself may not bend, but the water does in fact literally bend the light. Gravity does as well.
You percieve it bending because the light itself IS bending. How would you percieve it as bending if it didn't change course to enter your eyes?
I did not state the object itself literally bends. I said the light bends, and it does. We can't percieve it bending unless that happens.
Light that enters a black hole, under the current understanding, simply never escapes, but to say it is actually "destroyed" is inaccurate. It becomes part of the singularity and is compressed into the infinitely dense but zero size mass.
A black hole bends SOME light. Any light that does not pass through the horizon either has it's course altered or is forced to orbit perpetually (though the latter is very rare).
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - lazyfatbum - 15th March 2006
It's not rare, it's not even documented and is all a theory (other than knowing that they exist). The light is not 'bending' in the pool, it is creating an optical illusion, the light can be refracted, reflected, yes. But not bent ie what is theorized in how black holes steal and destroy light.
Obviously it is zero mass or anti-matter (at its non-existent core), but that doesn't mean it's infinitely dense, nothing is infinite, it could litteraly be destroyed like a blender removing ions from particles until nothing exists. You cant just say "oh black holes dont apply to normal time space" because that is a joke. Once the black hole has destroyed everything it can in its area, it no longer has 'fuel' to keep it going, so it eats itself. That doesn't mirror any theories of mass projection or whatever.
think of a blackhole like a hurricane in space, they appear if the timing is right in several factors the most obvious one being a collapsed star. So in essense a black hole is an antistar. How and why i have no clue, maybe it's just a clean up device or maybe it's just an anomoly caused by the recycled star systems, but still it is able to destroy light. Physically remove it from existence despite having a constant source, it drinks it up and can even soak it up the point that the star's light cant be seen at all (eventually destroying the other star), and that has ***nothing*** to do with gravity.
of course, I dont have an answer either. :D But gravity is not the answer. Magnetic interference has been documented to actually restructure light, yunno like sun spots effecting electronics, etc. They dont seem to get along, so i can see how an extreme magnetic distortion could alter light path and structure, but not BEND and EVACUATE light.
the sun has a gravity that is extremely intense, yet light imminates from it at the same speed one mile from it's surface as it does 200 million miles from its surface. if gravity affected light then we'd be fucked, you could make something infinitely dense with a gravity that is equal to the weight and mass of the universe (wouldn't that suck?) and light would function normally... nothing else would, including the light's source :D but the light itself would not be affected.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 15th March 2006
lazyfatbum Wrote:It's not rare, it's not even documented and is all a theory (other than knowing that they exist). The light is not 'bending' in the pool, it is creating an optical illusion, the light can be refracted, reflected, yes. But not bent ie what is theorized in how black holes steal and destroy light.
That depends on your definition I suppose. "Bending" is an accurate enough term though for what it is doing in the macroscopic world. Get down to the particles and it is being absorbed by the electron shell, sending it into a higher energy level, and then it is released in a very specific direction. It is this absorbtion and emission that causes light to "slow down" in air and water and so on. To say the light "slows down" isn't entirely accurate either, but it is accurate enough.
Quote:Obviously it is zero mass or anti-matter (at its non-existent core), but that doesn't mean it's infinitely dense, nothing is infinite, it could litteraly be destroyed like a blender removing ions from particles until nothing exists. You cant just say "oh black holes dont apply to normal time space" because that is a joke. Once the black hole has destroyed everything it can in its area, it no longer has 'fuel' to keep it going, so it eats itself. That doesn't mirror any theories of mass projection or whatever.
If it was zero mass, it would not have any gravitational effect. Further more, it would take off at the speed of light at the slightest bump, which could be caused merely by quantum effects, which means it would ALWAYS be travelling at light speed and it's speed would be an absolute in all frames of reference. The black hole is actually VERY massive with VERY high inertia. The singularity is actually all that mass compressed into zero VOLUME, not zero mass. It is infinetly dense. You must understand that actually a lot of infinities creep up in physics. What is the definition of density? Simply put, it is a measure of how much space any given mass occupies. Something with more mass packed into a smaller space is denser than something with less mass packed into a larger space. Thus, if you increase density to the point where ANY mass is stored in zero space, the density is now infinite. This is really just a mathematical reality more than anything. Don't break your brain over it.
Quote:think of a blackhole like a hurricane in space, they appear if the timing is right in several factors the most obvious one being a collapsed star. So in essense a black hole is an antistar. How and why i have no clue, maybe it's just a clean up device or maybe it's just an anomoly caused by the recycled star systems, but still it is able to destroy light. Physically remove it from existence despite having a constant source, it drinks it up and can even soak it up the point that the star's light cant be seen at all (eventually destroying the other star), and that has ***nothing*** to do with gravity.
That analogy is flawed in every respect. You have a great misunderstanding of the nature of a black hole. First of all, the only condition needed is that a mass a few times the mass our our sun occupies a critical threshhold in space (a critical density). At this critical thresh hold, the internal energy of the atoms themselves are overpowered by gravitational forces. Anything of sufficient mass will collapse in on itself and form a black hole. The strong and weak nuclear forces are overcome and all the mass of the black hole is forced to occupy the exact same space, a singular point. Up to a certain distance, gravity is still strong enough that light itself is unable to escape. Beyond that distance, light can escape. This distance is the horizon. Any light that heads in the direction of a black hole is affected by it. The path it takes is altered as far as we are concerned due to the nature of relativistic space. It all depends on the angles and the distance at this point. It may merely get a slight change in direction and continue on, or it may end up orbitting the black hole forever (mathematically a possibility), or beyond that threshhold, it may end up orbitting and slowly winding into the black hole. Now keep in mind through this whole process relativity is very noticable. Time dilation is there. The thing is, since light's speed is absolute from all frames of reference, the only thing you will notice about the light is that it will now start changing color, "red shifting" or "blue shifting", all depending on your point of view. And, all those views are mathematically correct, they all cancel each other out. A black hole doesn't really "drink" the light, it simply is unable to escape after that critical threshold. Gravity, in fact, has EVERYTHING to do with black holes.
Quote:of course, I dont have an answer either. :D But gravity is not the answer. Magnetic interference has been documented to actually restructure light, yunno like sun spots effecting electronics, etc. They dont seem to get along, so i can see how an extreme magnetic distortion could alter light path and structure, but not BEND and EVACUATE light.
the sun has a gravity that is extremely intense, yet light imminates from it at the same speed one mile from it's surface as it does 200 million miles from its surface. if gravity affected light then we'd be fucked, you could make something infinitely dense with a gravity that is equal to the weight and mass of the universe (wouldn't that suck?) and light would function normally... nothing else would, including the light's source :D but the light itself would not be affected.
As I already explained, the speed of light is absolute. You are still thinking in newtonian terms, but newtonian physics do not apply to very fast speeds.
Imagine this scenario just to get an idea of just how odd relativity is. You have a car travelling down a highway. Inside the car is a single light that is dead center between the front and back winshields. If one with some sort of "super eye" inside the car was to time it, one would find the light hits both windows at the same time.
Now imagine someone who is standing on the road watching the car go by. This same person sees the light hitting the back window before hitting the front. This is due to the fact that light's speed is independant of frame of reference, and the fact that from the roadside viewer's perspective, the back window is rushing towards the light while the front window is rushing away from it.
Both are correct. However, that alone doesn't make much logical sense, until you add one last aspect, time dilation. The faster you go, the slower time appears to flow to those moving slowly (relative to the "net average" of the universe).
One final effect of this is that doppler effect. With a car, if it is heading towards you, you hear the pitch get higher, as the waves emitted are closer to each other due to the car being closer to the first wave when it is emitted. When it travels away, the pitch gets lower due to the waves being further from each other on release.
Light has something similar. The light has to occupy a vaster distance of space when things travel away from it so it can still "fill" it all, but energy can't be created of course. Rather, what happens is simply that an object travelling away from us "stretches out" the light wave to become longer in wave length, or redder. It takes a lot to become noticable to the naked eye mind you. Here's another relativistic effect: the faster something travels, the shorter the actual physical distance something is from everything in front of it.
There, now do you get it? Research special and general relativity for more information. Keep in mind that relativity isn't some "neato illusion". Things travelling at near light speeds, from their perspective, really ARE travelling a shorter distance. There is nothing that can say one perspective is more accurate than any other (though some might be easier to do the math with).
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae661.cfm
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - lazyfatbum - 16th March 2006
"you're an idiot."
I understand where you're coming from, but you're taking multiple theories and combining them in to what you call a fact when it isn't even a working theory and trying to debate my terminology on a simple basis.
There's no way a black hole can have any consistent density because it is essentially hollow, black holes do move and are effected by other gravity. They almost act like a sattelite in some respects, but the trick is that the 'vortex' structure has to be based on its point of origin, while it can move and grow it can never leave it's birth place. if it were infinitely dense or any other such nonsense, it would litteraly redirect all gravitational fields in the universe and they do not do this. you seem to think it involves some kind of voodoo super physics but all things in the universe are applied to the same rules and cannot be broken other wise it's structure would collapse. Even when you take dark energy and dark matter in to question, they still apply to the rules.
yes, this brings up a point on th origin and use of black holes (a universal fart). Use your imagination a little, why do hurricanes form? Is it the cause of conditions, or the effect of conditions? In other words, do they form out of a need. Hurricanes restructure layers of the atmosphere, guide important lows and highs effectively clean up any forming weather conditions over specific regions. Could it be possible that hurricanes form so that the atmosphere can exist and that without them it would eventually collapse? That's the comparison I was making, they seem to form for no reason other than to destroy and create chaos but perhaps they form in order to continue order, like a hurricane might.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - Dark Jaguar - 16th March 2006
That's a pretty religion inspired statement with no basis in science. That's all well and good, but I really don't care to debate religion with you.
Behold the power of an alternative to black holes! - lazyfatbum - 17th March 2006
...?