This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
There is a website called www.simplegravity.com/blackhole.html which suggests that matter cannot exist in a black hole and as a consequence there shouldn't be any gravity. It then goes on to explain why there is gravity and explains the life cycle and eventual demise of a black hole. Interesting and if not too off-the-wall should perhaps be included in the external reference section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.117.212 (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[e.g. a section of the main article The No hair theorem states that, once it settles down, a black hole has... but for the 'outside' obsever, it never settlles down!]
I think the article needs to clarify confusions such as this: for an observer outside the event horizon, the black hole takes infinite time to form [linked to the fact that the event horizon is teleological] -- so hawking radiation, computer simulations of colliding black holes, etc. - How do they mean anything physical to the observer outside the event horizon(s)? The article should clarify this, IMO... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.173.254 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
HI IM DOING A REPORT ON THIS BLAC HOLE!!!!!! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.96.17 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - I wanted to make this change myself, but semi-protected status thwarted me as I haven't got around to registering an account yet.
The phrase "black body" in the introduction section should not be hyphenated. The phrase "black-body radiation" has a hyphen *only* because the words "black" and "body" form a compound adjective attaching to the word "radiation" in that context. In this introduction, though, "black body" is simply a compound noun and hyphenation is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.1.212 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Cryptic C62 and I worked together on the featured article drive for gamma ray burst . We've agreed to turn our attention to black hole. My first observation is that the article is very bloated and needs to have excessively long and detailed sections replaced with summaries that link to daughter articles. Could the editors who've been working on this article summarize the current state of consensus with regard to shortening the article by converting it to Wikipedia:Summary style? Best regards, Jehochman Talk 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of editting to this article in the past. Many subsections are already brought into summary form. High on the things do for this article for me is a complete rewrite of the observation and the candidates section. The later should (IMHO) be trimmed down and integrated into the former. The former currently does not do a good job at giving an overview of the observational evidence for black holes. I've tried to gather some good material and draft a new version in one of my sandboxes. But I never got around to finishing it to a point that it could be added. It might be a good thing to look at for inspiration on how to improve that section. (it also has some good references not in the article.)
I completely approve of the removal of the intro section. I think it may be a good to look at some of the revision from before likebox started to edit in march 2009. He added a lot of unreferenced stuff. I don't have much time to help out. But if you are serious about trying to improve this article, I will definately try to help. TimothyRias (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, although I agree with trimming down some of the section, especially the unreferenced, your characterization of these as OR is both insulting to the people that wrote that, and a sign of complete ignorance on the matters on your part. You might want to be more careful in fling the term OR around. For example, this article should definitely at some point mention fuzzballs since they are this point probably the mostly likely candidate for a quantum description of a black hole, and it might be worth noting that these have neither a horizon nor a singularity. TimothyRias (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see the evidence on this website is pretty conclusive. If anyone has a counter claim that they can support with observational or mathmatical evidence, please post. Otherwise it seems kind of silly to be talking about black holes at all. http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.115.240 (talk) on 17:54, 27 November 2009
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The last sentence of the opening section is: Such observations have resulted in the scientific consensus that, barring a breakdown in our understanding of nature, black holes exist in our universe. Such a sentence would indicate that the existence of black holes is a belief rather than a fact. The article should be more explicit. Have we actually discovered any black holes? WillMall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC). WillMall (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that you are hinting at an instrumentalist view of science, especially with your talk of ‘working models’ of reality. See Instrumentalism. I don’t really have any issue with that, but it is a far cry from presenting black holes as a feature of reality (see: Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend). On the other hand, if you claim that black holes are a feature of reality (scientific realism) then you must hold distinctions between facts and beliefs. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t speak of working models and also talk of objective reality. If objective reality exists then we will have objective facts about that reality not ‘working models’ and not theoretical entities that help us ‘explain’ the observed phenomena. Do you see? You can be realist or instrumentalist, but you can't be both. Knowledge is made up of facts not beliefs. So putting aside Cartesian scepticism, brain-in-vat type thought experiments, metaphysical idealism, solipsism and other forms of methodological doubt, no serious scientist and no sensible person would say that the ‘moon probably exists’. They would say that ‘the moon does exist and it is a fact that the moon exists'. You are reluctant to accept a distinction between facts and beliefs. But in doing so you are coming very close to saying that there are NO facts in science. Do you really mean that? Are you seriously suggesting that there are no facts in science? Now, if facts do exist in science then you must distinguish between those propositions that are facts and those that are not. Surely that is the very job of science! lol. The moon exists is a fact. If black holes are merely the predictions of a testable theory, if they are nothing more than theoretical entities which even in principle cannot be verified but only indirectly inferred, then it is misleading to say, at this time, that their existence is a fact. The majority of scientists concur that black holes exist, but that does Not make it true. Do you see? WillMall (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The nature of science and of scientific knowledge is widely debated. Of course you are entitled to your own beliefs about science, but you are not in a position to speak for ‘most scientists’. Look up Falsifiability and Sokal. It is far from being the main view of science. Also, if your other statements are correct, then it simply means there are some aspects of the universe of which we will never have absolute certain knowledge. But so what? That’s not my fault :) WillMall (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
We are going round in circles. Take a look at my first comment. You will see my suggestions for improving the intro. Then take a look at your comment and you will see that you are the one that started the debate on the nature of science when you said, ‘‘There are no "beliefs" in science, just theories waiting to be proven or disproved.’’ That is your opinion about the nature of science and, by your own words, it has no place in this discussion page. WillMall (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
As it is the observation (now observational evidence) and candidates section give an inadequate representation of the observational status of black holes. The sections currently read as some random random tidbits of evidence that have somehow reached the popular media without giving a general picture of the how and why of the bread and meat of the evidence available.
To try and alleviate this problem I've started adding/replacing some subsections with section I had been preparing in my sandbox. These are far from a finished product and will need some more work, but at least they give a better picture then the current/previous versions. These new sections also come with quite a few "citation needed" tags. These indicate statements that I know to be true from general knowledge of the field, but for which I have not yet found suitable references. (Anybody know a good recent review article on black hole observations, the one being referenced now is already ten years old.) They serve as an invitation to everybody to find suitable refs.
One of my goals with these revisions is to completely absorb the candidates section in the observation section. This should overal reduce the amount of redundant material. TimothyRias (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that blackholes are there if we can see them?DellTG5 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The intro needs to be NPOV. I have added a citation tag. WillMall (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Lead section is definitely better. User:TimothyRias has done some great work. WillMall (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some Muslim scholars believe that the Qur'an mentioned black holes in more accurate terminology. In Surah 81, it goes that Allah said: "So verily, I swear by the invisible celestial bodies that recede; those are the bodies that move swiftly and hide themselves, sweeping (anything towards themselves)". Translations of the terminology that came out in the verses referred to are variant, and most of them have been rendered based on a human (sometimes erroneous) understanding of the nebulous Arabic terms by some interpreters). The term assumedly used to refer to black holes in the Arabic text of the Qur'an is transliterated as "AlKhunnes", which means in Arabic 'any body that can never be seen'; it is from the verb "khanasa" meaning disappear - the devil being thus named "AlKhannas" or the Invisible. The other terms, 'moving' and 'hiding' in high speeds, and 'sweeping' whatsoever falls within their gravity, metaphorically like a broom. As often termed, the 'black hole' is not the accurate term; a hole usually denotes space or void or emptiness - vaccuum in scientific terminology, but these bodies, quite on the opposite, are not void; they are heavy masses of incredible weight. Furthermore, the description as black is not correct, either. These bodies are colourless, because they do not radiate any visible rays. The Qur'anic terms "the ever-hiding, the ever-invisible' and 'the sweeping brooms' can be more accurate terms as they precisely describe the nature and movement of these heavenly bodies in real fact; some cosmic physics scholars describe these bodies as sweepers because they sweep away any objects in the firmament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohkheimer (talk • contribs) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this article needs to make it clear that it is NOT the fact that the escape velocity is superluminal that nothing can escape from a black hole. After all, escape velocity is only about the starting velocity at the surface of something. An astronaut climbing a ladder could easily "escape the Earth" without ever even getting close to the Earth's escape velocity.
Instead, the gravity of a black hole is such that there really is no way out. It curves space in such a way that there are no outward bound paths. Not even for someone walking or climbing out. Escape velocity is NOT the problem of being unable to get out of a black hole. Instead, the problem is that a black hole is "strong enough" to make all paths lead inward. It curves space inward.
I think that needs clarification in this article. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This sentence needs to be removed: "That is if the position and velocity of every particle in the universe were measured, we could (disregarding chaos) work backwards to discover the history of the universe arbitrarily far in the past." This is a complete misunderstanding of the concept, and this conclusion is completely nonsense. The idea is that nature allows the time-reversed interactions. Nothing about the traceability of all interactions is claimed, sensibly so. Dr.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.155 (talk) on 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You have to make it very clear in the Lead that black holes are still just a theory, so you have to give equal weight to that statement. All scientists agree that there is no firm proof. Circumstantial evidence does not prove anything and this must be made clear. The existence of black holes is just a THEORY. It cannot be presented as a fact. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.51.139 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to add the following statement to the lead: "Although the evidence for the existence of black holes is strong, it is largely circumstantial, and there is not yet any direct proof" with a reference to J. C. Wheeler's Cosmic Catastrophes. For those who are curious, here is a transcription of the passage I am referring to: "Black holes are so strange and so significant that the standard of proof must be exceedingly high. As we will see, the evidence is very strong, but still largely circumstantial." Two pages later, he writes the following: "Absolute proof escapes us, but the net of circumstantial evidence has grown ever tighter."
The edit was reverted, as I suspected it would be, with the following argument: "It is a fairly blanket statement to flat-out declare there is no direct proof - anywhere. Furthermore, this does not belong in this part of the article". I have two problems with this. The first is that it is not our job to determine which statements are too blanket-y to be included in an article. Our job is to report those statements made in reliable sources which reflect the consensus of the scientific community, which is what my proposed addition aimed to do. Although the theorists have shown that black holes can exist, and although there is a plethora of observations that can be explained by the presence of black holes, as far as I am aware there is not yet any proof that black holes do exist. Of course, I may be mistaken in this assumption; if anyone is aware of any recent breakthroughs that prove the existence of black holes, let's see it!
The second is that, regardless of whether or not black holes have been proven to exist, it is absolutely crucial to present this information in the lead. If there is not yet any proof, readers should not read through the article under the assumption that there is proof. On the contrary, if there is proof, the lead should make this clear as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue of evidence for the existence of black holes is indeed subtle and filled with ifs and buts. The article can probably do a better a job elucidating these points. In the end it should give an accurate reflection on the current scientific consensus on this issue. The proper way to go about this is to first improve the "observational evidence" section, in which there is room for the subtleties of the arguments. Once that section has been fleshed out, and we have found a consensus with all the editors here, it will be much easier to summerize that section into a consize and accurate statement in the lead. Trying to added any statement directly into lead like Cryptic tried, as likely to be inaccurate and provoke edit wars with other editors that don't agree. Such a move is disruptive of the collaborative atmosphere here and generally a bad practice. TimothyRias (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason to provide information on the actual existence of black holes in the lede, since they are theoretical constructs. There are very many different alternatives to black holes (see the footer template) The point/counterpoint should be in the meat of the article, or a criticism section. This is an article on black holes, so for the purpose of the article, they are what they are. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble with the following paragraph from the Event horizon section:
Here's an alternative explanation which I find to be more intuitive, paraphrased/quoted from the Wheeler 2007:
Is this accurate? I tried coming up with a way to merge this explanation with the first one, but I'm afraid I don't really understand the concepts presented in the first one well enough. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In section: Properties and structure:
where it says: "is lost as the field is evenly distributed alonE the event horizon" -> should be "along" maybe, not alone
The following paragraph appears in the Galactic nuclei section of Black hole.
"From the orbital data they were able to infer that there was a spherical mass of 4.3 million solar masses contained within a radius of less than 0.002 lightyears. This is still more than 3000 times the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to that mass. This is consistent with the central object being a supermassive black hole."
This, if adequately referenced, is a very important claim! However, the only reference in that paragraph is Ref 78, the massive 16-year report by Gillessen et al. I obviously didn't read through all 1109 pages of the article, but I did make an earnest attempt to find the figures that appear in the paragraph. I couldn't find it. I admit the possibility that I was unable to find these exact numbers because the original figures were written in a different form (using scientific notation or different units), but if that's the case, then I would prefer to avoid making conversions and simply report what the article does. Even so, it seems to me that the Gillessen article is more focused on determining the masses of the relevant objects and the distances to them rather than determining the the radius of the black hole candidate.
So, any ideas? Can someone who is more familiar with the Gillessen article help us out? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Intermediate-mass black holes appear to be much less common than stellar-size black holes and also rarer than galaxy-sized black holes. But how much rarer? It would be very useful to include a table, or preferably a graph, showing the number of black holes detected or predicted at each order of magnitude from the smallest detected hole size to the largest [ie across 9 orders of magnitude from 1.4 to 18 billion stellar masses] --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states "Roger Penrose proved that a singularity will form..."
Shouldn't such a fundamental statement be cited or is this so non-controversial that it can be stated as fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.40.212 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe't it should also be stated that black holes can not combine inside the event horizon; since they are singularities they just orbit each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.76.224 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know why William Sidis's 1920 views on "black body" stars (black holes) and "boundary surface" (event horizon) isn't in the history section:?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Seeing that nothing can travel faster than light, and the newtonian equation of gravity shows that inside of a shell of matter, the gravity is zero for the shell, and only defined by the inside matter of the shell, and under high gravity frame of reference time slows down, and the nature of Black Hole formation under finite energy forces, could it be that Black Holes do not form per-se, but rather Black Onions, where matter starting with a droplet of condensed time dilated state forms and that core grows in miliseconds to compresses all the additional time dilated shells of condensed time dilated mattter about it in similar state, into a long lived metastable state where all of the matter is in a condensed time dilated form against the upper regieme of relativistic forces, or does the matter fall straight past all resistant forces that form white dwarfs and neutron stars, quite certainly, including time dilation on said matter? Such a Black Onion would be a frozen object in time space, never collapsing into a singularity, but slowly radiating its particles starting with light, at the edge of the object with less than infinite relativistic effects due to the temporal near freeze of the collapse and bounce over extended spans of time? LoneRubberDragon (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC) It is a very technical equation set with nearly singular stiff equations, so it is slightly beyond me to answer, and I see little description of such a Black Onion description of the collapsed condensed relativistic state of such an unheard of entity description, based on that fact that matter and energy cannot accelerate matter and energy to the speed of light itself. Almost a chicken and egg problem given that singularity. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation (Newton Shells described, herein) LoneRubberDragon (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatermass_and_the_Pit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star Wiki (my CAPS bolding) [A dark star is a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that EQUALS or EXCEEDS the speed of light. Whether light is affected by gravity under Newtonian mechanics is questionable but if it were, any light emitted at the surface of a dark star would be trapped by the star’s gravity rendering it dark, hence the name.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation (Sorry, collided with another response (Jehoakim or something), try my talk.) LoneRubberDragon (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS...53..237C LoneRubberDragon (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974IAUS...53..237C LoneRubberDragon (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) [secondary conversation on black hole hadron star indistinguishable models of the quantum object.] LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) A "Colossus Joke", that's looking up, Shimon! You have read me somewhere before in time space lines! LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The reference to XYZT space, is because the baseband universe of mundane matter appears to follow XYZT on the main space of the universe, in your so-called cotangent space. There are small ripples in imaginary time related to quantum physics effects. Of course, in and only in special domains, the conventional notion of XYZ time may show a transformation into a so-called tangent space, as you colorfully or accurately convey, as I cannot yet determine the veracity of what you say, but remember what you have said from somewhere-someone-somewhen else before, perhaps even you. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Like in the 1970's, people my age and some adult appearing humans, used to speak about black holes, physics, man, and God. As you may read in my delivered LoneRubberDragon.DOC, where I write on black hole formation. The traditional black hole so commonly defined, is a top-down model of a black hole, where a singularity or singularity ring with a geometric light escape velocity sphere or spheroid, is assumed to exist, a-priori, with all the theoretical physics characteristics belived to exist from physics, of that a-priori object, that quantum. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) But what do bottom-up models say about black hole formation? A perfectly round non-rotating star with perfect fusion completion collapse would crash through white dwarf electron degenerate state, neutron star nuclear degenerate state, and then what? Does it collapse into a perfect supersymmetry quantum state, where the star enters into a perfectly balanced hadron star quark degenerate state, akin to the big bang, with a time-dilated matter accreting sphere? Or is the mass-energy-space density against the time dilating sphere size ratio easily large enough to absorb the matter into a singularity from their perspective of infalling matter? LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You comment about entanglement brings up a terrible question of this state of black hole versus hadron star, too. As the core of a theoretical straight to black hole model dictates, from our perspective, the infalling matter suddenly freezes in time-space on the event horizon, or even for the case of a hadron star, where the escape velocity is slightly less than light, by super symmetry arguments. This infalling matter becomes frozen in time, but newton's law dictates that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Well, in the core of a nuclear star, every particle has some measure of entanglement history stored in each particle. So, does every entangled atom in the time-dilated black hole, experience a blow back force, because the black hole sudden freeze in classical space, which is in a time dilated core of frozen infalling matter, and cannot express the equal and opposite reaction all of nature expects on the baseband XYZT coordinates of holistic systems? Or perhaps its time freezing state creates a temperature rise in the matter in the hadron star or black hole, commensurate with the time dilation field, in equal and opposite reaction, preventing in supersymmetry, the nature of a nearly frozen bounce in time, that looks like a black hole, but is merely a big bang spehere hadron star? LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Another interesting property, of a giant hadron star, is that space around it, by definition, looses all sense of time, outside of the reference of the hadron star, since all matter has become absorbed, and the hadron star would experience an odd new state of matter, in supersymmetry, extremely time dilated, and compactly entangled with itself, with zero gravity at the center, and highest density, and mere big bang corraled nearly light escape velocity sphere, virtually indistinguishable from a black hole, a-priori. A place where the in and only in and the mundane matter space, for the most part, are unified. Of course, IF the density of matter is known to produce black holes easily, THEN that mucks up the whole idea, but I have never seen that specific calculation carried out clearly, yet. One commentor on Black Holes in wikipedia, once said that a "dark star" like a hadron star was looked at in 1920, but the calculations were on a hairy edge. Being on a hairy edge shows that the theory may still hold water, with entanglement, advanced analog-digital computers and such, can assist in looking at this so-called hairy edge problem, from the bottom up, as the universe produces such dark stars inferentially from the core of this galaxy, and so forth, evidences of either Black Holes or Hadron Stars. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Imagine a giant gedanken, where all the matter of a galaxy, by completely artificial means of chaotic decision points, is made to coalesce onto a hadron star. Every new newton shell of matter doesn't contribute to the gravity inside of the shell, only pressure, as newton's shells show zero gravity integrals on their inside. In fact, the initial formation of a black hole, must address the newton's shells issue that at the center of the star, where the pressure is greatest and focus most pronounced of collapse, but also that it is in tensor shifted zero-gravity, of this same high density focus space, dilated from normal space, by the thousands of miles of star matter over its core. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) For a space like your described universe to exist, perhaps there is about 70,000,000,000 universes, all virtually identical, in interaction space, and all highly divergent on separation space, correlating with the 70 billion humans that have existed, both living now, and dead now. However, it flies utterly in the face of one God, outside and within one cosmic space of time and matter. But seeing the world His Lesson Plan Shows, it would explain God's finite bandwidth properties, being only One Being, where God's endless compromises, shatter the illusion, of His Own Integrity. One with infinite powers and continuity, in a One Body and Only One Body world that is created within Himself, of chaos and ill communication as His Master Plan, and The One God with a Broken Body of 70 billions souls, with threats of deaths and destructions terminating nearly all humans in their inner manipulation of a finite power. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) But to call it cotangent space normal and tangent space exception, is to say goodbye normally, in separations. Yes, frequency space is important and compact, but works hand in hand with temporal space of quantums like Laplace Transforms of impulses, toward even random number lists. This is the crux of issues on scatterings created when frequency space and temporal space collide. It is the core of wave and particle duality. It is where scales of the heirarchy of an infinite frequency spectrum cannot touch a delta, or where one DC frequency term can describe the entire list of DC offsets of the universe. It is the crux of reductionism and holism. Of cotangent-tangent space as a whole system. It is the possible flaw of Black Hole research only taking top-down holism assumptions, and not also considering the mirror image of bottom-up reductionist assumptions. And being a time dilated quantum the size of a Black Hole / Hadron Star, both may exist simultaneously at the infinity of a supersymmetry, and Indistinguishable Models of Quantum Physics, in the dark and time dilated form of this object astronomers confirm in implicated observations of black holes by the criteria of existence state beyond neutron star dynamics. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) To be more precise, I claim that freqeuncy spectrums, simply describe many natural systems of structure, as well as Laplacians for impulses, where the language shifts to a compact Laplacian system. And of course, synthetic signals make the most trouble, where neither wave, nor particle, but spirit of living word systems, like computers, and humans, and life, create signals of characters that are none of the above, but are of chaos systems of Lyanupov characteristics. A holy trinity between [wave system particle]. It is complex to describe, as you must obviously have noticed by now. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) But tell me more about this cotangent-tangent space concept. It reminds me of something, from a very long time ago, e.g. 1974, when I was three years old, learning about the prison planet earth cosmos as seen through this american dream of a finite bandwidth God made manifest through the hands of the children of men of the earth over the cosmos, in their pride of lies and finite bandwidth that no-one can deny. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) "God's Endless Compromises, LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) shatter the illusion, LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC) of His Integrity." - LoneRubberDragon LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS...53..237C LoneRubberDragon (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974IAUS...53..237C LoneRubberDragon (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
The section singularity descibes the center of a black hole as a point of infinite density. I don’t know much about general theory of relativity . But I think the concepts of black hole and singularity are quite different concepts. After all Pierre Simon Laplace knew nothing about general relativity and infinite densities ; but still he could postulate the black hole.
The Schwarzschild radius is ,
When the mass of a non rotating black hole is given in terms of its volume and the overall density it can be seen that there are two creterias for an object to be a black hole; the Schwarzschild radius and the critical density.
Here ρ is the critical density, rsc is the Schwarzschild radius and C is a constant. (~1.6 1026 SI units) . It is obvious from this relation that, for bigger objects, the critical density for being a black hole decreases. For solar mass the critical density can be as high as 1.85 * 1019 kg/m3 .But a spherical object with a radius of one light year becomes a black hole with a minute density of 1.8 mgr/m3 . For galactic dimensions the overall density approaches to near vacuum. I find it quite difficult to reconcile the idea of singularity to such low density super big black holes. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
As we've had a few recent extended off-topic threads about peoples' personal ideas about how black holes work, and as this has happend fairly frequently in the past, I floated the idea at WT:PHYS about putting a banner on this page along the lines of the one at the top of Talk:Big Bang. This would direct people towards suitable venues for proposing their own models, while making it clear that this talk page isn't the best venue.
Response at WT:PHYS was positive, so I'm opening a straw poll here to see if implementation should go forward. A draft copy of the Big Bang notice-blurb, tweaked for use with the black hole article, is at Talk:Black_hole/noticeblurb.
Suggestions for suitable forum links are appreciated; I'd like to be able to point users in useful directions, rather than just say "not here".
What are all of your thoughts on this? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As the overwhelming consensus seems to be in favour of the notice, I added it (with "...at one of the forum links below" as placeholder-directions). If anyone knows where fringe/non-standard black hole theories are usually debated, by all means add a link. I've held off on listing WikiInfo, as that seemed on inspection to a) be fairly low-traffic, and b) be geared more towards non-verified descriptions of mainstream work than fringe work, but that impression could easily be mistaken (and of course I'm not the final arbiter of what goes into the template; I'm just one editor). I hope this is a useful starting point. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)