A Fundamental Assumption About Black Holes Was Overturned

[comingfrom]

That's what I mean. Not only is it a safe career, it appears to be very lucrative.
Experts in black holes are in good demand.
There is a voracious apatite for black holes out there.


Paul

[Michael Mozina]

That's what I mean. Not only is it a safe career, it appears to be very lucrative.
Experts in black holes are in good demand.
There is a voracious apatite for black holes out there.


Paul

They're good for whatever ails astronomy at the moment. Need "evidence" of gravitational waves? A few black holes will do the trick. Need light to escape the early universe? Add a few black holes. "In the beginning the first black holes declared "Let there be light"".

http://www.ibtimes.com/black-holes-may- ... se-2584491

It seems like specializing in black hole theory equates to job security to me.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Micheal.

Watching that video makes me wonder what theories they will sprout if and when their black hole re-ignites.
I predict that star will re-ignite, but I cannot predict when.

Paul.

[Metryq]

Wow. Both the video and the article underscore that establishment astronomers can just make stuff up and not have to trouble themselves with any actual science. And the announcer in the video said it all with a straight face.

[Webbman]

they are compelled to invent structures that go against reality and the light, and have the money, power and distribution to make you believe it.

[webolife]

I somewhat agree that black holes are an invention to keep mainstream theoretical physicists employed. Black holes defy the common sense required to do any kind of real observational physics, in at least the following regards:
1. Space/time concepts are abstractions to make sense of the irrefutable fact that the universe is phenomenal, ie. there are observed causes and observed/measured effects. Therefore anything like block hole singularities cannot make real sense for any intents or purposes of doing science.
2. Innumerable events are happening throughout the universe. These events cannot all occur simultaneously any more than they can all occupy the same geometric point. Various "meters" and "times" [clocks] are simply ways to count the relative distinction between separate places and occurrences. That meter and time are disposed of in the case of black holes dismisses them from the realm of science.
3. That said, it is perhaps [not?] obvious that many events do in fact happen simultaneously throughout the universe, but because they are separated by a significant amount of space, it takes "time" for us to observe them. The "speed of light" is a case to consider. Perhaps there are limits to our ability to observe an effect or cause that is distantly sourced due to #2 above that do not depend on light being "stuff" that travels across that distance or space. Perhaps this is why c is a variable dependent upon its media, but also altered by its apparatus of detection, as well as the [diffractional] angle through which its observation is inferred to mean a speed "change" as in radar and survey devices. That black holes are "observed" by the light they admit is an amusing contradiction.
4. [Slight drift off topic, apologies in advance] Perhaps light is an instantaneous "phenomenon" that joins objects across a distance [all objects, at all hierarchies] in the [exact] same way that "gravitation" in the classical sense joins all objects at any distance. Perhaps, additionally, light [like gravitation, or electri-gravitation if you prefer] is vectored toward its source as a system centroid, and its observation by a "peripheral" detector [the eye, et.al.] is a simultaneous "push" toward the source from "behind" the observing station. In this way light would act exactly as gravitation [also as electricity vectored toward ground]... in this sense, is it possible that the alleged "gravitation" of light toward the centroid of an AGC [the general premise of a black hole] is at least directionally correct, and not due to imaginary physics-defying matter? Thus, if the universe thus interconnected as a unified field, is light's action instantaneous across distance... not "infinitely fast" particles or waves [physically untenable] as some detract, by events within a unified field happening simultaneously? So, the decay of an electron's "energy level" collapses its entire field, because the field is itself a single object, defined by the parameters of its centroid and peripheral phenomenality [call it "charge", or...?] then rather than that electronic energy drop "emitting" some sort of photonic object, the drop itself is instantaneously detected by the peripheral observer or device.

[Roshi]

The scientific method today: let the CGI artist imagine how something nobody has ever seen looks like, put it into a movie and say: "this is science, that's how black holes look like".

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophys ... =social_fb

Kip Thorne looks into the black hole he helped create and thinks, “Why, of course. That's what it would do.” ¶ This particular black hole is a simulation of unprecedented accuracy. It appears to spin at nearly the speed of light, dragging bits of the universe along with it. (That's gravity for you; relativity is superweird.) In theory it was once a star, but instead of fading or exploding, it collapsed like a failed soufflé into a tiny point of inescapable singularity. A glowing ring orbiting the spheroidal maelstrom seems to curve over the top and below the bottom simultaneously.

They started with wormholes. If light around a wormhole wouldn't behave classically—that is, travel in a straight line—what would it do?... The result was extraordinary. It was like a crystal ball reflecting the universe, a spherical hole in spacetime.

“We found that warping space around the black hole also warps the accretion disk,” Franklin says. “So rather than looking like Saturn's rings around a black sphere, the light creates this extraordinary halo.” That's what led Thorne to his “why, of course” moment when he first saw the final effect. Thorne realized that they had correctly modeled a phenomenon inherent in the math he'd supplied.

And what is a "rotating black hole"? There is nothing there, what is rotating? The event horizon? The mathematical point with "zero volume"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[64] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[65] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[66] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.

Also this "zero volume" has "infinite density". I wonder why doesn't a big bang happen there. What are these people talking about. Let them demonstrate "zero volume" in the lab. Not infinite density, just zero volume...

[comingfrom]

I love how zero volume infinitely dense black holes have finite masses.
You get heavy ones, and then there are heavier ones.

The heavier black holes are more infinitely dense that the heavy ones, I suppose.