Black Holes Don't Exist! (remix)

That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.

Considering that for supermassive black holes the horizon is a very quiet boundary where the curvature isn't extreme, the mass energy converion, if it is taking place, should occur much closer to the center. I find it difficult to imagine that in very large and very hollow supermassive objects this extra converted energy would somehow get out and contribute to the accretion disk or jet's energy.

It seems more likely to me that if the proposed idea was true there would be some exotic physics happening closer to the boundary that would add some, but not all mass-energy to the external accretion event.

We don't have very precise observations on the exact amount and velocities of the infalling matter. So it's not that easy to calculate if the loss of angular momentum and kinetic energy is not sufficient. The problem of the missing energy may simply be due to our measurement uncertainty, or there is some exotic physics that does not necessarily contradict the classical idea, but requires further explanation.
 
Rift Zone said:
real physicists don’t chose physics; they’re chosen by it.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure this one out. I don't think physics has the ability to choose. The word, "physics" derives from the ancient Greek word, Phusologia, and I would have to go back to one of my own books to re-research this, but in the beginning, it referred to "natural philosophers" or the Fusicoi, or maybe Phusicoi. You can do your own research on that. I wrote all about this in one of my books.
Of course, the many branches of natural philosophy diverged over the years, and I think all people who are drawn to natural philosophy are equally suited to pursue any branch. So perhaps I broke some rules and decided to choose physics - whether it wanted me or not.
 
Rift Zone said:
makes me wonder what you make of "imaginary" numbers.
Click to expand...
Well, if real numbers don't exist, then neither do imaginary ones.

Seriously, though, what number multiplied by itself gives you a negative number. Whatever it is ends with an i. For imaginary. A theoretical construct, as are all numbers and the concept of numbers.
 
You ain't just a
Cinnabar said:
That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.
Click to expand...
whislin' dixie.
Cinnabar said:
e that if the proposed idea was true there would be some exotic physics happening closer to the boundary that would add some, but not all mass-energy to the external accretion event
Click to expand...
I read a book many years ago on the prospect of time-travel, and it was heavy with the notion of "exotic matter", or basically matter that would have to have certain properties that no matter anywhere in the universe (that we know of) has. So that was the last time I heard or read the word, "exotic".

We know that quantum tunneling is real. We're fairly certain that black holes evolve over billions, perhaps even trillions of years. So the gravitational part of this whole idea is pretty slow (from an outside observers point of view). It could take millions or billions of years for the transit of a particle of matter from the event horizon the the core of a black hole. For the particle itself, it is very nearly instantaneous.

I really need to sit down and write a program or perhaps do some Mathcad simulations and even write some equations to show this. Start with one or two particles to begin with and start making things bigger and bigger.

I wrote a theorem once, that no two bits of fundamental matter can ever occupy the same space at the same time. You might look into Zeno's Arrow Paradox. As far as I can see, Zeno was right. As the arrow moves, the one part cannot be in the same place at the same time as the part in front of it, ergo the arrow cannot move. The ultimate conclusion to this is that nothing in the universe is in motion. Nor does anything in the universe have a contiguous form in three dimensions.

I really need to write some equations.

And also, some seller on Amazon named someone else as the author of my book, even though my name is plainly on the front cover as the author of the book, and I'm kinda pissed about that. I really need to do something about that.
 
Cinnabar said:
That was a dense wall of text to go through, but the idea is fun.
Click to expand...
lol You may be a bigger geek than I am. =) So I question you: does spaghetti-factor really matter here? Your "supermassive" reference revolves around it. I say no. The only thing that matters is neutron degeneracy pressure...and then what happens to that mass. How 'gracefully' that happens is a minor concern. Realistically, the only concern here is what follows observation. Modern theory may be rooting for prevailing theory, but mother nature is backing this interpretation. Letting that soak in a little may be for the best.

Quarkmaster said:
I'm still trying to figure this one out.
Click to expand...
All that is trying to imply is physics is written into one's history from a very early age.
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...
...and you and your INTP master race are probably out of your league on this one.
Quarkmaster said:
Well, if real numbers don't exist, then neither do imaginary ones.

Seriously, though, what number multiplied by itself gives you a negative number. Whatever it is ends with an i. For imaginary. A theoretical construct, as are all numbers and the concept of numbers.
Click to expand...
Not only are "numbers' real. They have at least 2 dimensions! Mother Nature lives where you apparently can't go.

Rift Zone:

Limitations of Mathematics​


In order for any complexity to arise in any system there simply must exist fundamental relationships. Mathematics is, of course, the language of relationships. The complexity of our universe necessarily arises out of mathematical relationships, however our universe is comprised of more than relationships; its structure extends beyond the realms of math.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Holographic Universe principals, and all other notions akin to “all properties of the universe are mathematical in nature” display profound misunderstandings about the capacity and nature of mathematics, as well as its relationship to physics. Such musings are novel but it’s not physics; it’s rhetoric, intractable abstraction. Mathematics is an expression [indulgence] of relationships. Mathematics alone is not capable of possessing the properties observed within our universe. The photoelectric effect and culmination of other nuances within our realm demand inherent structure.

To demonstrate a point, the question “what is gravity?” amounts to a purely scientific inquiry. That’s a 100% scientific question. Unfortunately, we’re never gonna get a scientific answer out of that, directly. All we can do with science is explain the relationships; how it works, interacts, evolves, relates. -those things are defined. We can then take that understanding, culminate it into a model, and infer such and such out of it…physics isn’t gonna tell us everything directly, can’t. The structure of particles is no different; we can answer a lot of things, but the universe has no classification for a sample of it. Science just connects the dots for us; the picture we get out of it is slightly removed from what pure science can tell us. Know how philosophy is an integral part of science? -that’s why! The universe CAN’T define certain things for us; Mother Nature is a physicist not a philosopher, and “what is” is philosophy. Running out of definitions the universe can offer us is not running out of things to define. Translating that circumstance into “it’s all math” is remedial. ‘Relationships having relationships with relationships begets our universe is humor, not science.
Click to expand...


More about dimensions:

IQ & Dimension of thought.​


We have linear thinkers among us… (2D) They process information much like a formal logical structure: by line item. They’re fully capable of coming to know complicated systems, thus forming their 2D picture, but it is a somewhat tedious process and things do get lost in translation.

The bright people of the world are the “systems thinkers”, 3D. They take in more than a line item at time. They’re able to see how entire systems work, understanding the nuances at play. More so than just a "picture", they can see into it and readily understand the nature of the system in fundamental ways.

There are also 4Ds; it’s simulation capacity. Are you familiar with Fermat’s Last Theorem? Euler’s Identity, and the profusion of his works? Gauss? How about Relativity? Einstein’s "thought experiments" were physics simulations, literally! -pretty good ones. All of those things and most other profound innovations humanity has produced throughout the ages came from 4Ds. Operating within existing parameters will keep you there. Shit like that never pops out an equation. They have to know it, they have to understand it; they saw that shit: how it works, interacts, evolves, relates, they saw it. In very pure and intimate ways, they saw it; they generated it. Of course, the vast majority of humans can draw up and run scenarios in their minds, but only these guys are doing it in strict accordance to mathematical and physical law. The world’s best computers are still organic; we’re quantum, of course we’re gonna smoke chips for a good while longer. 4Ds are what humanity calls genius; that’s what it is, that’s how it works.

The linear scale of IQ is fairly informative for 2 and 3Ds, however, that type of classification quickly breaks down concerning 4Ds. The most you can really distinguish between 4Ds is how it manifests. The path it takes could amount to intimate command of mathematical equations. -Stephen Hawking was this type of genius; his gift was manipulating equations. He worked as a physicist but his gift was more mathematical in nature. There are also those with excellent command of mathematical structure; they’re walking 3blue1brown youtube channels: translating mathematical expression into mathematical structure, that they can then fuck with. -Here is where we find the likes of Fermat, Gauss, Euler… Humanity’s math is symbolism, those guys work with the real thing! Closely related to mathematical structure but still distinct enough to warrant its own category is physical structure. Here are our pros with reconciling observation with mathematics: Einstein, Feynman, Faraday… Symphonic would be another path, as would Michelangelo type artistry. There are many paths. Newton stands as one of the bright ones of that crowd only because his gift manifested in both mathematical and structural ways, enabling him to cross reference. DaVinci was cool like that too: multiple paths.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top