Black Holes Don't Exist! (remix)

[Cinnabar]

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.

 

[Quarkmaster]

real physicists don’t chose physics; they’re chosen by it.

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.

 

[Quarkmaster]

makes me wonder what you make of "imaginary" numbers.

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.

 

[Quarkmaster]

You ain't just a

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

whislin' dixie.

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

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.

 

[Rift Zone]

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

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.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.

All that is trying to imply is physics is written into one's history from a very early age.

Some of my best friends are INTJs, but they're all aware that theoretical physics (and astronomy) are the baliwick of INTPs.

...and you and your INTP master race are probably out of your league on this one.

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.

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.

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.

 

[John K]

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.

Sorry to be so slow in replying @Rift Zone - I've been away for a couple of weeks and I'm only just getting back into the forum in earnest. I'm not sure if I understand your theory well, but it sounds very interesting.

As far as I understand it the issue of intensely gravitating objects needs to be split into a number of distinct questions about existence. I doubt there is any serious opposition among scientists to the idea that there is no singularity at the centre of a conjectured black hole. Whatever it could possibly be is beyond the major established theories, and lies outside their scope. On the other hand the existence of a possible black hole, in the sense of a closed finite boundary beyond which nothing can escape, is another matter entirely. I understand it is this which you are challenging. Does that mean you are saying that physical processes prevent such a thing, or that the general relativity mathematics that predicts their possible existence is in error? I can see where the former of these may be true for stellar mass black holes, but surely only the latter could be true for the super-massive sorts.

Let me ramble a bit to see if I understand what Einstein's theory implies. A super-massive black hole could be formed - according to the theory - while the matter just at or within the Schwarzschild radius is still in atomic, (relatively) low density form. At that radius, spacetime becomes so bent that time and space are interchanged, so anything that falls within it would have to go backwards in their own proper time to escape - and that's true at every point nearer to the centre, so you can never move further from the core wherever you are within it. That's what makes it a black hole and it could form (at least initially) at galactic mass scale without any extreme atomic physical reactions. So the only way I could see that such a hole couldn't form is if Einstein is wrong about how spacetime is warped by mass. Judging by the observed speed of stars orbiting around hyper-massive galactic core objects, the masses and sizes of these objects implied suggest they are well beyond the mass and the radius of anything other than a black hole unless general relativity is wrong.

The trouble is that general relativity makes exquisitely accurate predictions that are used with great precision every day - for example using GPS kit for satnav positioning. That doesn't mean his theory is correct when it comes to these extreme circumstances of course, but I don't see that electromagnetic forces could counter the development of a galactic mass black hole in the way that it could do plausibly for a stellar mass one.

But then physics is weird isn't it, in the sense that very accurate predictions that we use with great precision in everyday engineering, come from theories that are incorrect in their fundamental understanding of the world. Newton's concepts of an absolute and universal time and space are a good example - they are completely wrong, yet Newtonian mechanics is perfectly well able to serve most of our engineering needs. I often think that it's a mistake to take the predictive power of a scientific theory as evidence that its premises regarding universal fundamentals are correct. If ever we come up with a TOE it'll probably tell us yet again that time and space are nothing like they are envisioned in our current theories. After all, the theories are only anthropomorphic models of a reality that may not be fully expressible in that sort of way.

Really interesting stuff! Apologies if some of these points have been picked up already in the thread - I'll catch up with the more recent posts in the next day or two.

 

[Rift Zone]

@John K
Relativity freaks out and produces infinities at this point of contention. It says nothing! The only thing it can do is imply something crazy is going to go down.

Then we make assumptions, like the whole system then collapses into "singularity" and forms a black hole. Okay sure. And how does your model power all these wonderful things we find in the universe? What's that academia? Your dog ate your homework? You got no clue how to power any of it? You can't actually legitimately explain any of the discussed structures! Bottom line is, academia, you dont know what you're talking about. You don't actually have a viable model with any explanatory power. All you have is splattering of faulty presumptions that's gonna land your latest fantasy on the shelf of failed science, right next to perfect platomic crystalline spheres and their epicycles.

Meanwhile, there stands Nova. A real theory -one that fully explains its physics because it understands them. ...it's mathematically consistent, consistent with Relativity, and it flawlessly aligns with observation. All the post-docs, Nobel Laureates, and INTPs in the world are not gonna be able to change that.

Seems our disconnect revolves around what Relativity actually says vs what so many have made it mean. This view doesn't contradict Relativity, only what many have made it mean.

 

[John K]

Hi @Rift Zone - I'm still not sure if I understand correctly. Relativity doesn't produce infinities or singularities at an event horizon, from what I've heard about it. It's simply a place where escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, so photons cannot escape - and indeed Newtonian mechanics predicts the same effect, given that photons are subject to the force of gravity. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the other forces of nature create reactions which prevent the collapse of matter to the point of an event horizon forming, with the bulk of the compacting mass escaping in the form of electromagnetic energy (and presumably gravitational radiation too) before an event horizon could be formed. What is left behind is a residual mass of below the density required for an event horizon to be formed. Is that correct?

Supposing the compacting matter were not baryonic though - I've seen suggestions that some dark matter could have formed into black holes in the early days of the universe because of quantum density fluctuations in the original cosmic soup. Dark matter appears to only feel the gravitational force, not the other three known forces. How would this escape an event horizon forming?

 

[Cinnabar]

Astrophysics isn't my strong suit. I'm still thinking about this stuff so I hope this doesn't look too disorganized.

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".

You have the right sense of it. Exotic generally refers to forms of matter. I used the term in relation to exotic matter like the quark-gluon plasma, but also to the yet unknown mechamisms at work around the horizon responsible for the disks and jets and the photon sphere.

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.

That could be a thing. Some particles just radiate away. But the radiation would tend to be omnidirectional, not focused in a jet. I wonder if it's enough to explain the phenomenon. What about the supermassive ones? Since volume cubes with mass there should be so much more volume that time dilation and time slowdown is very different than what's happening closer to the singularity.

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 remember something about the degrees of freedom that matter and particles can assemble in as they start occupying the energy states of some discrete volume. Very interesting, I would definitely need a refresher on that one and would love to see some simulations

lol You may be a bigger geek than I am. =)

That's a big compliment, thank you

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.

I had to take some time to remember a few things before posting. Extreme states of matter are tricky. So to refresh a theoretical neutron star, we've got degenerate neutron matter in the outer shell, then nuclear pasta as an intermediary layer and, mostly theorized, quark-gluon plasma at the core. The core could just be normal degenerate matter for all we know. Quark-gluon plasma is interesting and I'll mention it later.

Why the intuition about the smbc's then. Mostly because the volume of a black hole increases with the cube of its mass. So a black hole twice the mass will have a Schwarzschild radius eight times as large. Considering how all timelines, or all geodesics point towards a singularity, this suggests a concentration of matter-energy at that point, or ring in case of a rotating one. The mechanism for making matter-energy is definitely at the extremely curved singularity. What would be the mechanism by which it's happening close to the boundary? I still haven't visited the inside of an event horizon to verify what's going on there, they say it's not exactly a trip to a grocery store.

After my previous post I had a few ideas why the jets and disks are more energetic than they should. I'll put them here as an unordered list:

1. Do we know what are the electromagnetic effects of extreme states of matter? An electromagnetic energy transfer could spin up a jet. So to the kinetic and angular energy we should also try to factor in the electromagnetic force. The effect should be the most extreme at the photon sphere or at some 1.5 > x >> 2 Schwarzschild radii away. I'm not so sure we understand how large guantities of matter spinning on metastable orbits like this behave. Photon sphere would be the limit here, because it is the last stable orbit as we approach the horizon, so we can expect a large ultrarelativistic matter dynamo before that point. Plasma is a charged state of matter and jets are rotational and polar so the magnetic field is definitely what gives them the direction, if not much of the energy.
2. Quark-gluon plasma (qgp) is super interesting. We get to it after neutrons break into their constituents. First it's a near solid, then at higher temperatures and pressures it turns into a gas and finally at the highest known ranges it precipitates into a supercritical liquid. Supercritical liquids and super liquids and their properties are now studied even by mathematicians due to their many interesting properties. One of the supercritical properties now theorized to be possible in such fluid is the perfect transfer of momentum into a single point resulting in extreme jets. Interesting coincidence here. What if the decay into qgp releases energy, that could contribute too.
3. Ultrarelativistic matter has some many unverified properties. Some of it is probably related to the fact that it may start behaving like a fluid. Relativistic hydrodynamics is a thing. Again another point of evidence suggesting that solids start behaving like fluids and lose viscosity. With zero viscosity the momentum transfers are extreme and we may be seeing some escaping matter with extraordinary energies and quantities. Could be an interseting read https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18434

 

[Rift Zone]

@John K, we actually do get infinities out of Schwartzchild Radius.

See minute mark ~8:42

If you follow that far enough you'll see it's a matter of the coordinate system used. That was the easy argument. The more challenging argument has everything to do with all Relativity is, is a mix of 2 circumstances found in our universe that toys with perfect little idealized gravitational entities. It's cool and all, but we're made of much more than little idealized balls of gravity. I'm 10^36 TIMES more a ball of electromagnetism than I am of gravity. So is the rest of the universe. As awesome as Relativity is, it's scope is way the fuck narrow; it's not talking about my universe, in its entirety....it's something like 10^36 times off.

That's a big compliment, thank you

I had to take some time to remember a few things before posting. Extreme states of matter are tricky. So to refresh a theoretical neutron star, we've got degenerate neutron matter in the outer shell, then nuclear pasta as an intermediary layer and, mostly theorized, quark-gluon plasma at the core. The core could just be normal degenerate matter for all we know. Quark-gluon plasma is interesting and I'll mention it later.

Why the intuition about the smbc's then. Mostly because the volume of a black hole increases with the cube of its mass. So a black hole twice the mass will have a Schwarzschild radius eight times as large. Considering how all timelines, or all geodesics point towards a singularity, this suggests a concentration of matter-energy at that point, or ring in case of a rotating one. The mechanism for making matter-energy is definitely at the extremely curved singularity. What would be the mechanism by which it's happening close to the boundary? I still haven't visited the inside of an event horizon to verify what's going on there, they say it's not exactly a trip to a grocery store.

After my previous post I had a few ideas why the jets and disks are more energetic than they should. I'll put them here as an unordered list:

1. Do we know what are the electromagnetic effects of extreme states of matter? An electromagnetic energy transfer could spin up a jet. So to the kinetic and angular energy we should also try to factor in the electromagnetic force. The effect should be the most extreme at the photon sphere or at some 1.5 > x >> 2 Schwarzschild radii away. I'm not so sure we understand how large guantities of matter spinning on metastable orbits like this behave. Photon sphere would be the limit here, because it is the last stable orbit as we approach the horizon, so we can expect a large ultrarelativistic matter dynamo before that point. Plasma is a charged state of matter and jets are rotational and polar so the magnetic field is definitely what gives them the direction, if not much of the energy.
2. Quark-gluon plasma (qgp) is super interesting. We get to it after neutrons break into their constituents. First it's a near solid, then at higher temperatures and pressures it turns into a gas and finally at the highest known ranges it precipitates into a supercritical liquid. Supercritical liquids and super liquids and their properties are now studied even by mathematicians due to their many interesting properties. One of the supercritical properties now theorized to be possible in such fluid is the perfect transfer of momentum into a single point resulting in extreme jets. Interesting coincidence here. What if the decay into qgp releases energy, that could contribute too.
3. Ultrarelativistic matter has some many unverified properties. Some of it is probably related to the fact that it may start behaving like a fluid. Relativistic hydrodynamics is a thing. Again another point of evidence suggesting that solids start behaving like fluids and lose viscosity. With zero viscosity the momentum transfers are extreme and we may be seeing some escaping matter with extraordinary energies and quantities. Could be an interseting read https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18434

You're welcome. Compliment bears out; holding your own pretty good for astrophysics not being your strong suit.

So I think I have an issue with presuming an event horizon. Sure, under the circumstances you describe, the event horizon of something supermassive is a fairly calm place - particularly in comparison to little ones. It's a fair argument, if the event horizon actually forms. This is the point of contention between the theories: what happens when you break a neutron? They say it collapses. The "aint entirely my universe" Relativity implies it happens. But a more robust consideration of the universe and it's constitutes denies that interpretation -you break a neutron, it goes nova. The math bears this out, and observation supports it. Relativity aint wrong, but neither is Newtonian Mechanics in that regard... Add in more and more of what our real universe is and the picture changes a little is all.

1. I jumped ship from prevailing theory in favor of Plasma Cosmology [ https://www.plasma-universe.com/ ]. My intellectual lineage was founded by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven.

Electromagnetism rules our universe. Your appeal here is about as sophisticated as modern theory gets. There is no science. There is no math. There's just faith in the black hole, and that somehow, some way, it actually is reconcilable with observation. lol No it's not. Black hole is cute on the front end, and makes for great clips, but it fails to explain anything in the universe: supernova, quasars, Gamma Ray Bursts. And it fails to explain these structures precisely because it undermines the tools needed to do so. It's a song and dance, it's not a real theory; but it's about to face one.

PS Gravity can't build disks. All them flat things in this universe: spiral galaxies, planetary systems, accretion disks, ring systems...all a violation of modern theory when taken literally. -fact. If we tried to build a universe with the theories we have now: it wouldn't look like ours! No disks for one.

2. Both you and academia seem to have some affinity for building that house of cards ever higher. "now theorized to be possible" lol Please spare me.
3 Yea, that's why academia doesn't know what it's talking about. You can publish anything if you can make it fly. I believe in what I can't break. The truth is modern physics is scarcely more sophisticated than platomic spheres and their epicycles. It is patchy, sketchy, willfully ignorant, demonstrably wrong, and would never build a universe akin to our own operating within those parameters. I'm not having much problem breaking it.

 

[Rift Zone]

"If everything in the universe depends upon everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation." -Stephen Hawking

What's PhD mean? learn more and more about less and less? lol

I may not believe in black holes, but Hawking is definitely on to something with that one.

 

[John K]

@John K, we actually do get infinities out of Schwartzchild Radius.

See minute mark ~8:42

If you follow that far enough you'll see it's a matter of the coordinate system used. That was the easy argument. The more challenging argument has everything to do with all Relativity is, is a mix of 2 circumstances found in our universe that toys with perfect little idealized gravitational entities. It's cool and all, but we're made of much more than little idealized balls of gravity. I'm 10^36 TIMES more a ball of electromagnetism than I am of gravity. So is the rest of the universe. As awesome as Relativity is, it's scope is way the fuck narrow; it's not talking about my universe, in its entirety....it's something like 10^36 times off.

Many thanks for the link - I enjoyed the video. But it really does bear out what I was saying - there are no physical singularities or discontinuities at the kind of event horizon implied by general relativity. Any apparent ones are simply because of the coordinate system used. I'm still unclear therefore about what your theory is saying - is it that black holes cannot exist in theory, or only in practice?

I need convincing by the notion that when neutrons within a massive stellar object collapse the energy released prevents a black hole from forming. It's a fascinating idea though, and I'm not saying it doesn't, only that it isn't obvious. As I said before, the energy released carries just as much gravitational collapse force as the neutrons that released it, and there would need to be proof that any photons within such an object could find its surface in time to escape the collapse since they would be trapped in all that quark soup. It might be that their pressure would resist the collapse long enough for the object to avoid black hole formation? But would that pressure be any greater than that exerted by the now overcome neutrons? What does the maths look like when you analyse this?

 

[Rift Zone]

Many thanks for the link - I enjoyed the video. But it really does bear out what I was saying - there are no physical singularities or discontinuities at the kind of event horizon implied by general relativity. Any apparent ones are simply because of the coordinate system used. I'm still unclear therefore about what your theory is saying - is it that black holes cannot exist in theory, or only in practice?

I need convincing by the notion that when neutrons within a massive stellar object collapse the energy released prevents a black hole from forming. It's a fascinating idea though, and I'm not saying it doesn't, only that it isn't obvious. As I said before, the energy released carries just as much gravitational collapse force as the neutrons that released it, and there would need to be proof that any photons within such an object could find its surface in time to escape the collapse since they would be trapped in all that quark soup. It might be that their pressure would resist the collapse long enough for the object to avoid black hole formation? But would that pressure be any greater than that exerted by the now overcome neutrons? What does the maths look like when you analyse this?

It's a matter of phase change! Neutrons will experience their breaking point in this universe. All theories here agree on that. What happens next is the critical divergence between the theories. Break a neutron in prevailing theory, and the mass collapses. That collapse is what enables event horizon to form. It never forms because we're not taking about idealized gravitational entities. We're talking about real particles. And when we break them, they splat. And we can be absolutely confident in that interpretation because it's the only one mother nature supports! I mean let's step back with some fairness here: one theory can actually consistently legitimately explain what we see in the universe, the other cant. When we dig into why that is, it's cuz prevailing theory lacks explanatory power involving how it powers its structures. Dig into that and we find cut the theory has painted itself into a corner...it denies the only legit explanation of these structures so it's left grasping at straws. Might as well say supernova are powered by "dark power" neutrinos and quasars get their energy through "dark art" manipulation of electromagnetic fields...cuz mother nature ain't doing it.