I further believe that there may be an implosive force so great, that gravity “ceases to exist” for a “split second” and in that moment…. is a big bang. It is my understanding the Big Bang theory hints at that, whereby ‘gravity separates from the other 3 forces’ I believe at the moment just before the big bang….. What? We’re still trying to come up with the ‘unification’ of the forces? The only force of the fundamental 4 that exists within a black hole (theoretically) is gravity.

Electromagnatism is “extinguished” by the implosive force creating a white dwarf. The weak force is extinguished by the implosive force creating a neutron star. The strong force is extinguished by the implosive force creating a black hole. It follows then, that there ‘may’ be an implosive force so great that for a ‘moment’ in time, gravity would lose it’s hold on all that ‘maximum’ density, and WOW what a big bang that would be.

As for the expanding universe, this is just for discussion lol.. but when you try to blow up a balloon, it is difficult at 1st, and slowly the air works into the rubber and begins to expand it. It takes a lot of energy to get it started. Once the rubber begins to stretch, the balloon begins to expand very quickly. Maybe our expanding universe is similar, expanding faster all the time. OR, again just for discussion.. maybe the stuff of the universe is like the shifting continents on some ‘tectonic plate’ very loosly speaking.. maybe all the galaxies are ‘shifting’ … but toward what??

Also, it is not true that all the galaxies are flying away from each other, as some scientists avidly state. Andromeda is heading straight for the Milky Way…..

One other thing, I really get annoyed with black holes depicted as a round sphere. It would look more like a flat tire, bulging at the equator like any celestial object. In fact, were I to believe in white holes, and were the centrifugal force greater than the gravity that binds the object, I would say that galaxies look very much like a super massive black hole that ‘spun out’.

It seems that the speed of spin and the size of the black hole is limited by the very stuff it consumes.. the accretion disk. The matter falling in creates an immense magnetic field, so you have gravity tight as can be, centrifugal force, wanting to tear the thing apart, you have the rotation speeding up as it takes on more matter, approaching the speed of light. Of course there is a limit there.. and what the accretion disk does is ‘deflect’ matter along the magnetic field it creates, shooting charged particles (electrons) out the poles at immense speeds, which ‘fertilize’ ionized hydrogen particles so they can incubate new stars.

But what’s this about guasars and galaxies producing hydrogen? That’s the big mystery. Where does the hydrogen come from?

And what of magnetars? Am I to believe these ‘neutron stars’ have the strongest magnetic field in all the univers, including these super massive jet-flinging black holes?

If all the mass is at r=0 and none is at r>0, then aren’t we describing an objet with infinite density? In special relativity the formula for the density of a mass observed by another is

D = Mo/[Xo^3(1-(v^2/c^2))]

Density becomes infinite when v=c. Doesn’t that mean special relativity forbids infinite density?

Also, are you entirely sure it is not a mathematical error

Thanks again for your opinions! I don’t believe for a moment in the ‘singularity’. I do believe in the existence of black holes, but they have mass, size and rotation (based on their resulting from a large imploding star…. & certainly super massive black holes are spinning out super fast jets and rotating at extremely high speeds).

Interesting that electrons can be squished into a soup when a white dwarf is formed, fused into neutrons when a neutron is formed, but when a black hole is formed, that neutron is squeezed into ??? Well I believe all the space is squeezed out of the matter entirely. It exists in space but contains no space. But I didn’t want to discuss a lot because I don’t relish the thought of being laughed out of town here. I just wanted to pop in and say Thanks!

DrFlimmer:

You can still post it, anyway. Could be useful in future discussions with our good EU-friends

Don’t worry, it will keep… I’ve bookmarked it for the next time!

@ ND,

The real “partee poopah” is Anaconda — about as welcome as a snake in a lucky dip.

I am dah partee poopah. Unless when I’m being ignored

*Crickets*

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/14/hubble-catches-a-jet-collision/comment-page-2/#comment-175162 IVAN3MAN Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:41:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/04/14/hubble-catches-a-jet-collision/#comment-175162 Todd W.: <blockquote>Don’t forget the poison ivy.</blockquote> Yeah, you're right, and also I forgot the preposition "of", and the letter "s"; so I should have written it as: <blockquote>Google is like a pasture: Lots of rich, fresh grass, but beware <b>of</b> the nettle<b>s</b> and [the poison ivy], [and] mind that you don’t step in the bull****!</blockquote> Todd W.:

Don’t forget the poison ivy.

Yeah, you’re right, and also I forgot the preposition “of”, and the letter “s”; so I should have written it as:

Google is like a pasture: Lots of rich, fresh grass, but beware of the nettles and [the poison ivy], [and] mind that you don’t step in the bull****!

Given the evidence that an electron either has a wave-like structure or is structured with a tendency to wave, couldn’t it be that the QM position opperator is trying to tell us where the center of the electron is rather than where the entire electron is?

Given the evidence that an electron is structured with a field that has a tendency to quantize, couldn’t it be that the QM position operator is trying to tell us where it is likely that the electron is rather than where the entire electron is?

Actually, I believe that is what it is telling us. So whether it behaves like a particle then observed in one experiment or like a wave in another, out comes that probability.

Now, how do you show that an elementary particle has a width? (Especially considering the problems that runs up with, for example the meaning of spin.) Theories there particles have width are structured differently, for example string theory there AFAIU you have a size.

shouldn’t we conclude the gravitational field of a black hole has no mathematical foundation?

Not a formal, proof-rigorous, no. That doesn’t preclude mathematics to be used, to great advantage.

how is a black hole a consequence of physics?

Tom Marking gave an excellent summary in the comment just above your question.

[More generally you can see the claim that as a singularity it is a consequence akin to other singularities of theory pointing to "new physics", say the infinite field strength around point charges of classical field theory pointing to quantum theory and its explanation of charges. But that isn't as specific as TM's summary.]

You just seem to have forgotten that little fact.

But that is the purpose of rants, no?

[Seriously, we can't expect to teach incompetents. Ever. But we can strive to clarify things for us, and for bystanders.

... , OK, I guess it might have gone over the head of some bystanders as well. Sorry.]

Don’t forget the poison ivy.

It would probably help if he had actually studied physics under those who actually work with it, rather than just attending the university of Google.

Google is like a pasture: Lots of rich, fresh grass, but beware the nettle and mind that you don’t step in the bull****!

I believe the Cassini test was the most precise testing of GR’s prediction so far. I could be remembering that incorrectly but it was a significant experiment supporting GR.

So we make a prize. $15 Million in taxpayer money to the first team to achieve such and such temperature and density. I can’t think of many applications of research, but the machinery to make it happen might have collateral benefit to industry and in that situation prizes have spurred private investment. The Lunar X program is an example.

@ND

Putting an emitter on a satellite seems pretty obvious after you point it out. It seems like that would be even better than looking at a star because you can be very certain about what light the satellite emits.

There was the Cassini experiment from a few years ago using radio ways to test general relativity. Cassini was passing behind the sun and this gave an opportunity to test GR. Since dispersion goes down with increase in wavelength efraction would be much less for radio waves compared to light. The idea being that with radio waves dispersion *could* be insignificant if it’s observable in visible light. But I have no idea how these would compare affects from GR. Just guessing.

Theoretically it would be possible to creat a “corona” in the lab. The biggest problem is probably to creat the thinness – it is more than a “perfect vacuum on earth” (10^-12 kg/m^3). Heating should not be such a big problem.

“Or both.”

That’s right isn’t it? Well, a little egg on my face there. Not to try to change the subject too badly, but does anyone know the technological barriers that would need to be crossed in order to reproduce a corona environment (high temperature, low density) in a laboratory? If we had a corona to test we could probably tell the difference between the causes, but of course that assumes we see any variance with wavelength at all. So at least in the case where there’s no colour variability we’ll still get useful information. Still though, good point.

Or both, no? These would be two separate phenomenon acting on the same photons.

It would probably help if he had actually studied physics under those who actually work with it, rather than just attending the university of Google.

Unfortunately you’re not helping PC either with your complete lack of knowledge of scientific concepts behind what you’re discussing.

You guys over at UniverseToday must love OilIsMastery. He positively hurts Plasma Cosmology with his very, very poor style of discussion and argumentation.

First true thing that you have ever said!

OilIsMastery is the gift that keeps on giving to opponents of Plasma Cosmology.

You could not make that guy up!

D’oh!