Thread: If Black Holes are rips in space..

if black holes create a rip in space do to there massive gravity couldn't they lead out of our dimension and mabe let us travel to other dimensions? wouldnt it also let is make short cuts in space by going in one black hole and coming out another vea the area out of our galaxy or the void im going to call it. (this is all assuming that we can find a way to exscape black holes and we find a way not to get killed in the proccess)
also alot of sceintists belive that our universe is a membrane and membranes can be riped if aplied enough force

According to Einstiens theory of relitivity (i think thats the right theory) black holes are rips in space.

No, that's not correct. They are just areas in space-time from which nothing can escape, because of the gravitational forces present. Space-time itself is still smooth and continuous, not "ripped".

wouldnt it also let is make short cuts in space by going in one black hole and coming out another

No. And even if there was such a "shortcut", you cannot escape the other black hole, so it's pretty pointless.

You'd be a string of spaghetti, or even thinner, by the time you are anywhere near the black hole. So escaping from the other side is already moot.

Originally Posted by pyoko

You'd be a string of spaghetti, or even thinner, by the time you are anywhere near the black hole. So escaping from the other side is already moot.

ya i know you would but this would be assuming we some how (probably never) find a way to servive

You probably want something like the Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Of course that ends you up elsewhere but in the same universe.

Black holes are actually not thought to be "rips" in space, but rather, areas that are so dense that gravity will prevent anything from escaping them. The definition of a black hole makes it seem unlikely that anything would emerge from them in another location. However, there is another theoretical "structure" called a wormhole that is thought to serve as a "bridge", connecting one point in spacetime to another. You might also be interested to read up on white holes.

Originally Posted by pyoko

You probably want something like the Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Of course that ends you up elsewhere but in the same universe.

yea. but a worm hole doesnt lead to the space between dimensions i shall call this a....jared hole (refrence from futerama)

Originally Posted by Saturn

Black holes are actually not thought to be "rips" in space, but rather, areas that are so dense that gravity will prevent anything from escaping them. The definition of a black hole makes it seem unlikely that anything would emerge from them in another location. However, there is another theoretical "structure" called a wormhole that is thought to serve as a "bridge", connecting one point in spacetime to another. You might also be interested to read up on white holes.

just because there not thought of as rips doesnt mean there not although it is un-likely they are rips its a possibility and in science you must explore exery possibility.

This is an extremely technical and scientific discussion of what a white hole is:

Originally Posted by Black hole geek

Originally Posted by Saturn

Black holes are actually not thought to be "rips" in space, but rather, areas that are so dense that gravity will prevent anything from escaping them. The definition of a black hole makes it seem unlikely that anything would emerge from them in another location. However, there is another theoretical "structure" called a wormhole that is thought to serve as a "bridge", connecting one point in spacetime to another. You might also be interested to read up on white holes.

just because there not thought of as rips doesnt mean there not although it is un-likely they are rips its a possibility and in science you must explore exery possibility.

Yes, that is what the choice of words "not thought" implies...

Science is actually less about exploring every possibility and instead, focusing on the possibilities for which empirical evidence or plausible models exists. As interesting as speculation about the true nature of black holes may be, physical evidence (which is unfortunately scarce right now due to the limitations of our technology) or supportive models are necessary if you wish to call this conjecture "science".

Originally Posted by Saturn

Originally Posted by Black hole geek

Originally Posted by Saturn

Black holes are actually not thought to be "rips" in space, but rather, areas that are so dense that gravity will prevent anything from escaping them. The definition of a black hole makes it seem unlikely that anything would emerge from them in another location. However, there is another theoretical "structure" called a wormhole that is thought to serve as a "bridge", connecting one point in spacetime to another. You might also be interested to read up on white holes.

just because there not thought of as rips doesnt mean there not although it is un-likely they are rips its a possibility and in science you must explore exery possibility.

Yes, that is what the choice of words "not thought" implies...

Science is actually less about exploring every possibility and instead, focusing on the possibilities for which empirical evidence or plausible models exists. As interesting as speculation about the true nature of black holes may be, physical evidence (which is unfortunately scarce right now due to the limitations of our technology) or supportive models are necessary if you wish to call this conjecture "science".

yea i guess thats true

Originally Posted by pyoko

This is an extremely technical and scientific discussion of what a white hole is:

It is also worth adding that another key feature of science is working to provide empirical evidence and developing models where they don't already exist. So if you wish to develop a legitimate model for black holes as "rips" in spacetime, you are always welcome to try and do so.

Einstein-Rosen Bridges cannot be sustained without exotic matter.

how would u survive in any dimension besides our 3d. you cant go to other dimensions

Originally Posted by Black hole geek

just because there not thought of as rips doesnt mean there not although it is un-likely they are rips its a possibility and in science you must explore exery possibility.

This logic doesn't make sense. By the same right I could say : just because they are not thought of as pink unicorns doesn't mean they are not in fact pink unicorns ! Does that make sense ?
Space-time does not "rip", it is not a material in the normal sense of the word. It is not a possibility under the gravitational field equations.

Yes, it's unlikely. It's so unlikely it's also impossible! Like, it's unlikely my big toe is actually my little toe.


Black holes are extremely dense lumps of matter, they're called black holes because light can't get out of them, so they appear as black 'holes' in space. That doesn't make them holes.


Black 'holes', the 'fabric' of space-time, the multiple 'membrane' cosmos theory and other terms are not literal descriptions. Space-time is nothing like a cloth, and the universe as you can quite clearly see, is not a membrane like the one covering your muscles (your skin). They are given these simplified terms because it's easier for people to understand. It's simpler to view gravity's effect on space time as heavy balls stretching and deforming a cloth, rather than trying to explain or demonstrate something the best scientists don't fully understand themselves yet.
Space-time cannot 'rip' there is nothing -to- rip because it isn't part of the third dimension, it is just the medium where the lower dimensions can exist in. Similarly a comsos membrance can't rip in the conventional sense either, because it's just a metaphor to describe the concept of countless universes flexing and shifting in near super-position to each other.


Oh, and it's not science's job to explore every possiblity, that's just stupid, otherwise scientists would spend their entire lives constantly proving that unicorns don't actually exist and black holes aren't secretly pink, becuase every single microsecond of existence provides the tiny, stupidly tiny, possibilty that maybe -now- they do.
Science is about exploring the most probably possibilities, proving them one way or another to generate new possibilities.
Black holes suck stuff in. a star with enough mass can collapse in on itself down to a tiny little ball and our current models suggest a) tiny little balls of super-dense matter will behave exactly like black holes do and b) the universe and space-time cannot simply -rip-. Distort yes, but not rip, it's never been observed, physically or mathematically, to happen. The consequence of these four bits of information is that the most probably possibility is black holes are superdense balls of matter spawned by dying stars. And this is the possibility we examine and base further experiments on. Not that black holes are actually pink, or squeaking elephants, or god, or might be rips in the universe to a void (which doesn't exist, again, membranes are a metaphor, not reality) where it can pop back in through other black holes like teleportation pads if only it could avoid the whole 'crushed into a ball' thing.

Originally Posted by pyoko

You'd be a string of spaghetti, or even thinner, by the time you are anywhere near the black hole. So escaping from the other side is already moot.

Here's linkd to a couple of papers describing some new work on event horizons. According to these papers the "spaghettification" phenomenon may not happen (at least in some cases).


Leonard Susskind (2012)
Complementarity And Firewalls
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4090.pdf


Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, and James Sully (2012)
Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3123.pdf


Or here's a SixtySymbols video for the less mathematically inclined: Falling into Black Holes (NEWS) - Sixty Symbols - YouTube

Originally Posted by Black hole geek

if black holes create a rip in space do to there massive gravity couldn't they lead out of our dimension and mabe let us travel to other dimensions? wouldnt it also let is make short cuts in space by going in one black hole and coming out another vea the area out of our galaxy or the void im going to call it. (this is all assuming that we can find a way to exscape black holes and we find a way not to get killed in the proccess)
also alot of sceintists belive that our universe is a membrane and membranes can be riped if aplied enough force

Black holes distort the spacetime continuum. They exert huge gravitational fields because of their intense gravity. This effect can cause rotation of spacetime called 'frame dragging'. This effect is a change in the dimensional properties that we would observe from away from the black hole, the dimensional property changes are that of time and of space.

Other dimensions we do not know exist, and in the loose term most media and television shows are very ambigious when they mention 'dimension'. Easily fallen for believe me

So far there are only space, and time. 3 of the former, 1 of the latter. Until we discover more and until we do, anything regarding black holes and their amazing superluminal/dimensional features is absolutle bollocks. Mere theory for now at least.

Originally Posted by Black hole geek

if black holes create a rip in space do to there massive gravity couldn't they lead out of our dimension and mabe let us travel to other dimensions? wouldnt it also let is make short cuts in space by going in one black hole and coming out another vea the area out of our galaxy or the void im going to call it. (this is all assuming that we can find a way to exscape black holes and we find a way not to get killed in the proccess)
also alot of sceintists belive that our universe is a membrane and membranes can be riped if aplied enough force

Take a balloon and stretch it, what happens after a while in the centre tears and holes start to appear, what I mean to say is the universe is expanding so there are holes opening up inside what are in theses holes you ask? absolutely nothing the same as what is beyond the universe!

Originally Posted by Michaeldavidbullock

what I mean to say is the universe is expanding so there are holes opening up inside

I don't think so. Space isn't made of "stuff" that tears when it is stretched too much.

absolutely nothing the same as what is beyond the universe!

There is no "beyond" the universe.

I don't think so. Space isn't made of "stuff" that tears when it is stretched too much.

Space isn't made from anything? Empty space still contains energy, particles etc. Though it doesn't rip or tear. I can comprehend certain levels of energy, or certain speeds where the laws from this space act like they are being teared.

There is no "beyond" the universe.

This is unknown. As we define the universe as everything. It also contains everything we know. What if we discover something else, totally different, but still similar. Lets say we are eggs in a carton. We live in 1 egg... this egg is our universe... So.. multiple things can happen.. We could discover other eggs, the carton that contains eggs, or the table we are all put on top of...

I strongly doubt there is only the universe we concider to be all that is. Though maybe this will also be called our universe.

Then a question, what happens at the edge of space/matter? Is it so that out matter can not exist outside of our universe? so if one could traverse to the edge we would simply dissolve (or dissolve on the way there). Just some thoughts ..

Originally Posted by Zwolver

I don't think so. Space isn't made of "stuff" that tears when it is stretched too much.

Space isn't made from anything? Empty space still contains energy, particles etc.

Space might be full of stuff but space isn't made of stuff... (but that is getting too close to philosophy for me).

There is no "beyond" the universe.

This is unknown. As we define the universe as everything. It also contains everything we know.

Exactly. There are various multiverse hypotheses/speculations. These are not, as far as I know, testable and probably never will be. If we can detect it then it is part of our universe (by definition).

Then a question, what happens at the edge of space/matter?

There is no edge. The universe is either infinite (and therefore has no edge) or is finite but unbounded (like the surface of a sphere, for example).

[usual caveats of "as far as we know", etc. apply as always]

There is no edge. The universe is either infinite (and therefore has no edge) or is finite but unbounded (like the surface of a sphere, for example).

Infinity does not exist. If the number of particles can actually be guessed (thought it was about 10^51), then there is a finite limit to how big the universe is. Then there is an amount of distance to travel where space becomes something else.. Isn't there?

I still think matter "dissolves" when under these conditions.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Infinity does not exist.

How do you know that?

If the number of particles can actually be guessed (thought it was about 10^51), then there is a finite limit to how big the universe is.

I assume that is an estimate for the observable universe (the bit we can see due to the limited speed of light and other factors).

Then there is an amount of distance to travel where space becomes something else.. Isn't there?

Not necessarily. The surface area of the earth is finite. There is a limit to how far you can travel but it doesn't become "something else".

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Infinity does not exist. If the number of particles can actually be guessed (thought it was about 10^51), then there is a finite limit to how big the universe is. Then there is an amount of distance to travel where space becomes something else.. Isn't there?

No. The universe can be finite, yet not have a boundary, and thus no "beyond".

I understand slightly what you mean by that. But the concept does not seem all to reasonable to me. In other words. The universe has infinite size, but a fixed energy/mass. You can add more size any time, but this would not increase overall energy/mass. Then there has to be some kind of mechanism that keeps the universe together from splitting into pieces. Who's saying that this hasn't already happened?

Originally Posted by Zwolver

The universe has infinite size, but a fixed energy/mass.

I think you have missed the point: the universe has(*) finite size (and fixed energy/mass) but still not have a boundary/edge. For example, in to dimensions, we know the size (area) of the Earth's surface. But the surface has no boundary or edge (in 2 dimensions).

Then there has to be some kind of mechanism that keeps the universe together from splitting into pieces.

No necessarily: it can just keep getting less and less dense (more and more spread out).


(*) may have ... it may be infinite.

I think you missed what he was saying. He said a universe can be finite, yet still have no bounds, i.e. no edge or centre. In fact, there are no scenarios I know of where a finite universe can have an edge or centre. The universe is defined as all energy and space. For an edge to exist, it would imply that there is something beyond the edge, hence it would not be an edge to the universe at all. To imagine how a finite universe has no boundary, think about the 2D surface of the earth (only the surface) and apply that to a 3D version of that. You are left with no edges, no centres, but finite volume. There would simply be no "there" there to contemplate anywhere else than that 3D "surface", like thinking about the 7th side of a standard die.

Edit: or what Strange said.

And, as side-effect of that, this is why it is normally said that the universe has no centre: after all, where is the centre of the surface of the Earth?

In fact, there are no scenarios I know of where a finite universe can have an edge or centre.

It may be possible in a scenario where such a universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold; of course, the center point would then not be part of the universe, but be located outside of it. The "beyond" would be anywhere into the additional dimension(s), just like the "beyond" for the surface of the earth would be the third dimension.

Then, the universe could be totally different then what we see it to be. It could be a looped string, where we can only travel trough it one way. Then i also understand how this can form an infinite universe in more then 1 dimension. Then finite does indeed not exist.. Hmm still hard to comprehend.. Just because of that, i want to go to 1 side for a trillion lightyears, just to see what's there..

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Then, the universe could be totally different then what we see it to be. It could be a looped string, where we can only travel trough it one way. Then i also understand how this can form an infinite universe in more then 1 dimension. Then finite does indeed not exist.. Hmm still hard to comprehend.. Just because of that, i want to go to 1 side for a trillion lightyears, just to see what's there..

Probably not a looped string, but it could be a hypertorus ( torus in more than 3 dimensions ). Such a global geometry is indeed compatible with the Einstein field equations.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Then finite does indeed not exist...

I don't know how you get that from the last few posts? Our universe certainly can be finite, as explained.

Originally Posted by Markus

It may be possible in a scenario where such a universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold

O yeah, forgot about that one.

right i hope know one has posted this already but how about this as a theory
so black holes are said to be a kind of bottom less pit with infinte gravity but what about if space and time inverted to time and space at the point of infinite gravity so space became time and time became space

Karl Schwarzschild provided his solution to Einsteins field equations way back in 1915, and it was another year before David Hilbert found the singularities contained within it. Then a few years later Arthur Eddington showed that one of those singularities was only an apparent effect of the Schwarzschild coordinates. Over the next few decades these concepts were analysed in greater detail, using lots of different coordinate systems, and by the 1960's we had the concept of the event horizon around the black hole.

To a distant observer, when someone falls into a black hole, they are "frozen in time" at that coordinate horizon known as the event horizon, but to the infalling observer time continues to pass as they cross the event horizon, and continues to do so all the way until they reach the gravitational singularity at the heart of the black hole.

But, the funny thing is, if you stick to the original Schwarzschild coordinates, whilst you cannot analyse what happens at the event horizon (due to the coordinate singularity there), if you try to analyse what would happen inside the event horizon you find that the concepts of space and time seem to have swapped around - your notions of time and the radial distance to the centre of the black hole swap places!

So, somebody has "posted this already" - it has been part of the science of black holes for over half a century!

Wow the universe has stretch marks. That sounds fucking bad, the universe is getting fat.

If your intention is to use a curse word in every one of your posts your return after your vacation will be very short ived. I'd suggest you use your week to grow up reeeaaall fast.

First I feel the need to confess and apologise for not reading the whole thread.

Ok, black holes... are they different from dark matter?

do we know of there existence? how? is it simply becuase sometimes things in space dispear or the light is prevented from reaching us?

Have we mapped a number of these black holes?

Is a black hole a cosmic vagina which leads into a womb where new universes are born? perhaps a part of the universes reproductive system?

Originally Posted by question for you

Ok, black holes... are they different from dark matter?

Completely different. Dark matter is distributed in, around and between galaxies. It causes unexpected rotation speeds of galaxies and gravitational lensing.

Black holes are the remains of large stars that have exploded and then collapsed to such an extent that not even light can escape their gravitational field.

do we know of there existence? how?

A large number of black holes have been observed. For example: Hot Dog! WISE Finds a Bounty of Black Holes

Most galaxies are thought to have a supermassive (millions of times the mass of the sun) black hole at their center.

Is a black hole a cosmic vagina which leads into a womb where new universes are born? perhaps a part of the universes reproductive system?

Well, it has been suggested that a new universe could be created when a black hole is formed. (There is a thread about this, I think.) But this is highly speculative.
Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science

Distance travel as opposed to time travel.


If we use time travel to get to Mars this year, will that be harder then using mere 3D distancing?


If so, then how does traveling a collapsar make any sense?


Also, collapsars are physical in some way because they are collapsed star matter. Space is called so in literal view.


Now, here's a more interesting question: from where did space come from, and was it there before matter and energy?

No one talks of this or even knows it. The answer is more elusive than dark matter is.

Originally Posted by seft

Distance travel as opposed to time travel.


If we use time travel to get to Mars this year, will that be harder then using mere 3D distancing?


If so, then how does traveling a collapsar make any sense?


Also, collapsars are physical in some way because they are collapsed star matter. Space is called so in literal view.


Now, here's a more interesting question: from where did space come from, and was it there before matter and energy?

No one talks of this or even knows it. The answer is more elusive than dark matter is.

Isn't space full of matter and energy? or at least energy and possibly matter that we cannot detect yet. Nevermind where did space come from yet, first off... what is it?
There so many questions we cannot answer, yet there are so many fools who act like they know it all. Thats another amazingly puzzling phenomena for me.

It is foolish to think that space having whatever in it means that it, in it's vast, is full. Space is usually empty minded.

I wasn't meaning to say you sounded like a fool btw seft.

I did get the meaning in your last post.