Thread: New Theory On Black Hole Formation

An article discussing a new theory on the link between black hole formation and galaxy evolution Professor Lucio Mayers, from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the the University of Zurich:

http://hicexsistoeverto.wordpress.co...ole-formation/

Comment, questions and discussions duely welcomed!

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most galaxies rotate around black holes. If this is true then their would be no galaxies to smash into each other to create black holes.

I will correct you on some aspects. Some galaxies are thought to have supermassive black holes at their centres.

Galaxies can still collide tho, regardless of whether they have black holes or not. Black holes can also merge, thus creating larger black holes.

Basically my article is saying that they have found a link between galaxy formation and the formation of black holes, i.e. that black holes may of come before the galaxy, thus the black hole creates the structure of the galaxy that forms around it.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Comment, questions and discussions duely welcomed!

You know you need to change this sentence:
"Although these objects cannot be seen directly, their existence is betrayed by nearby stars whose high velocities can only be explained if they are being pulled along by something with an immense gravitational attraction."

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Basically my article is saying that they have found a link between galaxy formation and the formation of black holes, i.e. that black holes may of come before the galaxy, thus the black hole creates the structure of the galaxy that forms around it.

Possible, what if a black hole would 'collect' dark energy or something else out of space, 'freezing' it and by that creating planets and stars?
If so, then where are the black holes coming from?

Me personally, I feel that dark matter could be the stored virtual particles on the P-Branes that Hawking talks about...as a black hole can be modelled as intersecting p-branes, the virtual particles wavefunction is stored on the membrane.

What do you mean where are the black holes coming from?

I'm not sure what level of physics you have studied, but the most massive black holes we see today were first formed from Pop.III stars in the nucelosynthesis of the big bang, but black holes are formed today by collapsing nuetron stars (that were once part of the asymtotic giant branch i.e. MASSIVE STARS). Stars usually with a mass of 10 to 40 times the mass of the sun could, by all means, become black holes.

Dark energy, by my knowledge, is at the moment an unknown force causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, its not really freezer material (I could be wrong!).

:-D

What part of that sentence do I need to change Ophiolite??

What do you mean where are the black holes coming from?

I'm not sure what level of physics you have studied, but the most massive black holes we see today were first formed from Pop.III stars in the nucelosynthesis of the big bang, but black holes are formed today by collapsing nuetron stars (that were once part of the asymtotic giant branch i.e. MASSIVE STARS). Stars usually with a mass of 10 to 40 times the mass of the sun could, by all means, become black holes.

Dark energy, by my knowledge, is at the moment an unknown force causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, its not really freezer material (I could be wrong!).

:-D

I'm high school level. And I know where Black Holes are coming from, but if I were right(that would really suprise me), than their would have been black holes a long time before there were stars... or any matter at al.
Off course you can't just 'freeze' dark energy, but I meant 'freezing' like how matter is actually 'frozen' energy.

Matter and energy are not interchangable. E = mc^2 basically means that energy has mass, not that it is matter. Frozen matter is exactly late, frozen matter. I cant freeze energy...its just not possible! Its a good idea, but not quite right.

Freezing is just a term implied to states of matter, as matter have bonds that can be broken or formed into a crystalline structure...energy...or dark energy...cannot form bonds.

Hope that helps!! :-D

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What part of that sentence do I need to change Ophiolite??

"Although these objects cannot be seen directly, their existence is betrayed by nearby stars whose high velocities can only be explained if they are being pulled along by something with an immense gravitational attraction."

Pulled along ignores inertia and gives a false impression of the effects of gravity. Influenced by would surely be better.

(Please note I am nitpicking, but when you are producing good material the next step in improvement is likely to be only attainable by attention to nitpicking detail.)

No no, nitpicking is fine! Yeh, totally agree with your improvement. Influenced sounds much better, and it is more of what I meant to convey but couldnt find the word!

Hey, I was going to ask you Mr. Ophiolite...would you be interested in becoming a subscriber...I'm trying to collect subscribers who are very knowledgable in this field who can be more critical...would be an honour :wink:

Matter and energy are not interchangable. E = mc^2 basically means that energy has mass, not that it is matter. Frozen matter is exactly late, frozen matter. I cant freeze energy...its just not possible! Its a good idea, but not quite right.

Freezing is just a term implied to states of matter, as matter have bonds that can be broken or formed into a crystalline structure...energy...or dark energy...cannot form bonds.

Hope that helps!! :-D

freezing isn't the right term indeed, I know. I thought energy and mass are two the same things, just as space and time. Doesn't nucleair powerplants work with that?

The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be ″converted″ to energy.

E = mc2 has sometimes been used as an explanation for the origin of energy in nuclear processes, but mass–energy equivalence does not explain the origin of such energies. Instead, this relationship merely indicates that the large amounts of energy released in such reactions may exhibit enough mass that the mass-loss may be measured, when the released energy (and its mass) have been removed from the system.

I hope that is more detailed by what I mean :-D

If we have matter, and after a proces, we have this matter with decreased mass, and energy with the 'missing mass' wouldn't it be logical that the mass was 'converted' into energy?
(sorry for me being slow sometimes)

I see where your coming from, but think about it this way. Matter and energy are totally two different constructs. When matter has more energy, it has more mass. Hence energy has mass. Matter does not mean mass. Matter had mass. Energy has mass, but energy isnt matter. They are two totally different fundamental physical things.

Its complicated, but just think of them as two different things, and no matter how hard ou try you cant turn energy into matter. lol :-D

That indeed is complicated, as it is precisely the opposite to what I've learned.

Here wikipedia:

As one consequence, mass and energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) cannot always be related to matter (which can be created out of non-matter particles such as photons, or even out of pure energy, such as kinetic energy).

Many teachers are not always good at conveying the right message I guess. As long as you learn right in the end. :-D

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Hey, I was going to ask you Mr. Ophiolite...would you be interested in becoming a subscriber...I'm trying to collect subscribers who are very knowledgable in this field who can be more critical...would be an honour :wink:

You are very kind, but I know much less than I pretend to know and am tied up with many other things, work and personal. I prefer not making a commitment that I might fall down on. I shall dip into your blog from time to time and may drop you the odd pm.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Many teachers are not always good at conveying the right message I guess. As long as you learn right in the end. :-D

Ok, thanks for it

When a Universe is created It starts from a singularity much like whats found at the bottom of a black hole. That singularity is held together by the dark matter force outside of it, Inside it is the material labeled Super-Matter which is ALL-4 elements togehter in one Super element. That expanded inside the singularity pushing on the boundries untill the dark matter holding it was overpowered allowing the universe to expand evenly in all direction.
Now the Black-Hole sucks in matter for a long time but black holes Calapse. What is being said I believe is that as the matter from a Black-Hole is collected it eventually is forced into reforming of the Super-Matter as all the diffrent matters are re-combined at the singularity. When enough matter has been collected it overpowers the Singularties hold punching a hole threw the fabric of space itself which forms the Next Universes collection of Matter, Until it achieves enough to escape and Closes off the hole left thus collapsing the Black-Hole left behind.
This is repeated Infinatly giving way to string thoery, as well. I believe.
I put a post about this having no schooling just t.v. educated, and found out this was already a thoery, so I was very pleased to see I was rite or at least hit on something that could actually be a real happening.

Mr Robets, you have been bested by Beretta, who has a high-school level understanding. Mass-energy equivalence means exactly that. The proof is in every nuclear reactor and bomb. The proof is in the sun. The proof explains pair-creation, where a photon of suitable energy spontaneously transforms into a particle and anti-particle. It also accounts for Hawking radiation and the evaporation of small black holes. Look all this stuff up !!

As to the gibberish thaCrow187 is spouting, I think he also needs to do some reading. A singularity is infinitely dense, ie. a certain amount of mass-energy located at a dimensionless point. As such it cannot exihist in our universe, so it is shielded from it by the ultimate one way door, the event horizon. Everything other than mass-energy, charge, momentum and entropy is lost to the universe as it crosses the event horizon. All other information is irretreivable.

Mr Robets, you have been bested by Beretta, who has a high-school level understanding. Mass-energy equivalence means exactly that. The proof is in every nuclear reactor and bomb. The proof is in the sun. The proof explains pair-creation, where a photon of suitable energy spontaneously transforms into a particle and anti-particle. It also accounts for Hawking radiation and the evaporation of small black holes. Look all this stuff up !!

Youve repeated what I stated previously, but made one major error. Energy and mass are NOT equivalent, otherwise it would be:

Mass can be CONVERTED into energy, and, theoretically, energy can be converted into mass (pair creation).

And please also MigL dont refer to someone's comment as "spouted jibberish", try and have a little more respect.

So when you combine two neutrons and two protons into a Helium nucleus and the strong nuclear force's binding energy "subtracts" some mass, so that even though two neutrons and two protons are still present, their mass is now reduced by an amount equal to the binding energy multiplied by a CONSTANT, c. And you say this is not equivaence but a conversion ??
Excuse me if I call this, also, gibberish.

Its referred to as the mass-energy equivalence equation, but it doesnt mean that mass and energy are equivalent, which is what baretta was saying. Its a conversion. ...Prof. Brian Cox dealt with it recently in his book and also Briane Greene is his numerous documentaries.

And the constant is c sqaured... not c.

It's one of the greatest misunderstandings of the equation. :-D

So MigL you are effectively saying that one kilogram is equal to one Joule?

Now you're just being deliberately dense. Of course a joule of energy is not equivalennt to a kilo of mass !!!
But when a quantity of mass can be used interchangeably with a quantity of energy, after being multiplied by a constant (doesn't matter if the constant is squared or not ITS STILL A CONSTANT ), in any known equation or circumstance, then they can be said to be equivalent. Unless of course you can tell me one equation or circumstance where such a substitution is not allowed ??

All I can say to ou is derive the equation from first principles and then you'll see instinctively that matter and energy are not the same. :-D

Originally Posted by Beretta

That indeed is complicated, as it is precisely the opposite to what I've learned.

Here wikipedia:

As one consequence, mass and energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) cannot always be related to matter (which can be created out of non-matter particles such as photons, or even out of pure energy, such as kinetic energy).

Please read Prof. Brian Cox's latest book (Why Does E=mc2) on this misinterpretation.

Also could we get back to discussing this seemingly new Black Hole formation mechanism...? :wink:

Michael_Roberts. Ref your OP, there is certainly enough matter about in galaxy formation to form a very massive SMBH, though we only have a few so far that are billions of solar masses.

Possibly it depends on the original momentum of the galaxy, how much forms the central black hole and how much ends up out in the arms? I don´t know if anyone has done a study to show if there is any correlation between the two?

This is how I would describe why galaxies are seen today.

Slight local desntiy fluctuations in matter shortly after the big bang over time became Population.III stars. The stars would be short lived, and evolve very quickly into very dense compact objects (and subsequently enriching the ISM via supernovae). Some of these very dense compact objects were indeed black holes, which over, time became much much larger via stellar cannibalism i.e. formed SMBH. These became the focal points of galaxies, who in turned merger and collided, whislt attracting more dust and gas. This dust and gas, significantly enriched via the Pop.III supernovae, is what formed Pop.I and II stars we see today.

Am interested in Michaels contention that some galaxies have a smbh at
their centre. All galaxies have a smbh at their centre. The size of the smbh
is related to the size of the galaxy, nominaly, one half of a % of the galaxies
mass. The consequence of the formation of the smbh was the creation of stars
in the surrounding hydrogen gas cloud, creating a galaxy.
nokton.

nokton: I agree that theoretically all galaxies should have SMBH at their centre. But I wouldn't say just yet that all galaxies definately have them, as the observational evidence isn't their yet.

SMBHs are known to grow over time, so galaxies must evolve with them. So I think we kind of agree in principle but the mechanisms are slightly different, I just dont think it is as clear cut at nokton says it is.

Thankyou Michael for your response. I can assure you that every galaxy so
far examined shows a smbh at its centre.
That apart, my real interest is in the physics of smbhs. Are they what GR
tells us? Or does the apparent breakdown of known physics at the event
horizon suggest that Alberts equations perhaps need a little refining?
There is an obvious imbalance between observation and theory.
Is spacetime as we understand it, based upon Lorentz symmetry and no
other consideration?
Nokton.

Just going to propose a little something...

A black hole's gravitational strength is determined by the amount of information stored on its corresponding p-brane, so an SMBH has a huge amount of infomation stored on it compared to a smaller sized mass black hole.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

nokton: I agree that theoretically all galaxies should have SMBH at their centre. But I wouldn't say just yet that all galaxies definately have them, as the observational evidence isn't their yet.

SMBHs are known to grow over time, so galaxies must evolve with them. So I think we kind of agree in principle but the mechanisms are slightly different, I just dont think it is as clear cut at nokton says it is.

I believe the current thinking about galaxy formation and evolution is expressed in the article below. I don't share that view and have included a short comment below.

Co-Evolution of Galaxies & Supermassive Black Holes
Posted in Active Galactic Nuclei, Astrophysics, Black Holes, Computer Aided Simulation, Cosmology, Science, Supermassive Black Holes by Michael Roberts on August 26, 2010
A recent study published in Nature suggests that ‘behemoth’ black holes billions of times more massive than our Sun found at the center of many, if not all, galaxies probably formed shortly after the Big Bang.
Supercomputer simulations conducted by Lucio Mayer, from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the the University of Zurich, indicate that the conditions for the birth and growth of these giants could have been set in play by the merger of galaxies when the cosmos was just a few hundred million years old. The simulation found that the collision and union of two early galaxies could produce an enormous disc of rotating gas, and that this disc could become unstable and fall in on itself in rapid time.
Today, enormous black holes seem to lie at the centers of most large galaxies. Although these objects cannot be seen directly, their existence is betrayed by nearby stars whose high velocities can only be explained if they are being influenced by something with an immense gravitational attraction.
Understanding how these supermassive black holes came into being and how they evolved is a major question in astrophysics. Professor Mayer said the new study had major consequences for the apparent size relationship between supermassive black holes and their host galaxies. University of Zurich scientist, Kevin Schawinksi, added:
…it challenged the idea galaxies grew in a hierarchical fashion, in incremental steps in which gravity pulls small masses together to form progressively larger structures.”
Astrophysicists expect that in the early Universe there will be no clear relation as in the present-day Universe, since the black holes would be already very massive (because they form in only a few hundred thousand years after galaxy collisions) while the galaxies still have to grow a lot until the present time.
This, of course, would distinguish Lucio’s model from the old one in which small seed black holes are formed first from the collapse of primordial stars and then slowly grow to the present sizes. In this case, galaxies and massive black holes grow in parallel; while in our case, black holes grow much faster than galaxies.

I believe the co-evolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies is completely and totally wrong. I believe every galaxy in our visible universe was a supermassive black hole before it became a galaxy with stars. All these supermassive black holes were in orbit around a super behemoth massive black hole before the big bang. Somehow the behemoth massive black hole reached critical mass and we had a big bang. As all the mass of the behemoth expanded outward it enveloped and passed all the supermassive black holes that were in orbit around it. The supermassive black holes became the perfect environments to capture the recycled star fuel (Hydrogen). They then flared into quasars for a period of time and then star formation happened very quickly.

I do have a more complete write up that I call The Advanced Big Bang Model of our Universe however it's a bit lengthy for this forum (20 pages). I'll forward a copy if your interested. I did become a member at your Blog.

All right, seems we gotta wait and see which of the 2 proposed models for supermassive black hole formation at the center of galaxies holds more ground... the older primordial giant star collapse on itself, or the new computer simulation showing enormous disc of rotating gas falling on itself... IMHO, the newer model seems more logical... I could never understand how large a primordial giant star could grow to yield a s.m. black hole a billion times solar mass... or has the mass increased to such an extent during many billion years of feeding on surrounding matter?

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

nokton: I agree that theoretically all galaxies should have SMBH at their centre. But I wouldn't say just yet that all galaxies definately have them, as the observational evidence isn't their yet.

SMBHs are known to grow over time, so galaxies must evolve with them. So I think we kind of agree in principle but the mechanisms are slightly different, I just dont think it is as clear cut at nokton says it is.

I believe the current thinking about galaxy formation and evolution is expressed in the article below. I don't share that view and have included a short comment below.

Co-Evolution of Galaxies & Supermassive Black Holes
Posted in Active Galactic Nuclei, Astrophysics, Black Holes, Computer Aided Simulation, Cosmology, Science, Supermassive Black Holes by Michael Roberts on August 26, 2010
A recent study published in Nature suggests that ‘behemoth’ black holes billions of times more massive than our Sun found at the center of many, if not all, galaxies probably formed shortly after the Big Bang.
Supercomputer simulations conducted by Lucio Mayer, from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the the University of Zurich, indicate that the conditions for the birth and growth of these giants could have been set in play by the merger of galaxies when the cosmos was just a few hundred million years old. The simulation found that the collision and union of two early galaxies could produce an enormous disc of rotating gas, and that this disc could become unstable and fall in on itself in rapid time.
Today, enormous black holes seem to lie at the centers of most large galaxies. Although these objects cannot be seen directly, their existence is betrayed by nearby stars whose high velocities can only be explained if they are being influenced by something with an immense gravitational attraction.
Understanding how these supermassive black holes came into being and how they evolved is a major question in astrophysics. Professor Mayer said the new study had major consequences for the apparent size relationship between supermassive black holes and their host galaxies. University of Zurich scientist, Kevin Schawinksi, added:
…it challenged the idea galaxies grew in a hierarchical fashion, in incremental steps in which gravity pulls small masses together to form progressively larger structures.”
Astrophysicists expect that in the early Universe there will be no clear relation as in the present-day Universe, since the black holes would be already very massive (because they form in only a few hundred thousand years after galaxy collisions) while the galaxies still have to grow a lot until the present time.
This, of course, would distinguish Lucio’s model from the old one in which small seed black holes are formed first from the collapse of primordial stars and then slowly grow to the present sizes. In this case, galaxies and massive black holes grow in parallel; while in our case, black holes grow much faster than galaxies.

I believe the co-evolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies is completely and totally wrong. I believe every galaxy in our visible universe was a supermassive black hole before it became a galaxy with stars. All these supermassive black holes were in orbit around a super behemoth massive black hole before the big bang. Somehow the behemoth massive black hole reached critical mass and we had a big bang. As all the mass of the behemoth expanded outward it enveloped and passed all the supermassive black holes that were in orbit around it. The supermassive black holes became the perfect environments to capture the recycled star fuel (Hydrogen). They then flared into quasars for a period of time and then star formation happened very quickly.

I do have a more complete write up that I call The Advanced Big Bang Model of our Universe however it's a bit lengthy for this forum (20 pages). I'll forward a copy if your interested. I did become a member at your Blog.

Total rubbish. Contrary to well-established physics -- general relativity in particular. NOTHING in this universe started out as a black hole.

What you believe is irrelevant, not to mention downright stupid.

I know people who believe in the tooth fairy. They have a stronger sciertific basis than you do -- at least they have a quarter under their pillow.

Come on. You're putting us on, right ? Nobody could possibly be as ignorant as you are trying to make us believe that you are.

@ DrRocket

Good to hear from you again. Glad to see your comments are still as informative as always. But as someone that always hangs with the side of consensus, you will never originate anything new will you? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's just that I read a lot of your posts and you started sounding like a broken record with almost everybody you made comments to. Boring, boring.

I just know you could do better.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

@ DrRocket

Good to hear from you again. Glad to see your comments are still as informative as always. But as someone that always hangs with the side of consensus, you will never originate anything new will you? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

wrong

been there, done that

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

@ It's just that I read a lot of your posts and you started sounding like a broken record with almost everybody you made comments to. Boring, boring.

I just know you could do better.

You appear to have read without comprehension.
I am not surprised.

On numerous occasions you have been given references to appropriate resources, and have stated that you are aware of their existence, but quite obviously unaware of the content..

Before you can aspire to original research, you must understand what is already known, and the limits of applicability of that knowledge. Since you claim to know where such information is available, yet have demonstrated total ignorance, one must conclude either that you are either simply a troll, or else just too damn stupid for words.

@ DrRocket

Your good at quoting other sources, but I want to hear what you think and know and why you feel as you do and all I get from you is bullshit adjectives about how screwed up what I think is. I do understand what the current theories are and they are not proven fact and I have a lot of problems with them and the interpretations made to try and fit them into the current BB model. I don't like any of it, so excuse me if I want to work at presenting some new concepts and ideas. I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe anything I said, so if your not going to be a little more constructive in your responses butt out.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

@ DrRocket

Your good at quoting other sources, but I want to hear what you think and know and why you feel as you do and all I get from you is bullshit adjectives about how screwed up what I think is. I do understand what the current theories are and they are not proven fact and I have a lot of problems with them and the interpretations made to try and fit them into the current BB model. I don't like any of it, so excuse me if I want to work at presenting some new concepts and ideas. I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe anything I said, so if your not going to be a little more constructive in your responses butt out.

I have no intention to tutor you. You simply are not worth the effort. Neither do I intend to reproduce a text book on general relativity -- go read Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

However, it is worth the effort to prevent your idiocy from damaging younger lurkers. You have presented nothing worthy of the term "idea" -- and are clueless as to what even constitutes a viable scientific idea.

I know you have lots of problems with science. Those problems are a direct result of abject ignorance, and apparently the lack of capacity to correct that situation.. Your statements regarding the content of current mainstream theories are ludicrously wrong. You even confuse "theory" with "conjecture" -- and the two are wildly different.

Now toddle off and go read a real book -- if you can. Enough suggestions have been provided.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Total rubbish. Contrary to well-established physics -- general relativity in particular. NOTHING in this universe started out as a black hole.

Yes it is a bit embarrassing expecting a black hole to inflate and expand so it's name was changed to singularity which is a magic black hole which can ignore the laws of gravity and do whatever is required of it. But it is still the same with a whole universe magically occupying a very tiny space which by sheer magic inflates then expands.

What you believe is irrelevant, not to mention downright stupid.

Your idea of rational debate?

I know people who believe in the tooth fairy. They have a stronger sciertific basis than you do -- at least they have a quarter under their pillow.

Come on. You're putting us on, right ? Nobody could possibly be as ignorant as you are trying to make us believe that you are.

To be read as "My brain hurts. Stop trying to make me think."

Originally Posted by DrRocket

I have no intention to tutor you. You simply are not worth the effort. Neither do I intend to reproduce a text book on general relativity -- go read Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

However, it is worth the effort to prevent your idiocy from damaging younger lurkers. You have presented nothing worthy of the term "idea" -- and are clueless as to what even constitutes a viable scientific idea.

I know you have lots of problems with science. Those problems are a direct result of abject ignorance, and apparently the lack of capacity to correct that situation.. Your statements regarding the content of current mainstream theories are ludicrously wrong. You even confuse "theory" with "conjecture" -- and the two are wildly different.

Now toddle off and go read a real book -- if you can. Enough suggestions have been provided.

Science forums get young people with an interest in science coming to them for the first time. Some have pet theories which may be the beginning of something good and some ideas which are 100% wrong, but they should be encouraged to continue their interest in science.

Instead we get a cowardly thug ranting abuse at them and telling them what cretins they are. A coward who would probably run a mile in the real world but feels real tough while safe in his bedroom, who slags them off and does everything he can to belittle them.

You do more harm to them than a dozen creationists could and possibly put some off science for life. You are a disgrace to this board.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

[
You do more harm to them than a dozen creationists could and possibly put some off science for life. You are a disgrace to this board.

Not at all.

It is YOUR nonsense and lack of knowledge and appreciation that present the potential for damage to those interested in science.

You have explained nothing, but have made ridiculous assertions that fly in the face of scientific knowledge and the hard work that was required to obtain that knowledge. You have portrayed yourself as someone who has given decades of thought to these matters. So you can hardly claim to be a young person, and sine you have clearly learned nothing you are either disinterested in real science, incredibly srupid, or both.

Please go straight to hell.

I am very new to this forum and the only persons I see writing everywhere are you both. It is not a good way to quote and quote and quote over and over again and answering questionable things - that leads to nothing and is bad for this forum. I wish that I could see your knowledge and It would be nice that one can learn something from your knowledge. It would be better to concentrate on posts with more quality. Quality is better than quantity. Please calm down.

Originally Posted by Christian_P

I am very new to this forum and the only persons I see writing everywhere are you both. It is not a good way to quote and quote and quote over and over again and answering questionable things - that leads to nothing and is bad for this forum. I wish that I could see your knowledge and It would be nice that one can learn something from your knowledge. It would be better to concentrate on posts with more quality. Quality is better than quantity. Please calm down.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Science forums get young people with an interest in science coming to them for the first time. Some have pet theories which may be the beginning of something good and some ideas which are 100% wrong, but they should be encouraged to continue their interest in science.

If you want to discuss pet theories, please use the sub-forum that was put up exactly for this purpose.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Science forums get young people with an interest in science coming to them for the first time. Some have pet theories which may be the beginning of something good and some ideas which are 100% wrong, but they should be encouraged to continue their interest in science.

If you want to discuss pet theories, please use the sub-forum that was put up exactly for this purpose.

Thank you!

amen

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

If you want to discuss pet theories, please use the sub-forum that was put up exactly for this purpose.

Thank you!

So I can say something is wrong here but not why I think it is wrong because that should be on another forum?

That would end debate here and just have people going into minor details on "accepted theory".

I don't think you've thought this through.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

If you want to discuss pet theories, please use the sub-forum that was put up exactly for this purpose.

Thank you!

So I can say something is wrong here but not why I think it is wrong because that should be on another forum?

That would end debate here and just have people going into minor details on "accepted theory".

I don't think you've thought this through.

You are spouting utter nonsense, garbage long disproved, in what is supposed to be a legitimate science forum.

The ravings of a lunatic do not constitute "debate".

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

If you want to discuss pet theories, please use the sub-forum that was put up exactly for this purpose.

Thank you!

So I can say something is wrong here but not why I think it is wrong because that should be on another forum?

That would end debate here and just have people going into minor details on "accepted theory".

I don't think you've thought this through.

You would be correct, if for once you would be able to support your speculations with evidence. So far, I haven't seen any. All you do is to claim that something's wrong and you have found the truth without offering proof. So, unless you have something substantial to add, please use the relevant sub-forum for this.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

You are spouting utter nonsense, garbage long disproved, in what is supposed to be a legitimate science forum.

The ravings of a lunatic do not constitute "debate".

Is this supposed to be your idea of legitimate debate?

You not answering any of my questions here or elsewhere but just hurling pig ignorant insults like some drunkard who has just stumbled out of a bar?

Your oafish avatar is very apt.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

You would be correct, if for once you would be able to support your speculations with evidence. So far, I haven't seen any. All you do is to claim that something's wrong and you have found the truth without offering proof. So, unless you have something substantial to add, please use the relevant sub-forum for this.

Much of cosmology is made up of speculation and showing it is wrong is almost as hard as taking pot shots at creationism.

The fact that I may be wrong too does not alter the fact that the big bang is full of holes so not worthy of being called a theory. It is an idea full of unproven concepts.

I am sure that if a physicist were bloody minded enough he could come up with a theory that gravity is caused by invisible demons and then use the proofs of gravity and maths to back up what he says, so proving that invisible demons do really exist by scientific method. That is how the big bang works. You have weird ideas based on some facts.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

You would be correct, if for once you would be able to support your speculations with evidence. So far, I haven't seen any. All you do is to claim that something's wrong and you have found the truth without offering proof. So, unless you have something substantial to add, please use the relevant sub-forum for this.

Much of cosmology is made up of speculation and showing it is wrong is almost as hard as taking pot shots at creationism.

The fact that I may be wrong too does not alter the fact that the big bang is full of holes so not worthy of being called a theory. It is an idea full of unproven concepts.

I am sure that if a physicist were bloody minded enough he could come up with a theory that gravity is caused by invisible demons and then use the proofs of gravity and maths to back up what he says, so proving that invisible demons do really exist by scientific method. That is how the big bang works. You have weird ideas based on some facts.

wrong

The big bang is based on general relativity which is backed up by a MOUNTAIN of empirical data. It is solid back to the extremely early universe.

There is NO established theory that coveres the first fraction of a second, That will probably required a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics -- and no such theory currently exists although researxh is underway.

Inflation is not established, but is promising and is supported by observations of the CMB. It is based on ideas from quantum field theory, but remains to be fully worked out and verified. It is a hypothesis, not final theory. It is well beyond just speculation.

You have completely mis-stated the truth, while atttempting to elevate your delusions to the status of ideas.

A hallucination is not a sccientific hypothesis.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

wrong

The big bang is based on general relativity which is backed up by a MOUNTAIN of empirical data. It is solid back to the extremely early universe.

OK. Use some of this mountain of evidence on the big bang thread I started to show why it is true. That should be easy enough if what you claim is so.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by DrRocket

wrong

The big bang is based on general relativity which is backed up by a MOUNTAIN of empirical data. It is solid back to the extremely early universe.

OK. Use some of this mountain of evidence on the big bang thread I started to show why it is true. That should be easy enough if what you claim is so.

Very simple.

The universe is observed to be expanding -- Data starting with Hubble and continuing bto this day.

There is a certain minimal amounr of matter in theb universe -- astronomical observation.

Then Hawking and Penrose applied general relativity, basically running time backwards in their calculation to show that the universe began in an extremely compact form in the past. The general theory of relativity breaks down with singular behavior and is not applicable in the first fraction of a second, but the premise of the big bang is rock solid.

For all of the mathematical details see the literature or the monograph The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis.

There are other texts available for background, Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles being excellent.

I think we had this discussion before Mr. Roberts.

A sufficiently eneretic photon of 1.22 MeV, will, given the right conditions, spontaneously become an electron-positron pair. This is called pair creation. Look it up. It happens all the time. It can even happen in 'empty' space. The universe borrows 1.22 MeV for a period of time such that delta t = h bar/delta e , (the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for time and energy ) and creates an electron-positron pair for this brief instant of time, but must then 're-pay' the debt when it brings them together to give back the 1.22 Mev. This process is an indication of the inherent energy content of empty space, it accounts for the evaporation of black holes ( see Hawking ) and has even been suggested as the starting point for the universe, ie an initial 'loan' which has never been repaid.

Alternately when you 'stick' together two protons and two neutrons some of the mass 'disappears', such that the Helium nucleus weighs less than the added mass of the two protons and two neutrons present in it. This loss and is of the order of either 3% or 0.3% ( can't reall which off the top of my head ). This energy loss becomes less and less as you approach nuclear number 26, Iron, at which point it reverses such that putting two Iron nuclei together reqires an addition of energy, ie the mass of the combined nucleus is greater than the sum of the individual component nuclei. That is why fission, the break-up of Uranium and Plutonium produces energy ( nuclear reactors and atomic bombs ) and fusion, the combining of Hydrogen to form Helium ( H-bombs or thermonuclear bombs and the sun ) does the same.

You can look all this stuff up, even on-line. You don't need to consult Nuclear Physics texts, altough that would give you a clearer understanding of mass/energy equivalence.

Hope you and yours had a merry Christmas.

My apologies for the above post. Maybe I've had a little too much to drink ( making merry ). I meant as an answer to a much earlier post in the first two pages. Didn't realise it was now on the fourth page and had moved on. I thought it was a new topic.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Very simple.

The universe is observed to be expanding -- Data starting with Hubble and continuing bto this day.

Not really. We have a red shift which has other possible explanations. No one has any actual proof of expansion, as in seeing all galaxies moving away from us.

Example: Invisible demons are responsible for what we call gravity and stop people flying off into space. Proof. No one flies off into space which proves that invisible demons really exist.

There is a certain minimal amounr of matter in theb universe -- astronomical observation.

And that means what? Any origin of the universe is going to create lots of matter and start from the bottom up, as in hydrogen and helium.

Then Hawking and Penrose applied general relativity, basically running time backwards in their calculation to show that the universe began in an extremely compact form in the past. The general theory of relativity breaks down with singular behavior and is not applicable in the first fraction of a second, but the premise of the big bang is rock solid.

This would only work in a 3D universe where we could literally run everything back to a point where everything began. It does not work in a 4D universe since we cannot run things back because legend has to that everything is moving away from everything else. We can use guesswork and the belief in red shifts. Also the obvious assumption that as everything clumps together it will get hotter and hotter, but again, we have no physical proof that all galaxies are moving away from us. There are no movies of it.

For all of the mathematical details see the literature or the monograph The large scale structure of space-time by Hawking and Ellis.

There are other texts available for background, Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles being excellent.

Yes, Hawkings is a whale on maths but at the end of the day, maths sometimes produces nothing than a better class of idiots who build castles on clouds. Hawking has a bet with some guy on certain theories and the loser buys the other (I think) a case of wine. Based on his maths, Hawking has had to shell out on a number of cases so far. While maths shows a singularity could exist, Hawking no longer believes in them.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Yes, Hawkings is a whale on maths but at the end of the day, maths sometimes produces nothing than a better class of idiots who build castles on clouds. Hawking has a bet with some guy on certain theories and the loser buys the other (I think) a case of wine. Based on his maths, Hawking has had to shell out on a number of cases so far. While maths shows a singularity could exist, Hawking no longer believes in them.

The only idiot here is you.

NOBODY (except foopls like you) has ever said that the singularities of general relativity indicate anything other than limitations of the model, quite likely due to the fact that GR does not include quantum effects.

Hawking has lots of bets, on speculative issues. The basic idea of the big bang is not one of them. Probably the most famous is the black hole information paradox. He conceded and bought Preskill a baseball encyclopedia -- but Kip Thorne who was also a party has not conceded and the resolution itself is still conjectural as it relies on string theory and the AdS/CFT correspondence.

We have no evidence for singularities. None at all. Just mathematical speculation.

However no one as yet has any evidence that fundamental particles like electrons break down and that is a necessity for singularities to form, that all matter breaks down.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We have no evidence for singularities. None at all. Just mathematical speculation.

However no one as yet has any evidence that fundamental particles like electrons break down and that is a necessity for singularities to form, that all matter breaks down.

The predicted singularity is not what makes a black hole black. It is not important. What is important is the event horizon.

Your abject ignorance is again apparent.

It is manifestly clear that you have no idea what a singularity is. It has nothing to do with matter breaking down. It is not even part of spacetime.

You need to learn physics from physics books. Disney movies just don't cut it.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The predicted singularity is not what makes a black hole black. It is not important. What is important is the event horizon.

What is inside a black hole is not important?

Your abject ignorance is again apparent.

Another inability to answer a simple question.

It is manifestly clear that you have no idea what a singularity is. It has nothing to do with matter breaking down. It is not even part of spacetime.

A singularity is an idea and there is no evidence to prove it is anything more.

If all matter, energy, etc came from a singularity originally how did that happen if matter did not break down to form it in the first place?

A singularity, assuming they exist, is part of spacetime because of it's gravity.

You need to learn physics from physics books. Disney movies just don't cut it.

This from someone who is not part of spacetime so is unable to give any answers here.

Definitely not smarter than the average bear.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The predicted singularity is not what makes a black hole black. It is not important. What is important is the event horizon.

What is inside a black hole is not important?

Your abject ignorance is again apparent.

Another inability to answer a simple question.

It is manifestly clear that you have no idea what a singularity is. It has nothing to do with matter breaking down. It is not even part of spacetime.

A singularity is an idea and there is no evidence to prove it is anything more.

If all matter, energy, etc came from a singularity originally how did that happen if matter did not break down to form it in the first place?

A singularity, assuming they exist, is part of spacetime because of it's gravity.

You need to learn physics from physics books. Disney movies just don't cut it.

This from someone who is not part of spacetime so is unable to give any answers here.

Definitely not smarter than the average bear.

Not one single factually correct statement, despite many attempts to educate you.

Abject, uneducable stupidity.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The predicted singularity is not what makes a black hole black. It is not important. What is important is the event horizon.

What is inside a black hole is not important?

This is a deliberate misunderstanding, because this is not at all what was said. The argument is that the existence of a Black Hole does not rely on the presence of a singularity. The only thing that is important is how much mass is concentrated inside a certain volume. I urge you to read up the definition of the Schwarzschild radius. There is no singularity involved there. Your ranting about the (non)existence of singularities in nature is totally irreleveant for the initial question, which is the nature of a Black Hole.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Not one single factually correct statement, despite many attempts to educate you.

Abject, uneducable stupidity.

Just denial. Not a single answer. Who cares about your vacuous opinions when I can get better from a creationist?

You can stop waving your hands now.

Dishmaster. Of course it is the mass in a very small space which creates the event horizon but to call it a singularity when we have no evidence that such a thing can exist is dishonest.

I maintain that we have no evidence that fundamental particles can be crushed out of existence when even neutrons can survive an escape velocity of 2/3 c.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We have no evidence for singularities. None at all. Just mathematical speculation.

However no one as yet has any evidence that fundamental particles like electrons break down and that is a necessity for singularities to form, that all matter breaks down.

One more time moron. A singularity is not the defining characteristic of a black hole. The event horizon is what makes a black hole, and the event horizon is not singulat.

No serious scientist thinks that the predicted singularity is physical, but rather that it indicates a limitation of the general theory of relativity -- specifically the incompatibility of GR with quantum theory.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We have no evidence for singularities. None at all. Just mathematical speculation.

However no one as yet has any evidence that fundamental particles like electrons break down and that is a necessity for singularities to form, that all matter breaks down.

One more time moron. A singularity is not the defining characteristic of a black hole. The event horizon is what makes a black hole, and the event horizon is not singulat.

No serious scientist thinks that the predicted singularity is physical, but rather that it indicates a limitation of the general theory of relativity -- specifically the incompatibility of GR with quantum theory.

This is the answer to a post from 28 Dec. You posted your version of an answer to it on the 28th soon afterwards, and made a further post on the 29th. Now on the 30th you have tried to answer it yet again.

Alzheimers catching up with you?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Cyberia

We have no evidence for singularities. None at all. Just mathematical speculation.

However no one as yet has any evidence that fundamental particles like electrons break down and that is a necessity for singularities to form, that all matter breaks down.

One more time moron. A singularity is not the defining characteristic of a black hole. The event horizon is what makes a black hole, and the event horizon is not singulat.

No serious scientist thinks that the predicted singularity is physical, but rather that it indicates a limitation of the general theory of relativity -- specifically the incompatibility of GR with quantum theory.

This is the answer to a post from 28 Dec. You posted your version of an answer to it on the 28th soon afterwards, and made a further post on the 29th. Now on the 30th you have tried to answer it yet again.

Alzheimers catching up with you?

But you constantly seem to forget it. So, who has caught Alzheimer's?

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

But you constantly seem to forget it. So, who has caught Alzheimer's?

Forget what? That I should slavishly follow accepted cosmology when much of it is little more than ideas?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

But you constantly seem to forget it. So, who has caught Alzheimer's?

Forget what? That I should slavishly follow accepted cosmology when much of it is little more than ideas?

You could not possibly slavishlu follow accepted cosmology. You have no idea what the basic theory even says.