# Thread: What's the use for black holes?

1. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Write4U
While time is created in the curvature of space, it has actually no relation to space curvature itself. Bending is a spatial function, time is a temporal function (and will follow you where ever you go, regardless of direction).
That is just plain wrong. I have already explained that you can't separate space and time, they are aspects of the same underlying manifold, space-time. If you have non-vanishing curvature intrinsic to that manifold, then this extends to both space and time. This is the physical basis for gravitational time dilation and the Shapiro delay.
I understand this and time was created along with space. So universal time follows universal space everywhere, including distortions and manifolds. The creation of space and its companion time is continuous and chronological process. But that is not what I am arguing.

I am arguing that individual timelines for events within the universe are separate from universal time and really have no relationship to space curvature other than that all events happen along space curvature, but in themselves follow a forward timeline. You cannot curve time to travel to the past, even if you could curve space 90 degrees as it does for instance, in a BH.

According to an Einstein lecture, it makes no difference if a photon traversing the length of a accelerating box travels a straight line or an apparently longer curved line, to an observer inside the box, it arrives at the opposite wall in the same time, IOW, it makes no difference if the line is straight or curved (longer) the photon arrives at the same time, because time doesn't care about curvature. Time is created at the time of an event and is always chronological, regardless of physical frames. However, there may be time frames where space appears to be created slower or faster.

But then I argue from the POV that time is "created" during the instantiation of reality. It is a non-causal result of dynamic change.

You can make an object travel in a circle, but you cannot make time go in a circle. It always goes chronologically forward, instant by instant. Perhaps the only flexibility lies in the speed with which time is created during the unfolding of a reality.

I am not trying to replace conventional wisdom with something new. Perhaps I am trying to look at it in a new way, a road less traveled....

2. Originally Posted by Write4U
So universal time follows universal space everywhere, including distortions and manifolds.
There is no such thing as "universal time" and "universal space". Space-time is always a local phenomenon.

I am arguing that individual timelines for events within the universe are separate from universal time and really have no relationship to space curvature other than that all events happen along space curvature, but in themselves follow a forward timeline.
Again, there is no "universal" time and space, and you can't separate them. The relationship between "universal time" and "space curvature" is a meaningless concept.

You cannot curve time to travel to the past, even if you could curve space 90 degrees as it does for instance, in a BH.
I don't even know what to respond to this. Space does not curve 90 degrees in a black hole, in fact that is statement without any meaning.

it makes no difference if a photon traversing the length of a accelerating box travels a straight line or an apparently longer curved line
Photons cannot travel in a straight line if the box is accelerated, because they always follow null geodesics - so in fact, in makes a huge difference.

it makes no difference if the line is straight or curved (longer) the photon arrives at the same time, because time doesn't care about curvature.
You see, this is why you are wrong. In makes a huge difference, in that the geometry of the null geodesics reflect whether the box is accelerated or not. They are physically distinct scenarios.

However, there may be time frames where space appears to be created slower or faster.
This is utterly without any meaning. There is no such thing as "time frames", and space is not created anywhere.

You can make an object travel in a circle, but you cannot make time go in a circle.
Yes you can, at least in principle. Such topological constructs in General Relativity are called closed time-like curves ( CTC ), and they appear in vacuum solutions of space-times in the vicinity of rapidly rotating black holes. It should be noted though that such constructs would likely be hidden behind event horizons.

I am not trying to replace conventional wisdom with something new. Perhaps I am trying to look at it in a new way, a road less traveled....
You must realize that GR is an extremely well studied and well understood model. All concepts related to GR have been made mathematically rigorous through the study of differential geometry, in particular the notion of a differentiable Lorentzian manifold, which is what space-time is modelled as. There is no "road less travelled" in this instance.

3. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Write4U
So universal time follows universal space everywhere, including distortions and manifolds.
There is no such thing as "universal time" and "universal space". Space-time is always a local phenomenon.
Then how can we measure the age of the universe? It's age is measured in toto, no? Don't we measure the time of space existence (14 billion LYs) in straight chronological order regardless of curvature, starting with the BB?

wiki,
Cosmic time
Cosmic time (also known as time since the big bang) is the time coordinate commonly used in the Big Bang models of physical cosmology. It is defined for homogeneous, expanding universes as follows: Choose a time coordinate so that the universe has the same density everywhere at each moment in time (the fact that this is possible means that the universe is, by definition, homogeneous). Measure the passage of time using clocks moving with the Hubble flow. Choose the big bang singularity as the origin of the time coordinate.
Cosmic time is the standard time coordinate for specifying the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions of Einstein's equations
I am arguing that individual timelines for events within the universe are separate from universal time and really have no relationship to space curvature other than that all events happen along space curvature, but in themselves follow a forward timeline.
Again, there is no "universal" time and space, and you can't separate them. The relationship between "universal time" and "space curvature" is a meaningless concept.
IMO the relationship is that even as the two are inseparable, space is defined by spatial measurement and time by temporal measurement.

You cannot curve time to travel to the past, even if you could curve space 90 degrees as it does for instance, in a BH.
I don't even know what to respond to this. Space does not curve 90 degrees in a black hole, in fact that is statement without any meaning.
How does space curve in a black hole?

sorry, that visual was crudely put. I meant to say that if we measure an area of 12"^2 we traverse the spatial distances with 90 degree angles in four directions and actually end up at the beginning of our measurement. From this measurement we can arrive at the total area of the square. But the measuring time utilized by the observer moves in a chronological timeline of 4 feet.

it makes no difference if a photon traversing the length of a accelerating box travels a straight line or an apparently longer curved line
Photons cannot travel in a straight line if the box is accelerated, because they always follow null geodesics - so in fact, in makes a huge difference.

it makes no difference if the line is straight or curved (longer) the photon arrives at the same time, because time doesn't care about curvature.
You see, this is why you are wrong. In makes a huge difference, in that the geometry of the null geodesics reflect whether the box is accelerated or not. They are physically distinct scenarios.
But doesn't the fact remain that to the observer the photon following the longer curved path arrives at its target at the same time as the photon following a straight path when the box is at rest?
Seems to me that here time resists the curvature and treats the trajectory of the photon as always moving in a straight line.

However, there may be time frames where space appears to be created slower or faster.
This is utterly without any meaning. There is no such thing as "time frames", and space is not created anywhere.
There are no time frames?

If space is expanding is it not creating expanded spacetime?
With timeframes I mean a range of time measurements, i.e. Planck instants (QM), seconds (GR), minutes, hours, weeks, etc. We measure and count time differently for different events, depending on various other conditions and expected results.

You can make an object travel in a circle, but you cannot make time go in a circle.
Yes you can, at least in principle. Such topological constructs in General Relativity are called closed time-like curves ( CTC ), and they appear in vacuum solutions of space-times in the vicinity of rapidly rotating black holes. It should be noted though that such constructs would likely be hidden behind event horizons.
Making time go in a circle sounds contrary to the notion of "forward time". The fact that this timeline would remain separate from regular spacetime seems to confirm my position.

from wiki,
Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.[3][7][8] Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[3][7][8][9][10
I am not trying to replace conventional wisdom with something new. Perhaps I am trying to look at it in a new way, a road less traveled....
You must realize that GR is an extremely well studied and well understood model. All concepts related to GR have been made mathematically rigorous through the study of differential geometry, in particular the notion of a differentiable Lorentzian manifold, which is what space-time is modelled as. There is no "road less travelled" in this instance.
That was presumptuous of me...

Markus, thank you for your generous allocation of time indulging my musings. I really do appreciate it.....

4. Perhaps this may further illustrate my probings.

wiki,
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe — a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
I guess I am trying to bridge two conflicting viewpoints. I believe time comes into existence as a result of sequential events in space, but also that time is not an event nor a thing in and of itself and thus not measurable nor travelable. It is a non-causal by-product of change in space coordinates of specific events. After the (time) duration of a spatial (physical) event in space a spacetime coordinate has been established.

But I admit that all this is strictly intuitive and speculative on my part, though I try to make only logical assumptions.

5. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Write4U
So universal time follows universal space everywhere, including distortions and manifolds.
There is no such thing as "universal time" and "universal space". Space-time is always a local phenomenon.
Then how can we measure the age of the universe? It's age is measured in toto, no? Don't we measure the time of space existence (14 billion LYs) in straight chronological order regardless of curvature, starting with the BB?
How could we not ? You dig out yourself the answer, on how to compute it. The fact it is much more complicated and fuzzy that you imply does not change anything.

Everybody in the universe can agree that such and such galaxies are separated by X parsec. If they use GR. Does that mean that universal space exist ?

You mingle age and time, but not breadth and space. It seems to me you are biased toward a particular dimension of our 4D universe. Can you explain why (**)?

I have no idea why you think being able to agree on an age(distance in time) "number" universally, is different that being able to agree about distance(age in space ) "number" universally.

** OK I'll do it.
It is because you think that only time flow in only one direction. Space also flow in one direction. That is my understanding of world line anyway.
I cannot go backward in space no more then I can go backward in time. The fact that you reverse the gear of your car, does not make you go -2m/1s (nor 2m/-1s), unless your local tachometer is broken. People on the sideways may disagree, but you know why...

If time has a special status in the mysterious "differentiable Lorentzian manifold" Markus will correct me asap (but it still won't make it universal, just peculiar)

6. As I said before, I am not trying to ignore or dispute any aspect of spacetime, I am proposing a universal function which creates the "measurable" dimension of time in the order and chronology of events in space, including the emergence of time itself along with reality in space.

I am saying that temporal measurements (time) comes into existence (emerges) from spatial (physical) events in and of space (energy). The resulting order of coordinates may be called coordinates in spacetime. It allows for chronology and measurement.

IMO the term "time" defined as "metaphysical temporal measurement" is similar to the term "space" defined as "physical spatial measurements", or even "potential" in theoretical science. They are metaphysical concepts which allow us to form an understanding of how reality unfolds in an orderly and measurable chronology (history) and future causality (probability).

7. Originally Posted by Write4U
As I said before, I am not trying to ignore or dispute any aspect of spacetime,
Yes I understand that, but it is in contradiction with your next statement (see **)
I am proposing a universal function which creates the "measurable" dimension of time in the order and chronology of events in space, ...
Well that "universal function", is call GR it is a century old

... including the emergence of time itself along with reality in space.
I cannot make any sense of that part, neither how is it attached to the start of the sentence.

I am saying that temporal measurements (time) comes into existence ** (emerges) from spatial (physical) events in and of space (energy). The resulting order of coordinates may be called **coordinates in spacetime. It allows ** for ** chronology and ** measurement
I have read in some popsci text that "some" believe that space and time, may be emergence of a "reality" of n'th dimension (n != 4). Why not ? if it is rational.
But your example is not rational. You actualy do need space to measure time. But you also need time to measure space. They are the same "substance" (at least in GR).

Maybe you can describe an experiment where you could measure space in 0 time ?

IMO the term "time" defined as "metaphysical temporal measurement" is similar to the term "space" defined as "physical spatial measurements", or even "potential" in theoretical science. They are metaphysical concepts which allow us to form an understanding of how reality unfolds in an orderly and measurable chronology (history) and future causality (probability).
While you keep hanging on the notion the time is 'meta' and space is not, you'll keep missing the obvious: space is as metaphysical as is time. Just try to measure it, and it will slip out of your 4D fingers.

Try to compute some prediction accurately, and the math is not giving any of those dimension a precedence, the universe is pretty much egalitarian about its 4 children.

8. Boing3000,
I have read in some popsci text that "some" believe that space and time, may be emergence of a "reality" of n'th dimension (n != 4). Why not ? if it is rational.
We are in agreement then.

But your example is not rational. You actualy do need space to measure time. But you also need time to measure space. They are the same "substance" (at least in GR).
I am proposing that spacetime is dualistic and that space and time are different expressions of common causal potentials (and therefore inevitably related), not unlike the concept of particle duality. The a dynamic particle moves as a probability wave until measured at which "time" it materializes as a particle in space.

One expression (space) measures changes in the physical substance of space coordinates, i.e. dynamic causal events, the other (time) emerges as it measures chronology and duration of that substantial change, i.e. dynamic non-causal chronology of events.

9. Originally Posted by Write4U
Then how can we measure the age of the universe? It's age is measured in toto, no? Don't we measure the time of space existence (14 billion LYs) in straight chronological order regardless of curvature, starting with the BB?
Cosmological time. Note that this is a mathematical idealization based on a universe which has the exact same energy density at each point and at all times ( as explained in the article you quoted ); the real universe is of course not like this. You can think of cosmological age as something akin to the average age of the universe, but bear in mind that local observers might disagree and determine a different age.

IMO the relationship is that even as the two are inseparable, space is defined by spatial measurement and time by temporal measurement.
There is no fundamental difference between the two. You can express both in meters, and time in this context is just another geometric dimension of a manifold, which possesses the special property of having a preferred direction ( the future ).

How does space curve in a black hole?
It curves in such a way that below the event horizon all future geodesics end at the singularity. Space-time curvature isn't measured in degrees in the way you seem to imply; you probably got this idea from the various popularizations which are out there.

But doesn't the fact remain that to the observer the photon following the longer curved path arrives at its target at the same time as the photon following a straight path when the box is at rest?
Seems to me that here time resists the curvature and treats the trajectory of the photon as always moving in a straight line.
To be honest I am really not sure what you are trying to say here. Your example shows us that precisely because the speed of light is measured to be constant even in the presence of gravitational fields or acceleration, time must be dilated in that frame, or else we would get a different numerical value. That is gravitational time dilation, which is nothing else but the curvature of space-time. So yes, time is affected by curvature, just as space is.

There are no time frames?
What exactly are "time frames" supposed to be ? You need to define this term, as it is non-standard terminology.

If space is expanding is it not creating expanded spacetime?
Metric expansion affects measurements on space-time, but it does not "create" anything. It is much like stretching a rubber sheet - you end up with a larger sheet, but the same amount of rubber material. Nothing is created.

Making time go in a circle sounds contrary to the notion of "forward time".
It still goes foward locally, but not globally; this is not an easy concept to explain without maths.
It should be noted that, just because CTCs are mathematically permissible in the GR field equations, does not mean they are physically real.

Markus, thank you for your generous allocation of time indulging my musings. I really do appreciate it.....
No problem. I am always glad to help those who are genuinely willing to learn.

10. Originally Posted by Write4U
Boing3000,
I have read in some popsci text that "some" believe that space and time, may be emergence of a "reality" of n'th dimension (n != 4). Why not ? if it is rational.
We are in agreement then.
Maybe not, because I am not even in agreement with myself. I think I meant emerging from a "reality" of ONE dimension. Is it "information theory" ? (not string theory) cannot still recall, even after a good night of sleep.
What that prove is mistake is one of the dimension of my universe.

Originally Posted by Write4U
But your example is not rational. You actualy do need space to measure time. But you also need time to measure space. They are the same "substance" (at least in GR).
I am proposing that spacetime is dualistic and that space and time are different expressions of common causal potentials (and therefore inevitably related), not unlike the concept of particle duality. The a dynamic particle moves as a probability wave until measured at which "time" it materializes as a particle in space.

One expression (space) measures changes in the physical substance of space coordinates, i.e. dynamic causal events, the other (time) emerges as it measures chronology and duration of that substantial change, i.e. dynamic non-causal chronology of events.
I cannot understand a word of that, but it is beautiful, really. You are way beyond me in terms of understanding it. Can you wright it in a framework that everybody can agree upon (like math), so we can start devising experiment ?

11. Sorry Boing, I think I have done enough damage to scientific inquiry, without even attempting any math. All I can do now is digest what I have learned and refine my layman's understanding of some basic universal constants, laws, and functions; and the theories which explain these phenomena.....

12. Markus,
I think I used the term "time frames" as a combination of the terms "world lines" and "frames of reference". Obviously a very ambitious intuitive reach .....

13. Originally Posted by Strange
There is no way a realistic black hole will evaporate in the lifetime of the universe. Hawking radiation is "black body" radiation. This means it has an equivalent temperature associated with it. For any reasonable size black hole this temperature is a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero. So even an isolated black hole will gain more mass from the CMB than it loses from Hawking radiation. And, in practice, balck holes will gather even more from infalling material.
Basically - I understand that Hawking Radiation is gonna take nearly FOREVER to completly dissipate any normal size Black Hole - incredibly much longer for a Gigantic Black Hole like at the centre of Andromeda Galaxy.

However - There is no way that Scientists can KNOW for sure, how long Our Universe is gonna last for.
This is very much in the realm of Speculation.

Terrible, horrible - diabolical Grim Prospect, BUT Our Universe could go on until All of the Black Holes have dissipated.
Why is that a terrible Grim Prospect ??

Well - I personally am NOT concinced that the Universe IS expanding - there may be other explanations for the Doppler Shift phenomenon.
BUT - I DO NOT intend to argue that Point here at all.

However - IF the Universe just keeps expanding, forever. The average density of Matter in the Universe will fall lower and lower.
Galaxies themselves may start to drift apart.
Stars will be further and further apart.
When they die - and All Stars Die eventually - their Nebulae will be further and further apart.
This means they will be subject to less "disturbances" from other external masses.
Nebulae will eventually fail to form Stars.

Many, many of these Stars ( and Planets ) will have been absorbed in unbelievably gigantic Black Holes - which grow and grow by accretion.

And then - unfortunately, not THE END - but something Far, Far Worse.

All The Stars Will Finally Go Out - Everywhere in the Universe.

The final Triumph of Entropy - almost the opposite of the Big Bang.
An Eternity of incredibly dispersed Matter - with NO Energy AT ALL.
A cold, dead Universe - Forever.

The only source of Energy will be Hawking Radiation from Black Holes - but as we see, very slow Energy release.
Perhaps, finally, as they become smaller - the Black Holes may release their Energy faster, as they get much smaller.
However - this Energy WILL dissipate, in the vastnesses of Empty Space.

If The Universe keeps expanding forever - why should it ever end ??
There is not enough Energy to ever cause ANY kind of change -

A sad, "skeleton crew" of cold, dead Planets which did not get totally destroyed in Nova or Supernova events - all at Absolute Zero Temperature. Vast - but incredibly dispersed clouds of dust and gases. Each one at Absolute Zero Temperature - gases so dispered that even Atoms may be Light Years apart.
And even Vaster volumes of clear empty space.
No Life, no possibility of Life.

14. I have for you, one analogy. Imagine the black hole as nuclear waste. It serves no purpose yet it harms the environment around it, it is the waste product of millions or billions of years of energy production that exhausted itself, creating the waste which is a destructive black hole. So as you can see, black holes are very much like nuclear waste, they are even radioactive to some extent!

That will be all.

15. Originally Posted by Devon Keogh
yet it harms the environment around it
Whut?

16. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Devon Keogh
yet it harms the environment around it
Whut?
Well, everything exists in a local environment, so the black hole destroys it's local environment by consuming it. Just like how nuclear waste destroys the environment through polluting it with radiation.

17. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Devon Keogh
yet it harms the environment around it
Whut?

18. Originally Posted by Devon Keogh
Well, everything exists in a local environment, so the black hole destroys it's local environment by consuming it.
Then you might as well claim that the Sun harms the environment around it... Even more than a BH.
In addition to "consuming its local environment" it emits lots of heat.

19. You should really read Darwin's Theory Of Relativity, it covers black holes, as well as treatises on government, it also gives a brief introduction to the birthing of tragedy.

20. Originally Posted by shlunka
You should really read Darwin's Theory Of Relativity, it covers black holes, as well as treatises on government, it also gives a brief introduction to the birthing of tragedy.
There are certain members of this board that will take that statement seriously.

21. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by shlunka
You should really read Darwin's Theory Of Relativity, it covers black holes, as well as treatises on government, it also gives a brief introduction to the birthing of tragedy.
There are certain members of this board that will take that statement seriously.
Okay, I'm curious now. Who are they?

22. "What's the use for black holes?"

Could this question be answered by asking what's the use of "eddies" and "whirlpools" in fast flowing rivers?

23. NONE- next question!

24. Black holes have a very important job in space !!!!

25. Originally Posted by Moeetheory
Black holes have a very important job in space !!!!
Yes that goes with out saying. But I'd be more interested in why you think that? Would you care to elaborate a bit?

26. What's the use for black holes?
Trash receptacles, so we can stop polluting the earth.

time?
If you have no memory, are you aware of time?
Do people recovering from a coma know how long they were in that state?
Do particles have memory?
What is a clock counting?

27. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Zwolver
How can they not have a function?
Why should they have a function? It is not like the universe is some gigantic clockwork machine.
What would you say the universe is? It is as if you are saying the universe is stupid, it goes about constructing giant black holes that are useless because you cannot define its purpose.

28. As seen in the picture above, I believe Black holes indeed does recycle and distribute matter as I claimed in #62

29. Originally Posted by HexHammer;59050As seen in the picture above, I believe Black holes indeed does recycle and distribute matter as I claimed in [URL="http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/27946-whats-use-black-holes.html?#post320976"
#62 [/URL]
The picture doesn't support your claim.
That belief was shown to be incorrect in posts following #62, and it was explained why the belief is incorrect.

30. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer;59050As seen in the picture above, I believe Black holes indeed does recycle and distribute matter as I claimed in [URL="http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/27946-whats-use-black-holes.html?#post320976"
#62 [/URL]
The picture doesn't support your claim.
That belief was shown to be incorrect in posts following #62, and it was explained why the belief is incorrect.
Please explain youself, you are saying something without really proving anything, please make some more quotes to show where I'm wrong.

31. Originally Posted by HexHammer
Please explain youself, you are saying something without really proving anything, please make some more quotes to show where I'm wrong.
You're somewhat confused, aren't you?
YOU have yet show anything that supports YOUR claim.
As for quotes showing that you're wrong post #73, post #77...
There is no evidence of black holes losing mass at any rate sufficient to "recycle" matter.

32. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
Please explain youself, you are saying something without really proving anything, please make some more quotes to show where I'm wrong.
You're somewhat confused, aren't you?
YOU have yet show anything that supports YOUR claim.
As for quotes showing that you're wrong post #73, post #77...
There is no evidence of black holes losing mass at any rate sufficient to "recycle" matter.
Oh yes, I've heard about these "sheep" that can't relate to emperical evidense, but only what they read what is spelled out, because they can't think themselves.

33. Originally Posted by HexHammer
Oh yes, I've heard about these "sheep" that can't relate to emperical evidense, but only what they read what is spelled out, because they can't think themselves.
I see.
Your idea of supporting your argument is to make generalised insults while still not actually explaining how what you have presented classes as evidence.
Empirical or otherwise.

34. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
Oh yes, I've heard about these "sheep" that can't relate to emperical evidense, but only what they read what is spelled out, because they can't think themselves.
I see.
Your idea of supporting your argument is to make generalised insults while still not actually explaining how what you have presented classes as evidence.
Empirical or otherwise.
Likewise, your "proof" is hillarious and proves excatly nothing.

I showed a huge picture of a gigantic BH that spewed jetstreams of matter which seemingly went unnoticed from you. Your claims are useless and is something I could expect from a young teen, not from some intellectual grown up person.

35. Originally Posted by HexHammer
Likewise, your "proof" is hillarious and proves excatly nothing.
Yet you can't explain why those posts fail to show how you're wrong.

I showed a huge picture of a gigantic BH that spewed jetstreams of matter which seemingly went unnoticed from you. Your claims are useless and is something I could expect from a young teen, not from some intellectual grown up person.
What is in the picture is material being moved, not recycled.

36. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
Likewise, your "proof" is hillarious and proves excatly nothing.
Yet you can't explain why those posts fail to show how you're wrong.
I only do as you do, making unsupported claims, like in following quote:
The picture doesn't support your claim.
That belief was shown to be incorrect in posts following #62, and it was explained why the belief is incorrect.
Don't blame me for mimiccing you.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
I showed a huge picture of a gigantic BH that spewed jetstreams of matter which seemingly went unnoticed from you. Your claims are useless and is something I could expect from a young teen, not from some intellectual grown up person.
What is in the picture is material being moved, not recycled.
Either you are trolling really bad or you don't understand basic concept of recycling.

BH sucks up the entire list of periodtic table of thingies, then spews it out again, where the new form of recycled matter can reform into planets and stars, simple?

37. BH sucks up the entire list of periodtic table of thingies, then spews it out again, where the new form of recycled matter can reform into planets and stars, simple?
Simple, but totally wrong. Once something enters the EH, it's gone. It doesn't return, it doesn't recycle, The jet streams are fed by the accretion disk around the BH, not from within the BH.

38. Isn't the picture consistent with accretion disk matter being pulled around a black hole, being drawn up by magnetic fields caused by the fast rotation of same disk, and finally shooting outward in the form of relativistic jets. If there is recycling occurring, then it is from the accretion disk material.

Baryons in the relativistic jets of the stellar-mass black-hole candidate 4U 1630-47

Source of Monster Black Hole's Energy Jet Identified

39. Originally Posted by HexHammer
I only do as you do, making unsupported claims, like in following quote
Yes, what you're missing here is that YOU made the initial claim.
Since YOU haven't provided any support for this claim then the onus remains on you.
(The links I gave showed how you are wrong).

Either you are trolling really bad or you don't understand basic concept of recycling.

BH sucks up the entire list of periodtic table of thingies, then spews it out again, where the new form of recycled matter can reform into planets and stars, simple?
No. Black holes do NOT "spew" out anything that that has fallen into them.
The links I gave showed this.

40. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
I only do as you do, making unsupported claims, like in following quote
Yes, what you're missing here is that YOU made the initial claim.
Since YOU haven't provided any support for this claim then the onus remains on you.
(The links I gave showed how you are wrong).

Either you are trolling really bad or you don't understand basic concept of recycling.

BH sucks up the entire list of periodtic table of thingies, then spews it out again, where the new form of recycled matter can reform into planets and stars, simple?
No. Black holes do NOT "spew" out anything that that has fallen into them.
The links I gave showed this.
I think you need to read books about reality and how to sign contracts, in contracts you need to think, not to parrot, else you go bankrupt quite fast.

41. Originally Posted by HexHammer
I think you need to read books about reality and how to sign contracts, in contracts you need to think, not to parrot, else you go bankrupt quite fast.
So your best "rebuttal" is more vague hand-waving and general insults.
Actual science would be a better option.

Ignore list for the troll.

42. This article talks about a scientific paper concerning the possibility of using a black hole for a propulsion system. Pretty cool.

43. As explained above there need not be a use for black holes, or in fact anything in nature. However suppose one was found one day that wasn't too far from our solar system and the problems with interstellar travel could be easily overcome. Suppose also that civilizations chose to use fission power for energy. Then a black hole would be a wonderful place to dump the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

44. Originally Posted by physicist
.... Suppose also that civilizations chose to use fission power for energy. Then a black hole would be a wonderful place to dump the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.
That strikes me as a very wasteful solution.
What are nuclear wastes?

Too bad we have no way to place a probe near a black hole to see if it the predictions about what we would see are correct.

45. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by physicist
.... Suppose also that civilizations chose to use fission power for energy. Then a black hole would be a wonderful place to dump the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.
That strikes me as a very wasteful solution.
What are nuclear wastes?
Why? If it's cost effective then I don't see a problem. Nor do I see this ever happening.

And I know what nuclear waste is. Otherwise I'd never have mentioned it.

46. Originally Posted by dan hunter

Too bad we have no way to place a probe near a black hole to see if it the predictions about what we would see are correct.
We don't need to "pace a probe". We study black holes through gravitational lensing and Shapiro delays.

47. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by HexHammer
BH sucks up the entire list of periodtic table of thingies, then spews it out again, where the new form of recycled matter can reform into planets and stars, simple?
let me elaborate, in normal recyceling used items are broken down into basic materials, metals in cellphones, computers, industrial machines, etc, etc, thus often they are melted down into metal bars for new uses, or entire metal frames are reused.

In Black Holes it's much simplers, they swallow up gas, rocks, planets and stars, spew out basic matters thus new stars and planets, etc can reform and go super nova and sometimes form new BH. But they have vacuumed up a nice area.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
No. Black holes do NOT "spew" out anything that that has fallen into them.
The links I gave showed this.
Ok, once again ...WHAT DOES THIS PICTURE SHOW?!?!!?

48. Any matter that crosses the event horizon of a black hole is in there forever. However, matter on its way to the event horizon tends to get hammered by profoundly immense and violent forces and hence spews out a ton of radiation and even charged particles.

I really don't get why a teleology need be assigned to black holes. Black holes are powerful objects that exist, hence they have a tendency to interact with other elements of the universe.

49. Am I talking to a bunch of freggin robots?

Please explain this picture then, instead of saying stuff unrelating to the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

50. Originally Posted by HexHammer
Am I talking to a bunch of freggin robots?

Please explain this picture then, instead of saying stuff unrelating to the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like jets and a degree of rotation of the jets, for they appear to have drifted at their extremes. More still might be going in than out of the BH.

51. Originally Posted by HexHammer
Am I talking to a bunch of freggin robots?

Please explain this picture then, instead of saying stuff unrelating to the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See post 238

52. Originally Posted by MrMojo1
Originally Posted by HexHammer
Am I talking to a bunch of freggin robots?

Please explain this picture then, instead of saying stuff unrelating to the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See post 238
Thanks for input, uhmmm I have no idea, but maybe you are right.

53. Moderator Comment: HexHammer, your last post has enabled you to, narrowly, miss a one week ban. I was about to ban you for these reasons:

1. Failing to provide evidence in support of your assertion. (A picture that has a far better explanation than yours is not evidence.)
2. Failing to address counter arguments, when provided.
4. Showing no indication that you have any notion of the scientific method, or any willingness to learn about it.
5. Being rude and abusive.

Your last post, submitted while I was preparing the ban, suggests there may actually be some hope for you. However, point 5 remains. I expect an unreserved apology to the members whom you have insulted in this thread.

54. Originally Posted by John Galt
Moderator Comment: HexHammer, your last post has enabled you to, narrowly, miss a one week ban. I was about to ban you for these reasons:

1. Failing to provide evidence in support of your assertion. (A picture that has a far better explanation than yours is not evidence.)
2. Failing to address counter arguments, when provided.
4. Showing no indication that you have any notion of the scientific method, or any willingness to learn about it.
5. Being rude and abusive.

Your last post, submitted while I was preparing the ban, suggests there may actually be some hope for you. However, point 5 remains. I expect an unreserved apology to the members whom you have insulted in this thread.
Dywyddyr seemingly didn't take any notice of the HUGE picture I posted in Post #228 and his answer in #231 refeering to 2 other posts not taking account for the big jets spewing out of the BH, further his first answer in #229 seemed like something a child could have come up with, so I assumed he was trolling me, and not wanted to engage in a serious debate.

I appologize for my puerile attacks, and should have had more patience and understanding for people who tryed to give their wisdom to the debate.

55. Moderator Comment: Thank you for that. I trust all members will now put this incident behind them and we can all return to the science.

Page 3 of 3 First 123
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement