Proof that BlackHoles cant exist

Center of below galaxy should have instantly become a BH. But the fact is that no star can become BH; And the reason is simple.

Core of any star is hottest and the pressure there is maximum; hence the explosive nuclear fusion reaction should first start in the center of a dieing massive star. Hence all the matter will flung out in a supernova leaving no BH and paving the way for the next generation of stars. And the universe continues in a steady state form.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The below pic shows that when billions of stars come in contact with each other, they keep on exploding and merging, again and again, shining bright like a giant star while converting mass into energy.

Just try comparing the size of the central object with the tiniest specs of the ring which are in fact stars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beautiful pic! As I recall, Einstein didn't believe that black holes existed; he thought something physical (as opposed to theoretical) prevented it. Future theorists came to the conclusion that implosion to a singularity is mandatory under certain conditions; i.e. they believe that nothing physical prevents implosion under certain conditions. The issue is covered in chapter five of Black Holes & Time Warps.

There need not be an explosion at all, even at the core. According to the theory (general relativity), the only condition required for implosion is a minimum amount of mass in a given volume (a minimum density). So, for example, adding just a gram of matter to the surface of a star might make it implode to a singularity.

In your pic, the density of the central ball of stars may be below the minimum required for implosion. And the density isn't changing much because the stars are in stable orbits around the center, rather than falling toward the center.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what stops nuclear fusion at the stars center from blowing the star SuperNova before the implosion ?

I hope u heard about MegaNova.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can someone except me explain the gap between the central object and the ring?

 

The center wouldn't know the implosion was happening until it happened there. It would occur from the outside inwards. When the critical gram is added to the star, the surface would begin falling toward the center. Relative to an observer hovering at the former surface, the surface would instantly begin falling at the speed of light. Hence it must keep falling and can never rise (explode outwards), otherwise the outward speed of the matter would need to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible (so the theory postulates). And the center wouldn't know about the implosion until it happened there, because the surface is falling at the same rate as information flows. (For a better explanation, search Black Holes FAQ for "The horizon has some very strange geometrical properties".)

I don't believe this implosion occurs, mind you. I think it's malarkey. I'm just paraphrasing what the theory says.

There are so many trademarks on that name, it's hard to find a decent link about it. What is it, or can you provide a link?

 

By the time a massive enough star reaches the point of producing a supernova, its core is composed of iron. Iron does not produce energy when it undergoes fusion, in fact it takes a net input of energy for iron to undergo fusion.

On top of the iron is a layer of silicon followed by, in order; oxygen, neon, carbon, helium and finally hydrogen.

Each of these layers take more and more heat and pressure to undergo fusion as you work inward towards the core, and each produces less energy through fusion.

The star collaspse when the iron core has grown large enough that it can no longer support its own weight (remember, there is no heat producing Fusion occuring at the core to help support it.) The core collaspes and the above layers fall inward to take up the space vacated by it. This collaspe causes explosive fusion of the outer layers. Some of the material form this explosion will tbe thrown outward, and some will be pushed inward towards the core, the latter will add to the mass of the core, and if after all is said and done, you get a neutron star, or, if the remainging core is massive enough, a black hole.

 

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge in this area, and certainly that is the accepted theory / result of the ASSUMPTION that the dying star (when a significant amount of the core region is iron) looks that way, but I think it is more complex that the spherical symmetry model predicts. Also almost all nebulae exhibit a very asymetric aspect, such as even the tiny Crab nebulae.

I present my arguments in the thread, "Dark matter - what is it?" I hope you wil find time to take a look there and comment. As there have been 80 replies, I guide your attention to posts 61 and 63. BenTheMan and I have been exchanging ideas about my suggestion that the iron region is not likely to be at the exact mass center when it starts to collapse to the first of many much smaller black holes in a "chain reaction” of black hole formation as the shock wave from that "first to collapse" compresses other more central parts of the star above the critical conditions for black hole formation. (The second stage of the chain reaction.) The multitude of shock from these second stage collapses converge on less central parts of the star (from two or more sides) and form small regions with the critical density to collapse, even though they may be only neon etc. This is the third and final stage of black hole formation as the star is coming apart by this time. - The basic physics that starts the asymmetric chain reactions is that the fusion rate only depends quadratically on the density but exponentionally upon the temperature and statistical fluctuations in temperature, do exist. Thus are near central spots with very slightly increased fusion rates that make a self accelerating thermal instability and trigger the near center, but not usually at center, first collapse when they are mostly iron.
(The density is low just before they collapse, and the radiation pressure is quite significant. I sometimes call this region the “radiation bubble” and when fusion to iron stops, the much denser regions around the radiation bubble radially implode.


One of the other posts gives following link to a photo of the "Eskimo" nebula, which I also discuss in detail, identifying the one more distant "headless comet" at 3:30 O-clock as the first of (the three stage) black hole to form.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html

Please look at it also, if you have not already, especially useful if both it and the last part of post 63 can be seen on your screen at the same time. Thanks.

 

it seems pretty obvious to me that a large cloud of matter coalesced into the galaxy you see at the center. subsequently, that mass of stars compressed (by radiation) the remaining matter in the cloud, which eventually got dense enough to form stars. that explains why the center has older stars and the outer ring has newer ones.

there are also some other explanations, but I think that is the most plausible.

 

Seems like u just told us the reason why the universe is having acceleration in expansion or may be even the reason of the expansion itself;
bye bye BigBang.

 

Thanks, thats the best SuperNova explanation i ever read.

But i doubt that the core is not hot, the core always hottest; even earth has a very hot core, i wonder if theres fusion in the earths center ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think i confused HyperNova with meganova,
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast21oct98_1.htm

 

any Negative vibes from this are purely accidental, but what about the black holes we have already seen? What are those then I ask.

 

Singularity will no doubt tell you, Positron, that the evidence for black holes is circumstancial. While this is technically correct, there still exists no way to explain xray spectra that we see in certain regions of space, or the gamma ray bursts that we see all over the sky. (Consider that we have never observed macroscopic evolution, but only the Creationists doubt the validity of the theory.)

Einstein's equations are perfectly happy with black holes---they are just singular at the origin. This is completely expected, as GR is a classical theory and is expected to break down anyway at very small distances. The presence of a black hole solution has nothing to do with the consistency of GR. Any claims to the contrary are made by people who don't understand GR, and/or by lunatics who are easily offended and have their own pet theories to pimp.

Hope this helps.

 

But with an Iron core , all of theat heat is due to pressure, and none of it due to energy released due to fusion. In fact, as I pointed out, the Fusion of Iron takes a net input of energy. If the Iorn core fused, it would actually suck energy from the star and speed the collaspe of the core.

It takes a body no smaller than 1/10 the mass of our sun to produce enough temp and pressure to maintain even hydrogen fusion. The Earth is magnitudes too small to generate the needed temp and pressure for that, let alone those needed to get our iron core to fuse. So, no, there is no fusion occuring at the Earth's core.

 

I think u need to learn to cut the crap.

U can learn a lot from Janus58 on how to do that. Look at your words and look at her selection of words, do u see any hostility there ?

Well , i am learning a lot form her, in terms of knowledge and manners too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think after the blue stars we should get XRay stars.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1998/07/text/



Janus58, u say that Iron fusion needs more energy that it can output, I dont know why its like that. Secondly, how come Uranium and other radioactive substance are used to create nuclear energy ?

If the star is collapsing then it will reach the Uranium stage due to fusion and being radioactive it should explode like a nuclear bomb.

 

It has to do with the binding energy holding the nucleus together.

Uranium and other radioactive elements produce energy by fission IOW, they go from heavy Elements to lighter elements, while fusion goes from lighter to heavier. Again, Iron( Iron 56 to be precise) is the at the bottom of this energy ladder. Once you get there you can no longer produce energy by fission or fusion.

By this point, the pressure is so great that it actually pushes the electrons and protons ito each other forming neutrons, the core losses all elememtal properties and just becomes a mass of neutrons. Even if uranium could be produced, the intense pressure would prevent it from undergoing Fission.

 

If you call crap anything that completely shoots down your theory, then I think you are in for a crap filled existence. You are in no position to claim things like "Black holes don't exist" when you clearly don't even understand the life cycles of stars.

If you had phrased your strong statement as a question, I would have attempted to be more diplomatic. Instead, you made the statement that "Black holes don't exist", and I proved that it was wrong. And somehow this offends you.

I was pointing out that you are wrong and that you needed to study more. If you have a problem with that, then you should do your homework before making such outrageous claims, and you probably shouldn't be in science. The onus is not on me to make sure that you feel that your minority opinion is well-represented...if your theory is attacked, you should defend it. If you cannot do so, then your idea is worthless. Everybody doesn't have an equal say---science doesn't work like this. Some opinions are a priori more valid than others, because some people have studied the problem more than some other people. I'll leave it to you to decide which category your work should be placed in.

 

I was gona put on ignore but u r a weakling.

U wana fight ?

Asking others to reading is nothing near proving, Mr. Dumbo.