Black Hole...... Not at all

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by RajeshTrivedi, Oct 4, 2014.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    I have read the criteria for posting something in the Alternative Theory forum.

    The idea [starting from my next Post] is quite revolutionary and deserves some attention of all the truth seekers. If moderators do not like my point of view, then they are at liberty to consign the same to cesspool or even delete the same. But I personally feel when so mcuh is not known about true nature of Gravity and when there is a singularity aspect with respect to Black Holes, then this line of thought is worth seeking..

    My personal request is let us not degenerate this thread to the incivility. All kind of frank feedback, criticism and opinion on the subject are welcome.

    My stand is, Black Hole has some problems with its existence, if we are existing...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    We are existing [origin of Universe] because around 14.7 billion years ago, a very very dense mass decided on its own to start expanding and creating spacetime with it. This is termed as some kind of Singularity in Physics, kind of infinite density.

    The Black Hole in my opinion is some kind of reverse singularity, our mass which came out of Big Bang, is going back towards this singularity, creating something like a situation prior to t =0 or at t = 0.

    If Black Hole is true then there was no need for Big Bang to happen, for the simple reason if Black Hole Singularity can exist with infinite density, then Big Bang singularity also could have existed.

    Both these concepts can only co exist if we say that one day [after trillion of years] the entire mass of universe will come back and form a massive Black Hole in density [not in size] and the mass of universe is just sufficient to re start the new Big Bang....lo that's cyclic Universe from Singularity to Singularity..

    I am not going with this theory as of now......

    The point is more about Gravity, which we have presumed, that would remain same even in the so called singularity. We know the conservation of mass, we know the conservation of charge, but do we know about conservation of nature of Gravity...May be not. We just feel so.

    What if the true nature of Gravity changes somewhere near the singularity ? The question can be seen from a simple perspective...

    1. The Gravity remains same as long as matter is present. Period
    2. The nature of Gravity at the fundamental particle level, will resist formation of singularity.
    3. Somewhere in the process of formation of singularity [BB], Gravity fails [Vanishes].

    The first perspective is very simple, and that is what is presently thought of, understood. We have not fully understood the nature of Gravity, so second perspective becomes very complex as on date, and I am sure great amount of research is on.

    It is the third perspective which has some qualitative potential and hence I am proposing the same in this thread.

    My theory is very simple..... The gravity per say is the basic nature of any matter, but it could have come only from certain fundamental characteristic of some sub [sub] atomic level particle.

    Let us see the formation sequence of Black Hole [Some Super Nova aspect not taken for simple understanding and also mass of the original star is taken sufficiently large]

    1. The Gravitational Pressure become so high that even electrons are pressed inside their lowest possible states, thus producing White Dwarf. A state of matter with huge amount of free detached electrons in a very dense space, but supposed to be moving at very high speed

    1. Next stage, the pressure of gravity is still higher, electrons are almost fully relativistic, and their capture starts taking place by the protons… [please recall after the BB, the electrons could not be captured initially because they were travelling at very high speed, may be due to more space available then].
    2. So Neutrons starts forming, and even these guys are not spared and they also move down to their lowest Energy state, thus causing a very very dense material. What it would be we do not know, may be fermi gas of Neutron, simply because electrons are captured, protons captured them and became neutrons, which are further moved to deep corner of the space. This is Neutron Star core.
    3. But the good news is : Till now at least one sub atomic particle is present, that is neutron, so we can still say, wow no threat to gravity, it is the gravity which made electrons and protons go extinct and created huge number of neutrons.
    4. After the Neutron Star is formed, Gravity still was restless…more pressure. So the hypothesis is that even poor Neutrons got spaced out to quarks..and we have Quark Star..
    5. There got to be some end to the space, so, finally we had Black Hole and singularity….

    My theory is somewhere down below the Neutron Star [the symptoms would start with the Neutron Star itself], as soon as Gravitational Pressure becomes higher than the NDP, thus requiring further collapse of Neutron into its constituents, the Gravity Vanishes [we can argue and may be delay the stage by one generation], and thats it, no more compression due to Gravity. So there is no question of getting into any kind of singularity, only a massive lump of Neutrons [or may be one or two generation below neutron particles].


    The Observational Aspect: Pulsar [A Neutron Star].

    Can we not explain the Pulsar by this vanishing act of Gravity ?? Beyond Neutron star, at some stage Gravity gives in, and material relaxes, but as soon as that happens and NDP [or some pressure / T point] becomes higher than the Gravity, the Neutron takes over the charge and Gravity comes back, again the squeeze starts. This with related Energy Output creates some kind of pulsating ejection.

    This example is given for the illustration purpose as an alternative explanation to Pulsar phenomenon. But nonetheless even if this does not fit in, still the proposed theory does not get refuted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,092
    Just a couple of comments

    I am not sure if this is part of your alternative theory or you just do not know much about the big bang theory. When the universe begain expanding there was no mass at all, there was only energy - the mass came later.

    Why do you say that? Why can't they exist and the universe will go on expanding forever?

    You mean like the Higgs particle?

    I don't see how.

    Pulsars do not eject anything. The pulsing is due to the incredibly strong magnetic field of the rotating neutron star. Radiation emission is aligned with the magnetic field, so the radiation emission rotates and it is seen as a pulse.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525

    As per Wiki.....the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.......


    This is with respect to BB, if the Big Bang Happened, that means singularity could not be sustained...in the same context BH singularity cannot be sustained...So either it is cyclic or BB/BH cannot co exist in theory.

    I don't mean anything here. We do not know for sure (Quark Star is a hypothesis) what is between Neutron Star and Black Hole.

    Thats why I said, even if we do not agree on this explanation, still the basic premises remain intact. So I will not argue on the cause behind pulsing as of now.
     
  8. JukriS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    The Interaction / The Black Holes

    How do the orbs interact with each other?They open up energywaves, by which they interact with each other.The less the orb has exterior surface, the less it interacts with other pieces. Also the density of energy matters as well.

    In a energy concentration there can be a lot of energy, although it would have just a little exterior surface in relation to other orbs.The denser the energy in an orb is, the less it has exterior surface in relation to the quantity of energy.The less exterior surface, the slower the energy opens up away from the orb and the less it interacts with other orbs.

    The denser the energy of a piece is, the more efficient it stops to itself for example the neutrinos coming from the stars and also the less there comes neutrinos away from the piece.There woun´t come any neutrinos of the stars from the direction of a black hole, because they stop themselves to a black hole.

    However, towards the black hole there move neutrinos all the time and they expand and open up energywaves, while transfering their kinetic energy with them to the orbs.From the pieces that move near the black hole loose more neutrinos from the side that it away from the black hole. This is how a certain exterior pressure is formed around the black hole.

    The closer to the black hole the piece is, the less energybundles come from backside of the black holes and the stronger the exterior pressure is.When one understands that all the energy concentrations expand and open up energywaves that have the nature of expanding energyconcentration, one can undestand that the black hole does not draw other pieces towards itself. It devours all the other pieces, because it expands and pushes pieces that locate nearby away from itself slower than the pieces and the black hole itsel do expand.However, some of the black holes are in a way in a diet.

    They push the gas that locates nearby away from themselves faster than they expand.Someone may wonder, why the black hole finally begins to reject the pieces that approach the black hole faster than the black hole and the piece themselves expand. It is based on a fact, that allthough the black hole opens up slowly its energy, do these dense energywaves have large energic particles, which also transfer their kinetic energy with energywaves opening up from themselves towards the expanding atomcores of other orbs.The modern physics does not understand these large energic particles.

    According to my theory, the speed of these large energic particles has accelerated just because of the fact, that they also do expand and open up energywaves by which they can make the large energic particles in front of them to speed up all the time.Their speed accelerates slower than the speed of the photons. Correspondingly their speed slows down slower than the photons speed when they move for example towards the sun. The speed of a ship accelerates slower than the speed of a boat.

    The speed of the ship also slows down slower than the speed of a boat.This way it is easy to understand how the expanding star that pushes itself away from the expanding black hole explodes a lot of its energy towards the black hole. Those opening and expanding energybudles that come from the expanding black hole make the expanding atoms of a star explode faster than normally.

    It achieves an illusion that the black hole absorbs with some kind of gravitation from a star the mass of a star towards itself.In fact, the energy coming from the black hole makes the expanding star to explode its energy much stronger than normally. With this energy that explodes towards the black hole it pushes itself away from the expanding black hole in a curved orbit.

    that text is many years old!

    Movement = energy
     
  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    What a load of nonsense! All written by foolish people who know NOTHING about cosmology! (One of my dogs could have done better.) Egad!
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,416

    The BB was an evolution of space time, with an inherent "Superforce". Matter came later. As expansion proceeded, temperatures and pressures started to drop, and as a result this "Superforce" started to decouple. This resulted in phase transitions and false vacuums, and excesses of energy that went into creating our first fundamental particles.

    This appears to be a problem with you...creating problems where there are no problems.
    NB: The BB was a singularity of spacetime: A BH Singularity is a Singularity in spacetime.
    They are completely two different beasts.


    Pulsars have been explained quite well by origin.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,416

    Latest research and data puts the age of the Universe at 13.83 billion years.
    No, it was a Singularity of space and time [spacetime] as "we don't know it" that started to evolve for some unknown reason [quantum fluctuation in the realm of quantum spacetime??].

    Also a Singularity need not be infinite. It is simply the parameters of where our current laws of physics and GR do not apply.
    We do not know.


    Why would that happen? All mass cannot turn into BH's as it would never reach the required density.


    I fail to understand your reasoning .
    Once again, a Singularity need not be infinite, and one is a singularity OF spacetime, the other is a singularity IN spacetime.




    Yep, speculative...we have no evidence or logical reasoning that this will happen.


    Gravity is the nature [or emergence] of curved spacetime, caused by the presence of matter/energy.



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We do not need an alternative explanation.....We have an excellent explanation of what a Pulsar is, based on observations.
    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/radio-school/2011/talks/pulsar_observations.pdf


    You need to apply "Occam's razor" at this stage to your present hypothesis of Pulsars.
     
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    in Another thread by Paddoboy, current research topic is mentioned, which brings up the Black Hole from singularity to Planck scale.

    My simple submission is that extreme pressure due to gravity (beyond NDP, ?QDP), has to be either balanced from inside or should create a physically observable and definable situation, it cannot be singularity. Somewhere down the line, it is quite possible due to extreme pressure that most fundamental particle starts converting into Energy, and Gravity vanishes and it blasts off.

    Is it right to hypothesize that mass has been squeezed to Zero size by Gravity Pressure ?? I think it is very logical to consider that Gravity also has to start from somewhere, and beyond that, it vanishes.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,092
    That is a very simple conjecture that is based on nothing except your guess. In a scinetific sense it is completely useless.
     

Share This Page