Yes, that is a problem.



Just like your statement that "Galaxies are moving apart at near the speed of light", you mix false statements with a non-scientific discussion of a topic you obviously don't understand.

Black holes do not have infinite mass and no one has ever predicted that they do ... at least no one in the the real world of physics. A black hole has the mass of whatever caused it plus whatever fell into it minus a small amount of radiation. The mass of a black hole can be calculated by the gravitational effects on it's neighbors.

Since gravity tears space/time, what is happening at the center of a black hole is mostly just speculation. Space/time rules would have to apply to calculate a volume, but if torn, the space/time rules may not apply so we do not even know for sure that a singularity describes the mass. They may exit in this universe as a black hole and in another universe as a white hole. The connection could be a worm hole or a party of dancing fairies.

IF a black hole concentrates a finite amount of mass into a true singularity, it could be considered to have infinite density mathematically, but in reality, the conversion of the gravitons and other proposed sub-atomic particles into their basic proposed string components would have a volumetric component to preserve uniqueness.

Somewhat like the proverbial can-of-worms.

*sigh*

Really?

Well then. I guess we're done here.

Understanding is not a binary quality, and an evaluation of the degree of understanding depends on context. So the statement "you don't understand' and 'you do understand' can both be true.

On the whole, you've haven't demonstrated a very deep understanding of physics. This is not an attack, its simply my honest assessment.


Now why would you be done? I hope you aren't too proud to admit the limitations of your understanding, and see the merit of Metal's post.

I probably really DON'T understand...
Or maybe I do (thanks, massagetrade :)

Actually, I watch threads like these with interest, since I'm relatively (no Einstein pun intended) new to topics related to physics, the universe, etc.

I've been fascinated by the theory of multiple dimensions, particularly string and M theory. It makes SO much sense and seems (in my mind) to marry the theological and secular worlds that people tend to gravitate gravitate towards (one or the other.) The problem was that I couldn't really VISUALIZE the other dimensions (and I'm a visual/kinetic learner.) The expansion of the universe (even with the terrific balloon image utilized in numerous magazine articles and discussions didn't help me put the pieces together and ran into that wall primarily because I understood the universe was infinite. Recently I learned that the universe" is a prescribed set, proven by mathematics and representative of the big bang only. Being open minded to a change of perspective regarding the size of the universe was a tough shift for me, but now it makes all the rest of what I wanted to make "work" does so much more fully.

Do I really understand? No. And perhaps yes.

Anyone who is unwilling to consider that they don't know it all is sure missing a great opportunity.

By the way...the "infinity plus one" argument was what kids in second grade did. Do you really want to go that route here??? Really?

Only the event horizon should have 'mass'. Relitivistic volicities would 'slow time' but 'mass' would compress to 'balance' Eee equals M Cee Squared.

It would compress equally in all directions but 'time' is 'slowed' so 'relitave distance' to a creature on a planet 'falling' through the 'event horizon' would never change (as he saw it in his environment).

Though his planet has shrunk to a sub-atomic particle 'relative' to us. His world (to him) would never change.

Gravity does not 'tear' space/time. It bends both time and light

It wasn't an "argument". It was a response entirely equal to the challenge put. I certainly did not want to "go that route", having assumed more than second grade arguments from this board.

I don't think this thread requires a very deep understanding of physics, which (and this is not an attack either, unless you work for Caltech) I don't think you have either. There are very few people who do. I think a broad summary of the main points would do nicely. And apart from mistyping 'mass' for 'density' once, I think I managed that.

Yes. That was one of the prompts which led me to *sigh*. There comes a time when it's best just to let someone believe something incorrect. And that time is when a correction will probably mistaken as a personal attack.

Nice try. This falls along the line of the "Galaxies moving apart at near the speed of light."

Even in the early days Einstein, when he was exploring the concepts of how a black hole would affect space/time, went into the concepts of how a black hole would tear, not stretch, space/time. He explored the concept of worm holes.

Once again, smooth talk without understanding the basics ...

(shakes head)

"Lets someone believe something that is incorrect ..."

What is correct is that it is really easy to spot someone faking it when they are far outside their field but they are in yours.

If you think your only mistake was the substitution of "mass" for density then it puts your physics education at below a high school level. What is truly amazing is that you think you understand the topic enough to "correct" others.

Get real. Or why don't you go into a long informative discussion of your near light speed galaxies.



Here is another one of your several "mistakes" but I doubt that you even know what is wrong with it.

Please, do not let anyone like me believe anything incorrect in physics because you are too kind to point it out. You should share that knowledge in all it's glory.

"Even in the early days Einstein, when he was exploring the concepts of how a black hole would affect space/time, went into the concepts of how a black hole would tear, not stretch, space/time. He explored the concept of worm holes."

Einstein was not infallible.

How can you 'tear' something that is made of discrete particles floating upon the em currents of the void?

You can cause the particles to move this way or that...

You can push them all over the place in various ways...

But they don't 'tear' they simply 'change' with the field forces that are currently effecting them.

No one is infallible but Einstein's theory of General Relativity is still functional and in use today.

The "tear" is the mathematical description of the separation of the fabric of space/time that would be necessary to create the conditions which would mathematically exist under General Relativity.

In order for a space/time continuum to connect to another space/time continuum in another time, space, or universe a tear must occur according to General Relativity as follows.

"The basic idea of wormholes dates nearly as far back as the concept of general relativity. Barely a few months after Einstein wrote down his equations, the first exact solution of the Einstein equations was found by Karl Schwarzschild[3]. One of the remarkable predictions of Schwarzschild's geometry was that if a mass, M, were compressed inside a critical radius, rs, nowadays called the Schwarzschild radius[4] (the farthest visible point), and then its gravity would become so strong that not even light could escape. The Schwarzschild radius, rs, of a mass, M, is given by[5]:



Curiously, the Schwarzschild radius had already been derived (with the correct result, but an incorrect theory) by John Michell in 1784. The English geologist realized that it would be theoretically possible for gravity to be so overwhelmingly strong that nothing, not even light[6] could escape. To generate such gravity, an object would have to be very massive and unimaginably dense. At the time, the necessary conditions for "dark stars", as Michell called them, seemed physically impossible. His ideas were published by the French mathematician and philosopher Pierre Simon Laplace in two successive editions of an astronomy guide, but were dropped from the third edition. In Laplace's 1795 edition, he put forward the following equation saying what the mass and radius would have to be to form a black hole.



The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole. The name "black hole" was invented in 1968 by John Archibald Wheeler. Before Wheeler, these objects were often referred to as ‘black stars’[7] or ‘frozen stars’.

It was Austrian Ludwig Flamm who had realised that Schwarzschild's solution (called the Schwarzschild Metric) to Einstein's equations actually describes a wormhole connecting two regions of flat space-time; two universes, or two parts of the same universe.

A white hole (from the negative square root solution inside the horizon) is a black hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so white holes spit them out. However white holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics[8].

General Relativity is time symmetric. It does not know about the second law of thermodynamics, and it does not know about which way cause and effect go. However we do. The negative square root solution outside the horizon represents another Universe. The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

The prediction of the existence of black holes did not trouble Einstein, but he found that the black holes contained a singularity at its centre; this is a point of infinite density where time comes to an end. At the point of the singularity, all the known laws of physics start to breakdown. For Einstein this was a very troubling thought and he did not like them, the idea that they were shielding from the outside world by the event horizon of the black hole was not enough for him and he did not like the “concept that if you can not see it then do not worry about it.”

So he went to work with Nathan Rosen and in 1935 they produced a paper that produced evidence for a bridge between a black hole and a white hole, this was called the Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
The basic idea of wormholes dates nearly as far back as the concept of general relativity. Barely a few months after Einstein wrote down his equations, the first exact solution of the Einstein equations was found by Karl Schwarzschild[3]. One of the remarkable predictions of Schwarzschild's geometry was that if a mass, M, were compressed inside a critical radius, rs, nowadays called the Schwarzschild radius[4] (the farthest visible point), and then its gravity would become so strong that not even light could escape. The Schwarzschild radius, rs, of a mass, M, is given by[5]:



Curiously, the Schwarzschild radius had already been derived (with the correct result, but an incorrect theory) by John Michell in 1784. The English geologist realized that it would be theoretically possible for gravity to be so overwhelmingly strong that nothing, not even light[6] could escape. To generate such gravity, an object would have to be very massive and unimaginably dense. At the time, the necessary conditions for "dark stars", as Michell called them, seemed physically impossible. His ideas were published by the French mathematician and philosopher Pierre Simon Laplace in two successive editions of an astronomy guide, but were dropped from the third edition. ...

The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole. The name "black hole" was invented in 1968 by John Archibald Wheeler. Before Wheeler, these objects were often referred to as ‘black stars’[7] or ‘frozen stars’.

It was Austrian Ludwig Flamm who had realised that Schwarzschild's solution (called the Schwarzschild Metric) to Einstein's equations actually describes a wormhole connecting two regions of flat space-time; two universes, or two parts of the same universe.

A white hole (from the negative square root solution inside the horizon) is a black hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so white holes spit them out. However white holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics[8].

General Relativity is time symmetric. It does not know about the second law of thermodynamics, and it does not know about which way cause and effect go. However we do. The negative square root solution outside the horizon represents another Universe. The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

The prediction of the existence of black holes did not trouble Einstein, but he found that the black holes contained a singularity at its centre; this is a point of infinite density where time comes to an end. At the point of the singularity, all the known laws of physics start to breakdown. For Einstein this was a very troubling thought and he did not like them, the idea that they were shielding from the outside world by the event horizon of the black hole was not enough for him and he did not like the “concept that if you can not see it then do not worry about it.”

So he went to work with Nathan Rosen and in 1935 they produced a paper that produced evidence for a bridge between a black hole and a white hole, this was called the Einstein-Rosen Bridge."

The theory of "particles floating on the currents of the void" is not known to me. Where did this come from?

Atomic elements following Em currents and gravitational influences...

At your core that is what you are... billions of particles arranged in the form of 'you' by interaction with the physical world according to how particles react in a gravity field.

I understand that you believe this but where did the theory come from?

the whole thing is that we can't possibly comprehend what we do not know... We can only see so far into the universe, so we do not know if it infinite or not. How far can light travel? we can only see it if there is light associated with it... so far, we can only see things that are about 14 billion light years away, and that is only if they are really big, or putting out tons of energy.

Milky Way Bubble Jet from Massive Black Hole



Well, that is partially true. To a large degree we model physics with math and test the model. The space/time fabric that Einstein developed isn't a real fabric, it is just a way of looking at space and time. However, since the model works everywhere we can see in this universe, we have a pretty good idea that it works in this universe in the parts we can't see either.

The model gave us results that "didn't make sense" for the parts we couldn't see which led to the development of the theories (now pretty much taken as fact) about dark energy and dark matter. Now we know where and how much of these items are "out there" even if we aren't very sure what they are made of. The guesses about their composition make for tests at CERN in the LHC which leads to us learning more and more as does the development of larger and better space telescopes.

The advancement of science is moving faster than most realize. In addition to the big, high energy items you mentioned that we can see, radio telescopes can see cosmic background radiation from the big bang ... a field where much is happening.

And don't forget that all the dark energy and dark matter was found by using gravity and it's indirect effect on light, not light itself.

i do not believe in the big bang theory.... i do not have a better idea myself, but i rank that theory right up there with god, an outdated idea that has no merit. Maybe over time, the gravitational forces will pull enough matter together to make a big enough black hole to explode, but the idea of everything in the universe being made in a partial second is silly...

We all have our own beliefs. You are welcome to yours. Since my career has been shaped by math and physics, I tend to follow the science with interest and follow the math and physics professionally.

There isn't much of a controversy in the science world about the credibility of the big bang. It is pretty much taken for granted as fact at this point. What caused it is another story. Due to our rapid advancements in astronomy, we now know the universe is accelerating outward so gravity pulling everything back into a big black hole isn't gonna happen.

As far as the universe being made in an instant being silly ... it isn't really much different that what is happening on a small scale at CERN ... just a matter of scale. If the science wasn't correct, we would not have advanced to where we are today. The reason that mankind spent thousands of years dancing around a campfire wishing for rain and getting no further in science is because their concepts were wrong and knowledge of science was non-existent. It doesn't make them silly, just ignorant. Is everyone in science today ignorant about the big bang? Possibly, but probabilities are very low. The overall mathematical models of the universe are coming together.

The History Channel made a great series called the Universe. I think that people that don't even like science much would enjoy it.

don't get me wrong, i don't discredit it or anyone that believes it, i just do not know. but tommy lee jones said once in the movie men in black "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. ... my point is that everyone knew there was a god or gods 500 years ago...things change as we learn more.

Actually fifteen minutes ago I did NOT know that humans were alone on this planet. People knew for thousands of years that the Earth was round before the European Church decided it was flat ... which brings up a point. The examples you gave were not of true science but of non-scientific ignorance; mostly just conjecture.

It is unlikely the laws of thermodynamics will be found to be false. Just as Newton's Laws were found to be valid except where Einstein's theory of relativity overrules and relativity works except where quanutm mechanics overrule, there may be another set of rules to be found at energies described by the big bang. They are working on them as we speak. But to say the big bang didn't happen is to ignore a huge amount of hard scientific evidence now accepted as fact.

When they finially sailed around the world, they had discussions with people who still claimed it was flat. Maybe you should review the level of evidence of a big bang. The cosmic background radiation still exists from the explosion.

The Newest "Proof"

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

so i guess it had to be the explosion, not AN explosion... we are still children in our knowledge and wisdom, compared to the age of our universe. Things will be discovered and proven in time. think of what we will know in a million years from now. and i was using that as an analogy, not as fact. There are still people that believe that we are alone in the universe, and just mathematics and statistics alone prove it to be wrong. people change their minds daily, and even Einsteins theories, that were once regarded as fact, are slowly being proven otherwise. I may not be right, and i may not be wrong, i just like to keep an open mind about it. There are to many things that we cannot possibly know to say any of this is certain.

Fair enough. I view our world as the sailors did who sailed around it. I see the road behind and know the world is round, regardless of what others say. I see the math and science with a balanced amount of skepticism and seek verification for anything too novel. I marvel at the predictions which are proven true because that is the test of true understanding, to call your shots.

There are about to some serious shots called at the LHC as it gears up to greater power. Knowledge of how our universe works increases every day.

that was my whole point...if the universe is infinite, then i cannot see how the big bang can be true... if it is not infinite, then it has a whole lot more merit to me. all this is just my personal opinions, with absolutely no scientific data to make any kind of a back up of my statements. but then again, i was wrong about something once too.