chndra sekhar limit is essential for turnig a star in to black hole but under very veryyy hi presure any thing could transform to B HOLE. in such case what about event of horizon & singularity. say micro B Hole if forms are equaly powerful can engulfed entire universe. Probably this is how Big Bang results from tiny points.

If you had called this thread the "Brown hole"
or the "pink hole"
{or even the butt hole}
You would be overrun with comments...
lol



Just look at the thread above yours !
{ANAL SEX}
hehehehe


Good Luck pard !

{NO BRAG...JUST FACT}

It may not be science
But it is philosophy...

It's no mystery.
It's my third ex old lady.

Is it a mystery what the mystery is?

Hmm black holes... Do they suck or blow?Lmao

well its sucks or blow is just do not matter but lets we are clear from side it sucks.but from inside it blow out.

Chandrasekhar postulated only defiance of the electromagnetic force, his math only covered the creation of neutron stars but what he achieved was identifying what pulsars are in working theorum.

Others postulated, based upon his work: "...but what we know of Gravity as a Force, one could extrapolate a subatomic breakdown beyond the Standard Model, producing a mathematical singularity in theoretical physics, but a real possible stellar object."
And observations seeking evidence of this have matched the extremely limited predictions thereof.

Numerous problems ensue.

1. the postulate outstrips the existing math for describing it, instead of working within what we know, the calling card of science, it works outside what is known to describe something also unknown, suspending the rule of observation in nature "correlation does not infer cause" when observing effects of massive stellar forces.
The Black Hole model describes something, so ambiguously that it may very well be completely off base with elements we have not yet learned about physics. Maybe they have something to do with what we don't know about dark matter and dark energy.

Chandra stuck within what we know, he stuck within the Standard Model, the math provides an inferrence but it is one of incomplete knowledge, not of flying dragons in space gobbling up matter.
Quite simply nobody knows what the rules are when you go beyond the Standard Model, as the black hole hypothesis does.
Chandra's work is clinically accurate for a neutron star, and utterly ambiguous when talking about black holes because it causes a mathematical singularity (the very definition of incomplete math), by stepping well beyond the Standard Model.

In other words it's like trying to predict a sandstorm on Mars using no more than a multiplication table and a pair of binoculars, it isn't much to work with and only the most elementary predictions are possible, which could be entirely off base because they're so elementary.

2. the black hole model elicits Gravity as a Force, that's Newtonian eccentricity which remains remnant in modern science, the conservative element which finds it difficult to imagine fourth-dimensional spacetime as a field and so still regards Gravity as a Force with a few values changed to match GR predictions moreso than Newtonian predictions.
Gravity is a spatial topography. It isn't a force. That kind of kills the 'traditional' black hole model coming right out of the gate.
According to GR questions like 'where does the information go?' simply cannot be unanswerable in a working theorum. So it isn't, it's a partial hypothesis as a model and incomplete as a theory.
Black Holes do not describe a singularity. There is no such thing as a singularity in the physical universe, it is a mathematical expression on paper which literally means, "we don't have math for that."

3. The Black Hole solutions as they are, being so very elementary cannot describe a stellar object except in the most elementary fashion (not what it looks like or acts like, just a couple of things about it with a lot of question marks).
The reason for this is the specific solutions (Static, Kerr, Reissner-Nordstroem), all contradict themselves when asserted as an actual stellar object. They cannot physically exist, they're partial descriptions of something, like trying to describe a rhinocerous without words using only its foot.

ie. the only realistic black hole solution is the reissner-nordstroem (the only one which describes a degenerate star rather than an ambiguous stellar object), and the problem with this solution is that if the star is very massive before it degenerates, the math doesn't form a black hole at all, it forms a naked singularity. This, gentlemen is like a lecturer giving you an F on your paper. The math just plain doesn't work.


What are popularly referred to as "black holes" wrt to astronomical observation are definitely something, but being "something" is literally all that can be proved about them until more is known not about "black holes" but physics itself.

Just to add in simplification,

The black hole hypothesis prohibits the existence of supermassive black holes. If black holes have been inferred by astronomical observations, the same inferrences have shown supermassive black holes and yet the model prohibits them. That's more than just a question mark, and if they're caused by some other model then it contradicts the existing black hole hypothesis by simple use of even more exotic conditions.
When the math is correct and complete, you can go silly with values and the equation still works (solves), so we know it isn't by this alone.


On singularities, they're a mathematical barrier not a physical one. Even the "lightspeed barrier" is a false nomenclature. The math works fine for any speed above or below c. The singularity only happens at precisely c.
That's like saying it is impossible to travel at 50mph in your car, yet 51mph or 150mph is just fine, and 49mph or 5mph is just fine, therefore the car's top speed is less than 50mph. That's not just a contradiction, it's complete nonsense.
It means there's something wrong with your car, not its limitations.

The math is the car. That's singularities explained. Going from there to Wormholes is what Sagan et al did for their works of fiction, using good science up to a point, to make a good fiction.
And that part is like saying, there's a problem with my car at 50mph so obviously it must be travelling into another dimension at that speed. A rational person would ask, just where are you getting this leap from in terms of any corroberation whatsoever?

i don't believe in mini black holes... just fanatsy

Actually, it's the mathematics of physics.

Has anyone heard of Nassim Haramein and his Schwarzchild proton? Is is that a particle is a mini black hole rotating around. He also thinks that there is a black hole at the center of the earth and the sun. It sounds kind of odd, but how often has the world view switched in the past when what we think the earth is in relation to the cosmos or solar system is involved?

yea, i agree with that statement, but as a matter of logic, micro BH's can't exist...the reason i think that is that all BH's we know of now are compacted matter so densely packed that a matchbook size piece would have the mass of a small moon. if size is what dictates gravity, then a mini/micro BH can't exist...

Here is an argument for mini ones. See if it makes sense: http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf

Well it was more fashionly talked during search of God paricle at CERN &all around world. That at the time of Hadron collision Micro BH will formed and engulf earth. By maths & physics its is worth MBH can form. There is also worm holes in space act similarly and any thing can vanish in it.

There was never any real concern at Cern (a subatomic joke there) about mini black holes causing damage because they are expected to evaporate instantly. Apparently they did.

Eaporation is only when MBH form When ever it formed we cant see that its true or not. Even in lab we can produce such many many BH but there cant be any evidence or proof. Therefore, MBH is always a question however,large &medium size BH existence is proved.

From Wiki:

Micro black holes
Main article: Micro black hole

Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate of the order of one per second.[71][72][73][74][75] According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Hawking radiation.[73] Hawking radiation is a thermal radiation predicted to be emitted by black holes due to quantum effects. Because Hawking radiation allows black holes to lose mass, black holes that lose more matter than they gain through other means are expected to dissipate, shrink, and ultimately vanish. Smaller micro black holes (MBHs), which could be produced at the LHC, are currently predicted by theory to be larger net emitters of radiation than larger black holes, and to shrink and dissipate instantly.[76] The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) indicates that "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation, but so far no experiment has had the sensitivity required to find direct evidence for it."[3]

According to the LSAG, even if micro black holes were produced by the LHC and were stable, they would be unable to accrete matter in a manner dangerous for the Earth. They would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in neutron stars and white dwarfs, and the stability of these astronomical bodies means that they cannot be dangerous:[3][77]

Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral. [...] If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.[4]

Yes its nice informed of MBH. But just a math and physics. Still we havnt any evidence so unless we able to form MBH in lab then only we can know its nature