Black holes could grow as large as 50 billion suns before their food crumbles into stars according to research

December 18, 2015, University of Leicester
This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a torus, is made up of gas and dust. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Black holes at the heart of galaxies could swell to 50 billion times the mass of the sun before losing the discs of gas they rely on to sustain themselves, according to research at the University of Leicester.

In a study titled 'How Big Can a Black Hole Grow?', Professor Andrew King from the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy explores supermassive at the centre of galaxies, around which are regions of space where gas settles into an orbiting disc.

This gas can lose energy and fall inwards, feeding the black hole. But these discs are known to be unstable and prone to crumbling into stars.

Professor King calculated how big a black hole would have to be for its outer edge to keep a disc from forming, coming up with the figure of 50 billion .

The study suggests that without a disc, the black hole would stop growing, meaning 50 billion suns would roughly be the upper limit. The only way it could get larger is if a star happened to fall straight in or another black hole merged with it.

Professor King said: "The significance of this discovery is that astronomers have found black holes of almost the maximum mass, by observing the huge amount of radiation given off by the gas disc as it falls in. The mass limit means that this procedure should not turn up any masses much bigger than those we know, because there would not be a luminous disc.

"Bigger black hole masses are in principle possible—for example, a hole near the maximum mass could merge with another black hole, and the result would be bigger still. But no light would be produced in this merger, and the bigger merged black hole could not have a disc of that would make light.

"One might nevertheless detect it in other ways, for example as it bent light rays passing very close to it (gravitational lensing) or perhaps in future from the gravitational waves that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts would be emitted as it merged."

The paper 'How Big Can a Black Hole Grow?' is available on Arxiv.

Explore further: Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

More information: How Big Can a Black Hole Grow? arXiv:1511.08502 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1511.08502

Related Stories

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Black hole is 30 times expected size

September 24, 2015

The central supermassive black hole of a recently discovered galaxy is far larger than should be possible, according to current theories of galactic evolution. New work, carried out by astronomers at Keele University and ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Cosmic jets light up black hole's snack

December 16, 2015

A black hole is often thought of as a giant galactic vacuum cleaner constantly sucking in cosmic material, tearing it apart and swallowing it. So black holes should do exactly the same thing with stars, right?

Powerful jets from non-spinning black holes

November 18, 2015

A black hole is so simple (at least in traditional theories) that it can be completely described by just three parameters: its mass, its spin, and its electric charge. Even though it may have formed out of a complex mix of ...

Recommended for you

How massive can neutron stars be?

January 16, 2018

Astrophysicists at Goethe University Frankfurt set a new limit for the maximum mass of neutron stars: They cannot exceed 2.16 solar masses.

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

106 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
If they understood the true nature of subatomic structure, they would know that Black Holes are just the remnants of the original Big Bang. They could be any size but that is determined by the ratio of matter to energy, in the universe. Something only God knows. Theoretically!
wduckss
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
A black hole appears when physics fails. Then you do not see the real universe and can be ignored scientific evidence (the diameter of the disk (galaxies) is 30,000 light-years, while the diameter of the hole is the size of the stars).
Can hiccough, spit, vacuuming side, eat a star 15,000 light years away. Luckily we are away 28,000 ly.
richardwenzel987
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2015
Anybody remember an intro to cosmology by a fellow named Harrison? I remember reading that a black hole of this mass would not produce any untoward tidal effects near the event horizon (because the black hole would have an enormous radius) -- a star could drift right in and any inhabitants in a planetary system around that star would not even know. The boundary would be "soft" rather than "hard". I assumed that Harrison knew his stuff but I've never read any more about the stealthy qualities of such super-massive black holes.
SuperThunder
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
Professor King calculated how big a black hole would have to be for its outer edge to keep a disc from forming, coming up with the figure of 50 billion solar masses.

50 billion suns of anything is just ridiculous, and 50 billion suns of black hole is just... so scary it shuts your brain off. You try to imagine yourself close enough to it to get a true sense of its scale, but are immediately faced with a sense of transcendental horror at the idea of being that close to it. Thank goodness that's just a mathematical number and black holes don't really get that big.
The significance of this discovery is that astronomers have found black holes of almost the maximum mass

Oh. Well, primal fear can be healthy too, I guess. I'll just have to get used to that huge number and at least be thankful it can't get worse.
The only way it could get larger is if a star happened to fall straight in or another black hole merged with it.

Oh.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
so scary it shuts your brain off.

So, apparently you were deathly frightened of something when you were 6yo and decided to never to it back on. Explains much!
SuperThunder
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2015
So, apparently you were deathly frightened of something when you were 6yo and decided to never to it back on. Explains much!

If you're over the age of 12, your parents failed you.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
50 billion suns of black hole is just... so scary it shuts your brain off

Roughly half the mass of our galaxy. That's a pretty hard number to wrap one's brain around.
TheWalrus
5 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.
Kaymen
3 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.


It's because there are certain Tools here that refuse to aknowledge any scientific theories other than their own.
Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2015
I will frankly admit that I don't understand what the limiting factor is. What difference is it to a black hole whether it absorbs gas, dust, gravel, boulders, a Cadillac, a planet, a star or your momma?
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2015
@richardwenzel987: The gravitational acceleration at the boundary of a black hole decreases as its mass increases. That's why massive black holes have less acceleration due to gravity at their boundary; also the acceleration varies little with the distance from the boundary and thus there are less tidal effects compared to small black holes. A 50 billion sun-mass black hole has 30 times the Earth's normal gravitational acceleration at its Schwarzschild boundary and tidal effects on an Earth sized planet 20 times less than those the Moon has on Earth.
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
@Frosted Flake: The BH just like the Sun may absorb gas, but does not absorb orbiting bodies like stars and planets.

Of course there remains the problem of how stable an orbiting system around a BH is. Stars interacting among themselves may end up falling into the BH.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
What difference is it to a black hole whether it absorbs gas, dust, gravel, boulders, a Cadillac, a planet, a star or your momma?

Think of it like this:

An accretion disc is a lot of very small particles (dust/gas) in orbit around the black hole. As long as a body isn't disturbed it stays in motion (Newtons law of motion) and nothing falls in. But in a disc there's a lot of chances of stuff (dust grains, gas molecules) to bump into each other and transfer momentum (conservation of momentum). One may speed up, while the other may slow down. When stuff slows down it goes to a lower orbit. If it gets low enough it will merge with the black hole.

Now if the disc goes all gritty (collapsing into stars and larger bodies) then there's much less chance of such collisions because now entire stars would have to bump into another. Not impossible but a lot less likely. So the amount of stuff that gets low enough to get caught drops radicall.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


Agreed. And hardly worth a comment, except that the question has interested me from the beginning of an insight: SQK.

In SQK, the growth occurs from within, not from without as the merger maniacs contend despite substantial evidence to the otherwise, such as massive winds blowing outward in all directions, extreme jets, etc. And the growth accelerates with further growth, leading to a runaway condition such as quasars, blazers, etc.

However, with the growing matter expulsion rates, eventually the condition would reach stable equilibrium, with the outflows equalling the new matter formation rates. Simple logic, which seems to be what is observed.

My guess is that these extreme objects will have largely expelled the surrounding galaxy of stars as well.

retrosurf
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2015
I think I would say "curdles into stars" rather than "crumbles into stars".

The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


This is one of the most important parts of Science, called the Scientific Method. Most specifically, it is a Hypothesis. This is how Science grows and integrates new knowledge.

Another part of modern scientific inquiry is peer review, which is how hypotheses are (for the most part) kept from being fluffy bunny tails. It can't be anything you want, unless you want to do it in your own private spaces.

I believe that you are also mistaken about the definition of irony. I think you meant something like "The real error is that most people believe that this is science." or "The real tragedy ...". I think Alanis Morrissette has a lot to answer for here.

my2cts
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


Agreed.

Two merging maniacs.
Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2015
My Thanks to Gigel and Antialias. Your comments helped. I now have a better question. At least, I think it is better.

The inverse square law means a small BH has a much sharper gravity gradient than a large one. However, the point of no return for a physical object differs from the event horizon, where light no longer escapes. What prevents the accretion disk (or its' equivalent remnant) from residing inside the event horizon?

Maybe my imagination betrays me, but I think there is a very, very, VERY large amount of 'space' and 'time' inside an event horizon. Also, an accretion disk outside the event horizon which has curdled to stars (and planets) will continue to interact with itself gravitationally. This will cause stars to be deflected into the BH on a regular basis. THAT would feed the BH as effectively as gas losing energy to friction.

So, am I way off base here, or what?

Thanks.

Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
Rereading, I find the topic sentence to be :
"The mass limit means that ===>this procedure<=== should not turn up any masses much bigger than those we know, because there would not be a luminous disc."

This differs from saying the BH stops growing. It seems to mean we will need a different method to find a larger BH, because the Accretion Disk will not be visible.

Again, am I off base here?

Thanks.
TheWalrus
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
My Thanks to Gigel and Antialias. Your comments helped. I now have a better question. At least, I think it is better.

The inverse square law means a small BH has a much sharper gravity gradient than a large one. However, the point of no return for a physical object differs from the event horizon, where light no longer escapes. What prevents the accretion disk (or its' equivalent remnant) from residing inside the event horizon?

Maybe my imagination betrays me, but I think there is a very, very, VERY large amount of 'space' and 'time' inside an event horizon. Also, an accretion disk outside the event horizon which has curdled to stars (and planets) will continue to interact with itself gravitationally. This will cause stars to be deflected into the BH on a regular basis. THAT would feed the BH as effectively as gas losing energy to friction.

So, am I way off base here, or what?

Thanks.


Yes.
Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2015
That was very enlightening. Thank you, Walrus.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
What prevents the accretion disk (or its' equivalent remnant) from residing inside the event horizon?

Inside an event horizon there is no geodesic that leads away from the center of a black hole. Read: all paths (even for light) end at the singularity (or whatever is down there) no matter where you point.
In turn this means that nuclear forces, which hold atoms together, no longer work. So even in stuff like protons or neutrons the force carriers that hold the quarks together can't really interchange anymore if one of the quarks just happens to be a tiny fraction further away from the center than any of the others. Stuff just falls apart on a subatomic level and keeps accelerating towards the center.
There's no stable orbits inside the event horizon. (Note that there are also no stable orbits ON the event horizon. The closest stable orbit is where light goes tangential and can keep station, but at the event horizon it has to go radial to do the same)

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
Also, an accretion disk outside the event horizon which has curdled to stars (and planets) will continue to interact with itself gravitationally. This will cause stars to be deflected into the BH on a regular basis.

Not nearly at the rate as a dusty/gas disc. Remember that if you were to, say, replace the sun with a black hole of one solar mass nothing would change for us (except it would get darker). But no planet would have its orbit altered in the least. A system doesn't become unstable (or stuff gets suddenly sucked in) just because the mass at the center is a black hole.

And since black holes are tiny compared to stars of equivalent mass the chances of a direct 'hit' (needed for a swallowing action) is reduced further. It's a lot more likely that stars in such an orbiting cluster get kicked out altogether by a close flyby than to be sucked in and destroyed.

Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2015
Thank you, Antialias. That gives me something to chew on for a while. I will consider these concepts and see how they fit with what I suppose I already 'know'.
DavidW
2.5 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
We should still be able to see the stars ignite, other than just looking for bent light waves and magnification / perceived movement in background objects.

http://arxiv.org/...02v2.pdf

Gas cooling in the outer regions of these discs
is fast enough that self–gravity is likely to lead to star formation
rather than increased angular momentum transport
(Shlosman & Begelman 1989; Collin & Zahn 1999).

Hey Frosted, don't get suckered in. If someone doesn't explain to you why they appear to be helping you, then they may not really care about you at all. This is especially true when that someone refuses to publicly admit that life is most important in life. This implies helping others for ego gratification alone. Saying thanks for the help is fine, but think for yourself, because you are life, most important. Also please keep in mind that a retraction must come with the actions that make it inequitable to not have genuine sincerity.
Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2015
Yeah - in it's own way this is right...

But what about the black holes that ARE traveling - through galaxies... kind of like combine harvesters, through an endless sea of wheat?

The issue seems to address the matter in the "immediate vacinity", but not the matter further along the journey.

In reality - if a black hole has an unlimited material supply - HOW big can it grow then? Is there a geometric limit of size, mass, gravity etc.. where the thing eventually becomes a ginormously huge dust coated rock?
Frosted Flake
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
Hat tip, DavidW.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Hat tip
@frosted flake
1- antialias_physorg is a PhD who is helpful
2- davidW thinks "life is most important in life" - this is nonsense circular reasoning, thus can be summarily placed in the crackpot category
3- there is a wise piece of advice he gave, though..."think for yourself"

I would also suggest always researching and seeking source material (meaning peer reviewed journal papers, not just random internet links or pages)

also: you can learn (free) for yourself here - http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

there are multiple courses to take

so, some quick helpful tips:
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE - don't make up your mind, let the evidence speak
always validate a claim
Ask for references (reputable peer reviewed journals)
check the facts (like the electric universe claims - they're pseudoscience)
never use random google... use this: https://scholar.google.com/

ENJOY YOURSELF and keep learning
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
@Frosted Flake continued
you can also usually tell a lot about a person by their posting rating: take davidW, for instance - click this link: https://sciencex....W/?v=act

his rating is 1.6 and is usually up-rated by crackpots or pseudoscience advocates (unless he makes a good point)
to open up any persons ratings: right click on their name (blue HTTP link), then open in a new tab or window... select the "all >>" and read the votes

his downraters tend to be those who advocate science & logic

this is not always the case as people like zephir like to create multiple sock-puppets to skew the system (older posters are not affected as much because of the bulk of historical posts)

people who tend to stick to science usually also give references/links as well as offer ways for you to learn for yourself

one last point: ENJOY YOURSELF and keep learning - i capitalized it above and here for a reason

this is actually important!
ask questions and seek answers
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
But what about the black holes that ARE traveling - through galaxies... kind of like combine harvesters, through an endless sea of wheat?

If you really want to use this analogy then a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you that you have a wheat field in which each individual wheat plant(stem diameter on average 5cm) is roughly 50 million kilometers from the next one and your harvester (black hole) is from 5mm to 2.5m wide (smallest black holes observed to roughly the size of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way)

As you can imagine you're not going to have much effect when you move through the galaxy with such a 'harvester' as the chance of actually hitting any 'wheat' is fairly remote.

A supermassive black hole would distort a galaxy quite a bit along its way (which would not affect the amount of matter it catches significantly, BTW),
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
Add to that that only the most massive black holes will really rip through a galaxy (and they are accompanied by an entire galaxy themselves - so the fireworks will be due to that - not the black hole).
Any black hole of middling to small size will eventually settle into an orbit around the central, supermassive black hole - just like all other stars in the galaxy. At that point its oribital velocity is the same as that of the other starts in its neighborhood so it won't swallow any of them, ever.

The point is: The chance that a black hole actually swallows a star (that is not already influenced by its accretion disc) is as remote as two normal stars bumping into each other- which itself is a fairly uncommon occurence

(Note, even in the event of a head-on crash: A small-mass black hole moving at great relative speed could well move through a star without destroying it, come out the other side, and both be happily on their way.)
Lex Talonis
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
Mmmm a black hole... where the gravitational attraction, with sufficient mass and energy, overcomes the forces of repulsion, to super crush matter...

The acceleration rate into the black hole is faster and stronger than the speed of light. etc.

OK Now assuming we have a massive black hole at the centre of my galaxy, and there are trillions of suns, trillions x trillions of tons of dust, and planets, and meteors and all that shit.

Since the galaxy I created on the first day, is actually swirling "into the plug hole" then that theoretical scavenging limit will be exceeded, and the black hole shall be fed...

IF a black hole can be fed almost endlessly - what is calculated or assumed to happen at what mass levels?

Like at 100 billions suns, 200 billion suns, 1000 billion suns etc...100,000 billion suns...

I mean you can ONLY crush matter so much, AND add to the amount, before something noticeably changes - I assume.

So what is it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Since the galaxy I created on the first day, is actually swirling "into the plug hole"

It's not swirling in. No more so as the planets in our solar system are swirling in towards the sun. A black hole is a locus of gravity just any other massive body (and there are many stars that have more mass than small black holes, BTW). No special 'sucking in' rules apply outside a BHs event horizon.

Stuff will stay in orbit around a BH endlessly until and unless that stuff bumps into other stuff and one of the two comes out with so little angular momentum (relative to the central black hole) that it's resulting orbit will be so low that it gets caught (or ripped to shreds by the difference of gravity on its near to its far side...which is something that also only happens to stars that are really, really, REALLY close to a black hole.)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
I mean you can ONLY crush matter so much

Matter isn't crushed. As noted before matter can't really exist inside a black hole (because the forces that keep matter stable don't work anymore). What exactly goes on inside a black hole is not kown, but it certainly isn't a "ball of super-dense matter at its center".
If we posit that everything gets turned into energy elementary entities like photons then you can have an infinitely small region where these all end up (as stuff like photons have no problem with superposition)

However, another thing to consider is that space - as measured by the only universal/constant ruler we have (speed of light) is inifintely big inside a black hole. This is because the only universal measure of length is "how long does it take a photon to get from A to B and multiply this by speed of light". Inside a BH if you ask "how long does it take a photon to traverse the distance between any point inside (A) and the surface (B)" it's: "infinite".
bschott
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.


Reading published articles about physics based solely on math is even more so than that.

Reading comments from people who think these objects are actually possible in physical reality is pretty entertaining though.
bschott
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
As noted before matter can't really exist inside a black hole (because the forces that keep matter stable don't work anymore)


So an object theoretically created by an abundance of matter in a space to small to house it then converts the matter to photons once it has formed from the matter and hence, photons maintain the gravity?

If we posit that everything gets turned into energy elementary entities like photons then you can have an infinitely small region where these all end up (as stuff like photons have no problem with superposition)


Right, got it....math fairies.

another thing to consider is that space - as measured by the only universal/constant ruler we have (speed of light) is inifintely big inside a black hole.


LMAO, drunk math fairies.

for example as it bent light rays passing very close to it (gravitational lensing)


"Selective" light bending, a valuable tool supporting mainstream theory, along with selective red shift.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
photons once it has formed from the matter and hence, photons maintain the gravity?

I said _like_ photons. I don't know if everything is converted to photons. As the current theories (specifically the 'no hair theorem') give BHs a very limited number of properties (mass, spin and charge) it cannot be that everything is converted to photons, since photons carry no charge.

Right, got it....math fairies.

"Math fairies" which are the basis why e.g. the stuff you carry around in your cell phone works (GPS). It's your choice not to believe in stuff you use 24/7 - but don't expect anyone to be impressed by lack of belief in the verifiable.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2015
but don't expect anyone to be impressed by lack of belief in the verifiable.


Nothing about Black holes is verifiable, you said it yourself above...twice.

"Math fairies" which are the basis why e.g. the stuff you carry around in your cell phone works (GPS)


You seem to be confusing math using confirmed variables in order to calculate an unknown one with math which uses mostly unknown variables that could describe a system in which all of the variables have been guessed correctly.

Engineers aren't plagued by math fairies. Theoretical physicists have a constant swarm around them, it's a symbiotic relationship. Math fairies would completely die out without theoretical physicists to feed them.

The mathematical fairy BH is the fattest one on the block...but the DM fairy has been eating non stop since conjured so she's quite the hefty bitch as well.

Thank God they don't fly around the heads of the sane.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

Warping of space due to gravity is verifiable. GPS depends on this knowledge for keeping accuracy.

And learn to read: I did not say nothing about BHs is verifiable. I said we don't know what ultimately becomes of the matter that falls in. That's an entirely different statement.

The rest of your post makes no sense. Wanna try again in english?
Tuxford
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

Warping of space due to gravity is verifiable. GPS depends on this knowledge for keeping accuracy.


Really basic logic: Don't really think too well, eh?

The effect on the GPS satellites is verifiable. The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.

You missed the past century of scientific advances and experiments? Really? I mean: even reading on physorg you managed to miss all this? Seriously?
(Or are you just posting without ever bothering to read any of the articles? Or are you just lacking the 'understanding' part?)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.
Actually it's theory – so feel free to speculate all you want on ways to test the theory and prove it wrong.
Frosted Flake
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
Thank you, Captain Stumpy, for the marvelous christmas presents. And for pointing out to me this sites peer review system. I have just been laughing at some of my own comments.

It is probably obvious I am a curious amateur. Perhaps less obvious is, I know the feeling of having learned is almost identical to thinking that has happened. One must be alert for weeds in ones mental garden. They can take the place over if left to run wild.

Thanks once again.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2015

Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

That statement of course is totally wrong.
You are not in command of the facts.
Study this if you want to improve:
http://www.eventh...cope.org
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
The effect on the GPS satellites is verifiable. The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.

GRT predicts the effect. It is observed.
That is not speculation by any standards.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.


Reading published articles about physics based solely on math is even more so than that.

Reading comments from people who think these objects are actually possible in physical reality is pretty entertaining though.

bs, your confidence is based solely on self delusion.
bschott
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015
Warping of space due to gravity is verifiable


Sure it is. You use the fact that SOMETIMES you observe what the mainstream claims is gravitational lensing. Too bad it isn't a universal observation, otherwise this hand wavy support mechanism wouldn't be just that. Either light must follow every curved path where gravity is warping space, since you claim all gravity warps space, or it isn't gravity causing the appearance of lensed objects.

Selective bending of light....funny none of the mainstream geniuses like small change or you AA would never question it. Must have trusted the math....

bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2015

Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

That statement of course is totally wrong.
You are not in command of the facts.
Study this if you want to improve:
http://www.eventh...cope.org


You believe in fantasy science. Your link is about a telescope that can still only absorb emmitted light which means it still cannot verify the claims made by the mainstream about the fundamental properties of a black hole. As usual, you are too simple minded to understand this....but thanks for verifying it yet again.

bs, your confidence is based solely on self delusion.


Actually, it's based on my ability to see gaping holes in mainstream science when blind lemmings who trust what others tell them without question don't see.

Your confidence in what you believe is based on a complete lack of ability to fathom why it's wrong. For example, not understanding when an observed effect would have to be universal in order to be used to support a theory.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
Too bad it isn't a universal observation

And where exactly *isn't* it observed?
Certainly there are areas where it's negligible, but it's always there.

Either light must follow every curved path where gravity is warping space

You don't get at all what warped space actually means, do you? Light moves straight. Always. It _cannot_ move in a curved path (when moving free - i.e. no mirrors or active waveguides).
Light moving in a curved path would require a change in momentum - which in turn would mean a photon would have to emit a photon on such a path. Since it doesn't there is no 'curve' to its path.

Light is not bent. Space is bent. Every experiment regarding GR has confirmed this. It is one of the most thoroughly (if not THE most thoroughly) tested and verified theory in all of science.
bschott
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2015
And learn to read: I did not say nothing about BHs is verifiable.


OK, I thought that is what this meant:

What exactly goes on inside a black hole is not kown,


You did mean "known" right? Also, before you said this you made 5 statements of fact in your previous posts about what happens inside a BH. So you have just demonstrated that you are as completely full of shit as the guys who pass off observations of light periodically appearing to bend as proof that gravity does it.

Only in mainstream theoretical lunacy can you refer to something as a law and then ignore when it must apply but isn't observed.

If gravity warps space, all mass curves the path of light to some degree because for this law to apply it must.

Since it isn't observed as universal, you're wrong about what is bending the path of light. If you don't follow why this is must be true then you don't understand the posits of the theories you support.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2015
If gravity warps space, all mass curves the path of light to some degree because for this law to apply it must.

*Sigh* the path is straight. We see it as curved (like you see a straw that is in water as being bent at the interface between water and air. But the straw isn't bent at all)

Maybe you should try to understand what the word 'straight' even means. The straight path is the shortes path between two points. Since light (specifically the speed of light) is the only constant we have to measure anything by the straight path between two points is the path in which light takes the shortest possible amount of time.
If it _were_ on a curved path you could conceive of a shorter path (i.e. a 'straighter' path) but you can't (if you could it would allow for some weird violations of causality)

Since it isn't observed as universal,

Every experiment conducted with respect to this has confirmed it's universal. Every. Single. One.

bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2015
Certainly there are areas where it's negligible, but it's always there.


Think about the ramifications of this, please.

You don't get at all what warped space actually means, do you? Light moves straight.


I think you don't get it. If gravity warps space and light travels in a straight line, and it is the space that is warped, technically no light EVER travels in a straight line to get here because it has to follow the curved path of EVERY GRAVITY WELL it passes through along the way.

If all gravity is the warping of space as per YOUR trusted theory, and light MUST follow the path of curved spacetime, your theory essentially states that light must bend when it encounters ANY gravity....do we observe this?

Or do we only observe light following a curved path SOMETIMES????

Think about what your science says, and don't try to convince me that you can somehow get around this little glitch with math, although it would be the ONLY way.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
Every experiment conducted with respect to this has confirmed it's universal. Every. Single. One.


Then why can we observe "gravity" warping space when it causes light to follow a curved path, but we don't observe light following a curved path every time it passes near an object?

Why do you not comprehend that it can't be a one way street?

It has to be a universal observation to be correct and this is what you can't seem to get your head around.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend this, but I'm not surprised.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2015
And where exactly *isn't* it observed?


How many stars do we "recalculate" coordinates for to allow for the fact the the light had to follow the curved path of space in order to arrive here?

Every single one we don't do this for is an example of where it isn't observed.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015

Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

That statement of course is totally wrong.
You are not in command of the facts.
Study this if you want to improve:
http://www.eventh...cope.org


You believe in fantasy science. Your link is about a telescope that can still only absorb emmitted light which means it still cannot verify the claims made by the mainstream about the fundamental properties of a black hole. As usual, you are too simple minded to understand this....but thanks for verifying it yet again.

You should tell the EHT team and their sponsors that they are imbeciles barking up the wrong tree. This is a great opportunity to make a name for yourself. Noble prize guaranteed.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015

Actually, it's based on my ability ...

Rambo the Uber Dunning Kruger King speaking .
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015
Certainly there are areas where it's negligible, but it's always there.

Think about the ramifications of this, please.

There are no ramifications.
viko_mx
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
Black holes are only mathematical construction with logical errors. Not real existing physical objects. The curved space exist only your imagination of speculators. Only they know what is curved in curved space?
Тhe light refracts on the border of two media with different optical characteristics.You did not need a fancy curved space.
Frosted Flake
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
@ viko_mx.
I like to keep an open mind, But if black holes are not really what they are thought to be, then they are something so similar that there isn't much to quibble about. If you have an alternate theory, it is certainly welcome. Outright denial went out with the middle ages.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
@FF
He's not ranting on black holes but on gravitational lensing. He imagines that lensing is caused by a material, optical lens around every star and galaxy. Probably the "creator" is peeking through that lens to get a close view of us and check which ones of us do not say prayers and have to be thrown in the "lake of fire". Quotes refer to earlier posts of viko.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
Think about the ramifications of this, please.

What ramifications? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation will show you that the effect is so incredibly minute for anything but the most massive masses and distances that for the purpose of most experiments in other areas it can be safely ignored (Like you can use Newtonian mechanics for almost every aspect of motion instead of Relativity without changin the results - and for the very same reason, BTW)

Or do we only observe light following a curved path SOMETIMES

Light moves straight. Always. It is the definition of straight (i.e. that which is the shortest path (geodesic) in spacetime).
https://en.wikipe...Geodesic

(Note: this may APPEAR curved to you because you live in this warped spacetime. But to 'appear' and to 'be' are two different kettle of fish)
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
Light moves straight. Always. It is the definition of straight


YES. I KNOW...Except when, by your GR theory, gravity warps space and light must travel through the warped space, then it APPEARS to curve.

the effect is so incredibly minute for anything but the most massive masses and distances that for the purpose of most experiments in other areas it can be safely ignored


Dear God. Between you and My2braincells up there....

GR theory states that light MUST FOLLOW a straight path and only APPEARS to curve when space does. Also reviewing the same theory, it is stated that ALL GRAVITY IS THE WARPING OF SPACE.

THEREFORE, ALL LIGHT MUST FOLLOW THE WARPED SPACE .

The effect, if the theory is correct, would then HAVE to manifest in EVERY gravity well. And be observed (however MINUTELY) wherever space is warped.

Light does not APPEAR to do this. Therefore SOMETHING is wrong.

Next post:

What ramifications?


bschott
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
Gravity, which by GR theory is the warping of space is an effect that decreases by an inverse square rule (it is a gradual effect). If light must travel in a straight line and only appear to curve when travelling through warped space, it would appear to curve as soon as it encountered a gravity field and the curve would become more pronounced as it travelled "deeper" into the well.

WHY? Because all gravity is the warping of Spacetime by mass....according to YOUR theory.

You are applying an observed effect to a warping of the medium of "spacetime". GR theory claims that ALL gravity is a warping of spacetime, If GR theory is supported by gravitational lensing because it is the warping of spacetime and light must follow the warp, there CANNOT be ANY instances where light DOESN"T follow the warped path because YOUR theory says that IT HAS TO.

IF the theory is correct, ALL light must appear to bend WHEREVER space is warped.

It does not.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
(Note: this may APPEAR curved to you because you live in this warped spacetime. But to 'appear' and to 'be' are two different kettle of fish)


Whether it only "APPEARS" to curve or actually does is not the point, the point is that if what GRT claims is causing the appearance of a curved path is correct, it MUST appear to curve in EVERY instance where light encounters warped space.

If a fucking asteroid has gravity, it is curving space according to GRT, therefore any photons passing in close enough proximity to the asteroid must travel through the space that it is warping and "appear" to curve.

If gravity is a universal effect that all mass has on the medium of spacetime, then light appearing to bend due to the warping of "spacetime" MUST also be a universal effect we observe in EVERY instance that light encounters gravity.

We don't.

The ONLY explanation is that the theory is incorrect WRT how gravity effects light.

Ramifications.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
The effect, if the theory is correct, would then HAVE to manifest in EVERY gravity well.

Funnily enough, it does (as evinced by every experiment that has been thrown at it). So what's your problem?

there CANNOT be ANY instances where light DOESN"T follow the warped path

Exactly. Unless you have an experiment that shows otherwise which all of physicists are unaware of.

If a fucking asteroid has gravity, it is curving space according to GRT,

It does (very little though, because a asteroid has very little mass). But the first experiment that confirmed warping of space was the apparent(!) displacement of a star close to the sun (observed during a solar eclipse). If gravity hadn't warped space the star would have appeared somewhere else.
https://en.wikipe..._the_Sun
(Note that Newton also predict a warping - but the value is off by 50%. Relativity gets it right.)
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
If gravity hadn't warped space the star would have appeared somewhere else.


Ramifications.

If gravity does warp space then EVERY star cannot be where it appears. You have seen a graphic depiction of how the earth "warps" the space around it right? Follow the warped path in spacetime the way a photon MUST as it approaches earth. Does the hubble telescope view stars to be in the exact same postition as earth based telescopes? If so...how is that possible? If not, what is the correction factor due to the decreased warp in space where hubble is vs. the increased warping of spacetime at the earths surface?

At the surface of the earth there should be greater 'warping" of "spacetime" ( measurement of 1 G right?) than there is light years away from any galaxy or in a high earth orbit. This is based on the mainstream calculation for G.

I don't need an experiment to show me that light doesn't appear to bend in every instance it would have to if gravity was responsible.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
If gravity does warp space then EVERY star cannot be where it appears.

Ding, ding, ding ding. And the last horse crosses the finish line. Didya work that out all by yourself, Einstein? Coulda just looked that up, you know?

(But don't be too confused. The effect is, for the most part, so small as to be irrelevant for experimental - and most certinaly 'najed eye' - observations)
Instruments are getting just now into the vicinity of sensitivities where this needs to be taken into account regarding observations of the cosmic microwave background.

Does the hubble telescope view stars to be in the exact same postition as earth based telescopes?

No it does not (it also observes a different redshift due to different gravity conditions). But again, the difference is so negligible as Hubble is only a few hundred km further from Earth than earthbound telescopes. Even if it were in deep space the effect would still be astronomically (pun intended) small.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
At the surface of the earth there should be greater 'warping" of "spacetime"

Well, no. Plug it into the formula and you will see that the warping of space close to the planet is very small (if the star is overhead you get no bending at all, BTW, because there's as much mass 'bending'* the light one way as there is another)

*note, that the light goes straight. I'm using 'bending' here because you can't seem to let go of this weird image.

When you look at the formula you will see that to get really noticeable bending (like Einstein rings/crosses) you need a huge mass close by and the light rays travelling at a minute angle from behind that mass (i.e. a constellation like Q2237+030 where a 400 million ly away galaxy (massive) bends the light of an 8 billion ly away quasar (bright source))
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
If gravity does warp space then EVERY star cannot be where it appears.

Just for completeness sake (since you didn't know about warping you might be unaware of this as well): light has a finite speed. So everything we see (galaxies, stars, planets, and the car coming at you down the street) isn't where it seems, either. What you see is the light that was emitted some time ago and the object that you see has moved (or in the case of far away stars likely ceased to exist altogether) in the meantime.

But that goes into a rather complicated problem of simultaneity (another of those issues that were solved by Relativity...or better yet: where our rather naive ideas were shattered forever by someone actually making sense of reality )
https://en.wikipe...ltaneity
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
(if the star is overhead you get no bending at all, BTW, because there's as much mass 'bending'* the light one way as there is another)


If the star "appears" overhead...that isn't where it really is, the "warping" doesn't have an "axis" down which the warping effect would be "neutralized" due to mass, if it is mass that is causing the warping . We live on a globe, if it is "warping" all of the spacetime around it then position on the surface and angle of approach of the light mean nothing. The only alternate optic phenomenon would be a multiple image of the same object because if it is "directly overhead" then you would have rays of photons passing at those minute angles you spoke of.

You are using it selectively again. The Ramifications are widespread.

bschott
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Ding, ding, ding ding.


Just for completeness sake? We don't have the time or space in this forum to completely discuss all of the effects, claims and the contradictions.

Sorry, you speak intelligently most of the time but in typical mainstream fashion you miss your own contradictions and get a bit testy when someone points them out, as in the whole 5 things about the internal workings of the BH thing above while admitting we can't know them.

(it also observes a different redshift due to different gravity conditions)


Gravity is claimed to effect the frequency of redshift? Do those photons also follow the warped path of spacetime?
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2015
No seriously...

If a black hole could be sat on it's fat arse and be endlessly fed by a galactic conveyor belt, of say 10,000 suns, planets, asteroids, dust, interstellar gases, comets etc., a day , like forever.......

Something has to change - eventually, because sooner or later, in some way, shape or form, something has to evolve.

Some limit of size, mass, density, gravity, event horizon diameter, temperature, ingested energy, proton pills, green lantern rings, bat mobiles, parallel universes, etc., has to be exceeded and a transformation "flips" or evolves into some thing else.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Something has to change - eventually, because sooner or later, in some way, shape or form, something has to evolve.

Why? I mean: It's possible that things change, but currently we have no reason to believe it would.
You might feed all the mass of the entire universe into a black hole and just end up with a really big black hole.

We don't have the time or space in this forum to completely discuss all of the effects, claims and the contradictions.

Well, if you stopped wasting your time being vague you could have brought out a couple dozen of these 'effects' and 'contradictions' by now. But one will do. We've been waiting for you to trot out one for somewhere between 10 and 20 posts now.

Gravity is claimed to effect the frequency of redshift?

Not just claimed. Experimentally verified
https://en.wikipe...periment

Do those photons also follow the warped path of spacetime?

Sure. Just as all photons do.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
non mainstream: bschott
mainstream: physics of the last 150 years
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
ALL light must appear to bend WHEREVER space is warped.

It does not.

It does. This misunderstanding means that you are empty handed, so you are not in a position to overthrow Maxwell theory, GRT, and what ever else you disagree with.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015

Gravity is claimed to effect the frequency of redshift?

What does that even mean?
Do those photons also follow the warped path of spacetime?

Why do you ask? Of course they do.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2015
bschott if you have a theory that makes GRT redundant please send it to me.
I will steal your idea and get the Nobel prize.
You have not. No reason to be ashamed, no one has.
However you should be ashamed for all the nonsense you post here. It is ridiculous.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2015
According to GRT any body near a large mass will follow a straight line in a curved space.
That is how GRT describes planetary orbits. Not only light is curved, all motion is curved.
That is what GRT says and no one has disproven GRT or made it redundant.
I'm just telling you the undeniable facts, so don't shoot the messenger.
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Dec 23, 2015
Jesus was a messenger, and they shot him.... with a nail gun.
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2015
OK I will tell you how I constructed the universe and you fill me in on the details... it was 4000 years ago according to the bible, some say. So i forget a lot.

OK things are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons.

There is a distance between the electrons and the nucleus, and the neutrons and protons can be smashed with higher and higher energies, which make them break up into smaller and smaller bits.

What is the current theory - as in going on from Neutron stars (incredibly dense) to black holes (unshining stars) , what is the collapse sequence, and into what?

And if MORE and MORE matter were crushed - how much can be added until it stops crushing????

Or why are small black holes, tiny-ish and HUGE black holes, quite a bit larger,and what happens if you keep feeding them?

Brains please.

my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
@Lex
Take a look here:
https://en.wikipe...ack_hole
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2015
Before posting a link (easy), can you compare the original issue (article) with the question (what I asked = simple) and the contents of the link you have pasted (requires thinking and evaluation = hard)

Ahem..

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
And if MORE and MORE matter were crushed - how much can be added until it stops crushing????

As noted before: matter isn't stable inside the event horizon. So there's probably no 'crushing' going on at all. Fermions (like protons and neutrons) are governed by the Pauli exclusion principle (i.e. no two of the same type can exist at the same place).
Bosons (like force carriers - e.g. photons or even composite stuff like mesons) aren't subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, and they can superpose just fine.
So if (and this is just a random hypothesis) stuff gets turned into bosons then you can have infinitely many of those in an as small space as you like without any problems.

as in going on from Neutron stars (incredibly dense) to black holes (unshining stars)

There's not really a collapse sequence unless the neutron star aquires a LOT more mass from somewhere. Neutron stars are stable.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
Or why are small black holes, tiny-ish and HUGE black holes, quite a bit larger,

Size is a direct result of mass for a black hole (note that - as opposed to other stellar bodies - the size of a black hole does not denote some physical body, but the event horizon. It is possible to pass through the event horizon). You can calculate the Schwartzschild radius simply by plugging in the mass into this formula:
http://hyperphysi...hol.html

what happens if you keep feeding them?

They get bigger. Currently there's absolutely no indication anything else happens (at least none of the millions of galaxies observed have suddenly spiked something unusual) . They can't get infinitely big but that's just because there isn't infinite mass to feed them.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
No I can't. Your question is too vague.
With all the trolls here I don't waste my time on such an errand.
But no thanks too you too.
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2015
Yeah back to the issue - what would happen to a black hole - if you could keep on feeding it - endless amounts of matter - forever...

I mean OK some of that matter ??? or all of it is assumed to compress to sub atomic particles, that can both occupy the same place at the same time...

But small BH's materially grow, simply by the intake of more matter.

Elementary particles - well it's like there has to be a limit on even how many of them can occupy a space, without needing more space - otherwise BH's would not continue to materially grow in size.

But there has to be changes as the dimensions increase, and not just a limit, because the BH has run out of matter to hoover up.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
But small BH's materially grow, simply by the intake of more matter.

The BH doesn't grow. There's no 'ball of compressed matter' at the center that accretes.
The event horizon (which is just an arbitrarily defined distance at which the escape velocity starts to exceed the speed of light) gets further out. But that's just the radius of an EFFECT - not a physical thing.

well it's like there has to be a limit on even how many of them can occupy a space

For Bosons there isn't. E.g. you can shine as many lasers accross one spot as you want and an infinity of photons will happily superpose at that spot without anything special happening. Same goes for other force carriers and even some stuff made up of quarks (mesons)*. The deciding factor is whether the spin total is even (0,1, 2, 3, etc.) as opposed to fo Fermions where it's 1/2, 3/2, etc.. Fermions can't superpose.

*This is why BOSE-Einstein condensates are so fascinating critters.
bschott
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
ALL light must appear to bend WHEREVER space is warped.

It does not.

It does. This misunderstanding means that you are empty handed, so you are not in a position to overthrow Maxwell theory, GRT, and what ever else you disagree with.


Hey Homer. See in the quote above where I said "appear"? As usual you didn't think, responded to my "it does not" with your "it does"....and now you just said that all light appears to curve. So tell me....how can you tell that the light from the moon or the sun appears to follow a curved path? Does starlight "appear" to be following a curved path?

English comprehension clearly isn't one of your strengths and when placed in a position that requires you to think instead of fall back on something someone else said, clearly you will botch that every time. That's why you're fun.

Say something else that you think is smart Homer :-)
bschott
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
We've been waiting for you to trot out one for somewhere between 10 and 20 posts now.


it MUST appear to curve in EVERY instance where light encounters warped space.


You missed this....from the look of the above....10 or 20 times...just like Homer 2 cents.

So now for the 11th or 21st time. You claim lensing is our observation of light following a straight line through curved space, but we only observe it when there is lensing....yet according to GRT--- ALL Gravity curves space---- Therefore light MUST """"appear""" to curve EVERWHERE....not just lensing events.

It can't be stated any simpler than this.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2015
but we only observe it when there is lensing..

Erm..no. I said we observe it always. It's just that if we look at a star and it doesn't show a spectacular thing like an einstein cross or a ring then we just see the star slightly off from where it would appear if space were 'flat' everywhere. That doesn't produce anything spectacular. A star that is 0.001° off from where we would see it if space were flat still looks like a star.

So it's not a big deal, because for the most part:
a) The offset is so small (because there are no large masses in the way) that it's below the sensitivity of any instruments we have.
b) We do not live in flat space. So there's no point in crying about how stars aren't where we would expect them if it were.

To spell it out: Lensing is where it makes pretty pictures. Everywhere else it's also - it's just not very noticeable.
Google for "CMBR lensing" and find out that this effect is used all over the place in science.
matt_s
4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2015
And now we see how badly bschott misunderstands. Do you really not understand that sometimes an effect is so small it's negligible?

It'd be like you claiming that we "only measure gravity of the Earth or the Sun, but if all mass has gravity, then your body must too! We don't measure this effect or take it into account, so you're just selectively applying it!"

Wrongggggggggggg.

Same concept, but on a larger scale. The effect is minuscule EXCEPT for when dealing with large enough masses. So yes, light always travels the shortest path. No, it is not "selectively applied" or whatever you think is going on.

my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2015
bs sets new standards on wrongness.
Rambo the Dunning Kruger King.
He agresses anyone who tells him so.
fubar. ciao.

https://en.wikipe...guation)
DavidW
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
]
1- antialias_physorg is a PhD who is helpful


Outright lie!

He may hold a Phd. title, but that is not who he is. We ARE NOT our actions. Grow up. We are life, most important.
DavidW
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
So, antialias_physorg, are you going to tell the ones you love that they are not most important and lie to them.

Are you going to tell them that they are most important and why, but then come on here as if what you do in real life really doesn't apply here?

Come on come clean. Explain to us how we make scientific observations without life, without using life. Explain to us why the truth is important. Come on. Have more love for yourself then to deny the truth in public. It's all recorded you do understand.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2015
@ davidW
You are insane.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
So, antialias_physorg, are you going to tell the ones you love that they are not most important

Why should I do such a thing?

But you have to realize that there is a difference between 'personal' and 'important'. There are things that I personally (subjectively) find most desirable. But that doesn't automatically mean that these things are objectively most important.

See, that's the thing where you religious nutcases always get it wrong. Just because you really want something to be a certain way doesn't automatically mean that it is.
It's like with children: They just wanna, wanna, wanna, and if they don't get then they throw a hissy fit or go into denial.

Grow up. (and I mean this for you personally and all those religious people out there)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
He may hold a Phd. title, but that is not who he is. We ARE NOT our actions.

Who else are we? Are we our words?

Yes, I hold a title. No, that doesn't count for diddly-squat in an argument (unless someone argues that I don't know what I'm talking about in that particular area of expertise. In that case I can just go: "meh" )

Explain to us why the truth is important.

I dunno, because you seem to have a definition of 'truth' that no one else in the world shares (ond one that, honestly, after all your rantings and ravings is as unclear as ever). You seem to be using words you don't know what they even mean (like 'life' and 'truth'). Peruse a dictionary at some point. It might help.

It's all nice and dandy that you make up new meanings for established words for yourself. But you must realize that that won't impress (much less convince) anyone out there.
DavidW
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
So, antialias_physorg, are you going to tell the ones you love that they are not most important

Why should I do such a thing?


So, antialias_physorg, are you going to tell the ones you love that they are not most important

Why should I do such a thing?


Because you have publicly argued against the truth life is most important in life. Thus, there is no logical reason left to assume you won't, other than you do agree that life is most important in life.

Which of course means that your comments here opposing the words of truth are pure hypocrisy.

DavidW
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015

Who else are we? Are we our words?


We are life, that which is self-evidently defined as "MOST IMPORTANT"


I dunno, because you seem to have a definition of 'truth' that no one else in the world shares


Well, I was asking the question for a little while there, and writing peoples names in a book as a prop.

Actually, almost everyone I ask says, "Of course", etc. So, in truthful fact, your comment (above) is a lie.

It would be interesting to stand on a stage with you, in front of crowd, and ask the people in the crowd to lift their hands if they agree that life is most importation in life. Then read to them everything you have written to argue against it. How you constantly use scapegoats to blame everything on instead of the just accepting the same truthful reality we all witness, because you refuse truth and choose the lies. I wonder how your family will feel about you not believing they are most important or how you do, but then say otherwise here.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2015
antialias_physorg

subjective, objective, on the event horizon of a black hole, for eternity, it matters not, life is most important in life will still be the most important truth in life.

This we truth we hold in common. To argue this truth as being 'not true' results in pure evil. And that pure evil is immediately witnessed. Look at that you have done. See all the people following your posts carrying on trying to defend your defenseless position? You have hurt them. They hurt others. And still, no humility, no equality, nothing from your text to in anyway show us how your position here has not been one of hypocrisy. You will never change that you did that only what can happen next. The change starts with you seeing who you really are.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
DavidW has been banned from at least one other forum, lied about it then threatened me for exposing him.

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2015
@physorg
It is high time he gets a ban here too.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2015
Two people that call other people filthy names here and lie, calling for the person speaking honestly to be banned because they can't honestly accept their own failure at reasoning because they don't accept the truth as being most important to us all. Yes, the evil in this world is caused by people with that mental issue... an ego so large and broken that it refuses to yield to that which does not move.

antialias_physorg.. <---- tushy hurtin'?

Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2015
I wish people would call me filthy names, when they bend me over a straight backed chair, in leather cuffs and a leg spreader bar...

To be at the whim and discipline of senior lecturers, and departmental heads, as they demonstrate the differences between Uranus and a black hole.

To put my foul potty mouth into service, getting extra marks, at the exams...

Sigh.... No one loves me. No one calls me rude names.
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Jan 06, 2016
https://www.rt.co...s-burps/

Black holes burp out gas..... and dust and christians who were too naughty to go to heaven.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2016

I think there is a very, very, VERY large amount of 'space' and 'time' inside an event horizon.


Not really a large amount. it's just very very stretched.


So, am I way off base here, or what?


yea, you're maybe going a bit too fast. You are drawing conclusions on conclusions. If one of them is wrong, all that follows afterwards can only be more wrong. Might I suggest trying to figure out one fact at a time?

On this section you basically have knowledgable people like (astro)physicists and you have laymen and crackpots.

As a layman (like me) trying to understand things, it's a good idea verifying what you think with books, articles and helpful people like antialias -one fact at a time- and then take it further from there.

If you don't, you might end up going into that "wrong conclusions" loop or even worse, you might start taking it for true. Then you end up being a crackpot and I would have to add you to my ignore list, which I prefer not to.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.