# Beyond the black hole singularity

Our first glimpses into the physics that exist near the center of a black hole are being made possible using "loop quantum gravity"—a theory that uses quantum mechanics to extend gravitational physics beyond Einstein's theory of general relativity. Loop quantum gravity, originated at Penn State and subsequently developed by a large number of scientists worldwide, is opening up a new paradigm in modern physics. The theory has emerged as a leading candidate to analyze extreme cosmological and astrophysical phenomena in parts of the universe, like black holes, where the equations of general relativity cease to be useful.

Previous work in loop quantum gravity that was highly influential in the field analyzed the quantum nature of the Big Bang, and now two new papers by Abhay Ashtekar and Javier Olmedo at Penn State and Parampreet Singh at Louisiana State University extend those results to black hole interiors. The papers appear as "Editors' suggestions" in the journals *Physical Review Letters* and Physical Review on December 10, 2018 and were also highlighted in a Viewpoint article in the journal *Physics*.

"The best theory of gravity that we have today is general relativity, but it has limitations," said Ashtekar, Evan Pugh Professor of Physics, holder of the Eberly Family Chair in Physics, and director of the Penn State Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos. "For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."

At the center of a black hole the gravity is so strong that, according to general relativity, space-time becomes so extremely curved that ultimately the curvature becomes infinite. This results in space-time having a jagged edge, beyond which physics no longer exists—the singularity. Another example of a singularity is the Big Bang. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is a meaningless question in general relativity, because space-time ends, and there is no before. But modifications to Einstein's equations that incorporated quantum mechanics through loop quantum gravity allowed researchers to extend physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions. The two recent papers have accomplished the same thing for the black hole singularity.

"The basis of loop quantum gravity is Einstein's discovery that the geometry of space-time is not just a stage on which cosmological events are acted out, but it is itself a physical entity that can be bent," said Ashtekar. "As a physical entity the geometry of space-time is made up of some fundamental units, just as matter is made up of atoms. These units of geometry—called 'quantum excitations'—are orders of magnitude smaller than we can detect with today's technology, but we have precise quantum equations that predict their behavior, and one of the best places to look for their effects is at the center of a black hole." According to general relativity, at the center of a black hole gravity becomes infinite so everything that goes in, including the information needed for physical calculations, is lost. This leads to the celebrated 'information paradox' that theoretical physicists have been grappling with for over 40 years. However, the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist. This opens an avenue to show in detail that there is no loss of information at the center of a blackhole, which the researchers are now pursuing.

Interestingly, even though loop quantum gravity continues to work where general relativity breaks down—black hole singularities, the Big Bang—its predictions match those of general relativity quite precisely under less extreme circumstances away from the singularity. "It is highly non-trivial to achieve both," said Singh, associate professor of physics at Louisiana State. "Indeed, a number of investigators have explored the quantum nature of the black hole singularity over the past decade, but either the singularity prevailed or the mechanisms that resolved it unleashed unnatural effects. Our new work is free of all such limitations."

Explore further

**More information:**Abhay Ashtekar et al, Quantum Transfiguration of Kruskal Black Holes,

*Physical Review Letters*(2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241301

Carlo Rovelli. Black Hole Evolution Traced Out with Loop Quantum Gravity, *Physics* (2018). DOI: 10.1103/Physics.11.127

**Citation**: Beyond the black hole singularity (2018, December 20) retrieved 20 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html

## User comments

theredpillBenni"thatgeneral relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these as singularities."

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" by Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

BenniSo Albert Einstein writes this 80 years before today in contradiction to Abhay Ashtekar and Javier Olmedo. I guess they have just never bothered to check first to see if Einstein ever proferred their opinion that general relativity predicts that: "there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends".........Einstein never proferred their vision of SINGULARITIES & he wrote his 1939 paper intending to dispel such violations of the Laws of Gravity & the Inverse Square Law & the fact gravity is MASS dependent not DENSITY dependent.

Doug_NightmareWhydening GyreDuh... The more mass you have in a denser packed space, the more gravity you have.

Which pulls in more mass...

And there you are abusing the ISL, again....

Spaced out EngineerAnd yet where do you see numbers? Clearly there is pragmatics to all this counting nonsense? Even without the integers, what would the proposition of science be, I predict uncertainty. Disruptions of homogeneous substances, that are created and destroyed for a conserved noise, to save the sanity of invariance.

We are crazy, but there can be a method to madness. Even a madness "Against Method".

"-Paul Feyerabend.

"Science is essentially an anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives."

It seems whether by intrinsic principle or by a distribution, if we are to progress, it is with both avenues. Angles, amplitudes, and shadows upon the wall of topos. Cohomolgy and covariance, auxiliaries open. QED with QCD, Dirac and spacetime operators. What dichotomy? Whose null?

BenniIf MASS remains CONSTANT within a volume the gravity field of the body will remain constant, it won't matter what VOLUME THAT MASS may shrink to, gravitational attraction of that body will remain the same, and you can't FALSIFY that Immutable Law of Physics, although you can go on name calling rants about it.

You're just too caught up in 19th Century TUGMath BH Calculations not realizing almost all of that century's cosmology was wholly inaccurate. We're now almost two centuries beyond BH TUGMath, thank you Albert Einstein, and no thank you present day Pop-Cosmology that would keep us there.

MrBojanglesAs you and Benni are consistent in your ignorance and obnoxiousness.

Benni.......blame it on Einstein.

Hey, got any new dances for us, or just a continuance of the same old ones?

Da SchneibF = GMm/r²

See that r²? That's distance from the center. M is the mass of a planet, m is your mass. G is the gravitational constant.

Now, if r gets smaller, what happens to F?

It really is just that simple.

Da SchneibF = kQQ'/d²

F is force, just as above. Q and Q' are two charges. k is Coulomb's constant, for electric charge. And d is the distance between the charges.

Note that this is essentially the same equation, with charge instead of mass, and Coulomb's constant instead of the gravitational constant.

Just like gravity, the electric force spreads out, and the force declines as the square of the distance; it's an inverse square law, just like gravity. You seem fine with that. So what's your problem with understanding how gravity works? It works just like EM, except on charges instead of masses, and that's a fact experimentally determined in laboratories.

Da SchneibBut until we get past this, there's no way to talk about anything deeper.

Da SchneibI mean, just askin'.

jonesdaveYou are cheating, Da Schneib. You are introducing science into a discussion with a scientifically illiterate moron. Not fair!

PetriIsoBut if it falsiable after all... Of modern day theoretical physics, the most common example seems to be string theory; and even there have been found more and more limits what cannot match with the university we are dealing with.

BenniThis is what you, Abhay Ashtekar and Javier Olmedo claim by endorsing & making this ludicrous statement:

"that general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these as singularities."

.........and which of course Einstein denies can ever happen based on his paper "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses".

So why are you Pop-Cosmology guys smarter than Einstein?

So explain to us how shortening the distance between two objects creates INFINITE gravity at zero distance "r"? That would simply be the point where the two centers of MASS coincide & two now become one.

24voltsDa SchneibWhat happens to F?

Whydening GyreYou are right on that particular point.

However, shrinking the volume increases the amount of gravity at the surface in any given area. Therefore expressed (using the ISL correctly) outward per given area.

Show me where I have called you ANYthing except Benni...

cantdrive85LOL! jonesdumb doesn't understand da schnied's explanation solves his "stars orbiting BH" riddle. Those are charges orbiting in an electric field jonesdumb, using the dastardly inverse square law.

It should also be acknowledged that little tidbit suggests gravity is but a property of EM, as Maxwell suggested nearly 200 years ago.

Da SchneibRobertKarlStonjekLike all other string derived theory, Loop Quantum Gravity is founded souly on wishful thinking expressed mathematically.

Da SchneibDa SchneibBenniI did, how did you miss: "That would simply be the point where the two centers of MASS coincide & two now become one."

.......and you thought that by making the distance between the two masses 0 (zero) that F would go to infinity didn't you? Uh, schneibo, that's not the way calculating the physics of combining two bodies of mass works. Here, try this, at zero distance between the two bodies the force of gravity reduces to F=mass x acceleration

Da SchneibBenni.......right on all of them, take a 1st semester physics course.

........ "area"? So what? TOTAL GRAVITY does cannot change because no MASS has been added!

Look above, I had to do the same for schneibo too......F=ma, nothing in there about changing the density of a MASS to change it's TOTAL force of gravity, it's the MASS that must be changed not reducing it's VOLUME. Look at the equation, where in F=ma do you see anything about VOLUME functioning as a variable?

BenniYeah, there's no point in going further when YOU got yourself caught up in a conundrum of misreading the equation in the first place, thinking it meant one thing only to be corrected by me that it wasn't what you thought, but, typical math mis-steps Pop-Cosmology aficionados make here all the time.

Da SchneibIt's really simple.

And it works to get spacecraft to Pluto.

Benni....... F=ma is apparently much too complicated for you, it's really very simple that when the distance between two centers of mass become zero, their masses simply becomes additive & gravity is calculated by F=ma.

Do you have some funny farm math concept for calculating gravity when the distance between two bodies is otherwise computed to be so close that the distance is otherwise indescernible & the two masses simply become additive?

Mimath224I got puzzled recently...yeah that ain't hard to do, I know...when I purchased a book on QG which includes some LQG;suddenly some 'constant' (or an operator) appears, for which I've found no reason (in the book) for its inclusion. (It wouldn't be right for me to mention names here). The other thing that makes wonder is the use of Heisenberg's UP for a particle close to the EH of a BH. Now, I don't know if that is valid or not (I am aware of more than one form of HUP) but again it isn't explained what the purpose is. Any ideas?

Da SchneibWhen r decreases, what does F do?

You will not get beyond this until you admit the truth.

arcmetalYou do realize that there is a maximum to that F ?

Picture two bowling balls in space of equal size and mass. As they approach, the force between them reaches a maximum when their centers are 2r apart. It is then that the molecular forces of its matter take over and stop r from reducing further.

Therefore, the only way to increase the gravitational force between them is to add mass to the bowling balls. Thus, "r" is limited by other things, that are not listed in Newton's empirical equation for gravity.

Da SchneibEnthusiastic FoolLets assume for the purpose of this argument that a radius of zero is never reached. Lets say you cannot put 2 bound objects at 0 distance from each other. As the radius of a static mass goes down the surface gravity must go higher. As the radius approaches 0 the force approaches infinity a the surface. Approaches...this is an asymptote. If radius equaled zero it would not cancel out as you suggest. 1/0 is undefined. 1/0 != 1/1. Even if the singularity is non-physical gravity must become incredibly high at the shrinking surface while gravity at all distances remains unchanged. Your complete misunderstanding of basic math disqualifies you from making any kind of informed opinion on the matter because you are uninformed by choice.

The new number 2What is the physical meaning of gravity produced by m' in the absence of a second mass m'' to act upon? How do we measure such gravity?

V4VendicarBoth of those equations presume that that space does not change as the density of the mass increases. But to change the density you have to re-arrange the mass and that distorts space, which is why Newton gets replaced by Einstein.

V4VendicarWhen there are no more states available in a particular direction there can be no movement in that direction.

Are states always available, irrespective of the scale? If the answer is no then there is no singularity.

If the answer is yes, then there is no limit to how much space can be created inside a volume that appears finite in extent by an outside observer.

granville583762As F = GMm/r²

Where r

As in sphere

Its surface area increases proportionally r²

Is the force of gravities twisted vacuum

because

F = GMm/r² where Fm² is the force multiplied by the surface area

The total force Fm² over the same Star, BH or Singularity remains the same

This being so

The total force of gravity remains the same, irrelevant of distance

And so

Gravity is not twisted vacuum

granville583762As just as the intensity of light fades with r²

Its brightness over its total surface area r² remains the same

Because

Individual photons are spreading out with distance r²

And so

Light is not twisted vacuum

granville583762Just as light illuminates this world

Illuminates this sun

Illuminates this inky black vacuous vacuum

The two forces follow the same laws of nature

The inverse square law

The surface area law

The total gravitational illumination law

Because

These are two particles travelling in the vacuum

Photons and Gravitons

Dispersing with distance r²

Remaining the same by multiplying m². r²

And so

In the vacuum

In the inky vacuous vacuum

That is space

Light and Gravity are not twisted vacuum

granville583762The inky blackness

the inky vacuous vacuum

the vacuum that is space

or more simply

described even more simply

as in this inky blackness

there is none as simply pure

non so devoid of entity

non so vacuous of of any substance

that can only described simply

purely

almost saintly

as no sin

can be construed in its image

it is the purest definition in this inky blackness of ours

it can only be described

simply

as

the vacuum

and in honour of it purity of simplicity

the vacuum becomes simply

Vacuum

antialias_physorgHowever, like everything else, gluons cannot exceed the speed of light. It seems to me that if you picture the position of two quarks within the event horizon of a black hole then at least one of them cannot send a gluon in any way to the other as there is no geodesic that will reach (i.e. no two quarks can stay bound to form anything as complicated as a nucleon)

So in the end all that remains may just be bosons (i.e. gluons, photons, W/Z) - which can freely superpose (i.e. for whom an "infinite density" might not even be a problem)

kl31415Can gravity be infinite ?

BenniOnly under conditions where INFINITE MASS exists, but there is no such thing.

Total force of Gravity in a system cannot exceed F= mass x acceleration because the force gravity exerts is MASS DEPENDENT.

BenniYour moniker of "Enthusiastic Fool" is befitting of this response by you. You & Schneibo are twins, right?

jimmybobberF = kQQ'/d²

I'm not sure why you have an issue with gravity and not the electromagnetic force.

Of course we know that d doesn't go to zero. This is rectified by quantum mechanics.

Don't you think quantum mechanics will come into play as well for the gravitational force at some point?

The article points out that Einsteins equations break down at some point and the theory is incomplete yet you keep on attacking it for it's singularities.

Anyhow. It's impressive that you can divide by zero.

AmritSorligranville583762If gravity can become infinite

electricity can become infinite

magnetism can become infinite

light can become infinite

electromagnetism can become infinite

and so in this infinite vacuum

everything can become infinite

until a genius comes along and decrees

No

only gravity can become infinite

there is one answer to that statement

Why

valeriy_polulyakhhttps://www.acade...ilky_Way

BenniAttacking it ???? Not, me jimbo, you mean Einstein, here read it again:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" by Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Benni.......well then, if you think so , PROVE it!!!!! Just FALSIFY that gravity in a defined system is MASS DEPENDENT.

......but they're unable to PROVE it.

How about if you PROVE that shrinking an isolated system to a smaller volume of displacement creates NEW TOTAL GRAVITY without adding mass to the system? The fact of the matter you have no such evidence because the face value of the concept is nothing less than PERPETUAL MOTION psycho-babble.

granville583762I thought our intellect was exponentially infinitely growing

and so in this infinite vacuum

everything can become infinite

as we borrow

the Da Schneibians

the antialias_physorgians

and uncle tom cobbley and all

Then one and all and every one will become infinitely intellectual

jimmybobberSomebody earlier pointed that out 1/r^2.

There is no new total gravity. It's simple math dude.

granville583762Except where F = GMm/r²

because

F = m². 1/r²

in this infinite vacuum

the gravitational force always remains the same

so

in

Da Schneib infamous statement "You will not get beyond this until you admit the truth"

as

F always remains the same

Beelzebub is waiting for hell to freeze over in the infinite vacuum

and he's not getting an answer any time soon

well not if Beelzebub's got anything to do with it

Because force cannot become infinite

granville583762When you consider the life time specialists have spent on this subject

BH only exists in singularities?

where

in reality

the all constraining speed of light

the maximum force gravitationally obtainable, 299792458m/s²

that gravities acceleration rises to 299792458m/s² then falls to zero at the centre of mass

it's all encompassing formula

R = 2GM/R

acceleration rise to 299792458m/s²

deceleration falls from 299792458m/s² to 0m/s² at the centre of mass

then

in simulation

a singularity by definition

is

Infinite force

Infinite acceleration

Infinite velocity

followed by its defining definition

Infinitely small

all this classical BH definition runs rough shod over Albert's cherished gold standard

the speed of light 299792458m/s

the BHs defining definition is a fiction of simulations

The only blackhole, if it exists, complies with formulas going back 330 years

Going on 331years

granville583762granville583762This statement

a radius

inputted into the formula R = 2GM/C²

given a portion of mass

is setting your parameters

R = 2G(2X10+30kg)/C²

then the radius of this BH is set in stone

if 1gm is chosen as the mass

The radius is set in stone

Zero is never reached

jonesdaveNot his strong point!

Benni..........well then if you think the " the force of gravity will be stronger" why don't you calculate it ? Here, I already given you Pop-Cosmology aficionados here the equation innumerable times, so when are you gonna use it to prove decreasing the VOLUME of a GIVEN MASS increases the FORCE of gravity, here:

Force = Mass x Acceleration............Capiche? Probably you don't. Maybe the Acceleration has you styimied or what?

Da SchneibThis troll will use anything, and then denigrate it, at the whim of a moment.

jimmybobberjimmybobberBenniConstant Mass => Constant Gravity............. and you can't FALSIFY this.

It is immaterial what the proximity of one mass is to another as affecting individual TOTAL GRAVITY of individual given mass. Go ahead, shrink any mass to any volume you want, just because the concentration of gravity per unit area increases, so what? Are you still looking for INFINITY in here somewhere, I have a hunch that is your goal?

jimmybobberYou are confusing me with some other poster, perhaps doing it on purpose because you have no argument and are trying to save face.

BenniNo, I made no such mention that you did, My goal was to pound home the fact that some here do not believe gravity is mass dependent, and to drive a huge wedge between those who do, and those who do not, you were simply a convenient sounding board. Capiche?

Hell's bell's man,yours is the "face" I'm trying to save !!! And because I did it. In the meantime the rest of the Pop-Cosmology aficionados living here have gotten so jacked out of shape because they can't find a way to INFINITE GRAVITY.

Black Holes are the holy grail of Pop-Cosmology & it needs INFINITE GRAVITY to get to their INFINITE DENSITY Singularity.

Da SchneibSimply doesn't get F=GMm/r²

BenniDa SchneibAnd the reason nobody likes you except other trolls is because you do that.

DonGateleyI don't believe he really said that. He was smart. It's the nonsense part I and, I think, Popper would disagree with. It doesn't have to be science to be worthy of study and it would be foolish to denigrate something that is non-science just because it's non-science. Let Freedom Ring!

granville583762Given 299792458m/s

Shrink mass

to 299792458m/s

the speed of light is the minimum mass's radius can shrink

or

to put it into a self explanatory form using R=2GM/C²

is

called

Gravities Light Radius

granville583762Once everyone accepts the velocity of light, 299792458m/s

because

Gravity travels at the velocity of light

Gravity

Is constrained in every aspect of it reaction in its capabilities

It can only travel at 299792458m/s

Its acceleration can only equal 299792458m/s²

It can only compress mass with a acceleration 299792458m/s²

Its light radius can only equal 299792459m/s

Its acceleration falls to zero at its centre of mass

Da SchneibI agree; I think what Popper said isn't about what can't be falsified right now, but about what can never be falsified. And there is a big difference.

granville583762Blackhole, singularity and plot

Gravity can only travel at the speed of light

Accelerate at the speed of light

Compress at the speed of light

Its event horizon equals the speed of light

Its acceleration falls to zero at its centre of mass

BenniThe ONLY reason Pop-Cosmology trolls like you don't like someone well educated in the physical sciences is because I'm an impediment to the spread of the Perpetual Motion psycho-babble people such as you like to engage in.

For example, you can't FALSIFY the immutable: CONSTANT MASS => CONSTANT GRAVITY. Nothing galls YOU more than to come up against someone who has the writing skills for showing the illogical reasoning of any concept to the contrary.

To me, you're just a toy that's fun to play off against, a way I have for entertaining myself for a few minutes everyday just for some light hearted fun, all the while exposing readers to the purveyance of the Perpetual Motion psycho-babble that goes on here in the name of Pop-Cosmology.

Benni"@Benni If you shrink the Earth to the size of a pea and stand on the surface of the pea earth the force of gravity will be stronger than standing on the surface of the normal sized earth"

No, YOU are the one who said "gravity will be stronger".

granville583762Due to atomic forces in the atom

there is a minimum mass

that atomic mass is capable of gravity exerting a force equal too 299792458m/s²

just as a certain amount of mass is required for a star to burn its hydrogen in fusion

there is a certain amount of mass required before the star is capable of exerting 299792458m/s²

enabling the star to exhibit a light radius

as there is a minimum mass for a Sun

as in 2.0x10+30kg of helium required

more than this mass is obviously required if that Sun is to form a light radius

so there we have it

for a event horizon to form

there is a minimum mass

from the infamous formula

R=2GM/C²

R=2G(2.0x10+30kg)/C²

is

2969metres

If a blackhole can exist

Its minimum radius

is

R = 3km

BenniCaught you changing your earlier Comment when you were challenging me for an answer for when "r" equals zero? You erroneously thought I wouldn't notice, right?

I've known for a long time WHAT you are here, and it ain't just being a casual drop by. Moderators should avoid trying to drive the focus of the chatroom to a specific bias, and you're just not skilled enough to do it.

Whydening GyreConspiracy crap, Benni...

Bennikeep going WhyGuy, there are more notes that I've left for schneibo

Da SchneibDa SchneibBenniI see you're on this as well SEU.

The Physorg Moderator (Da Schneib) went back & changed a number of Comments in followup to this article, his own, mine, and jimmybobber. I tracked at least five Comments that were changed with no notification from Physorg that the Moderator had changed the content of individual Comments.

I started noticing over a year ago that Da Schneib was challenging me to PROVE he made Comments I attributed to him. I kept the dates of a few of those Comments he made, I went back after he posted his challenges to prove he made the statements I attributed to him, but they were missing, yeah, they had been deleted from the chatroom site, only a site Moderator at Pyhsorg can do that. This current thread is pervasive with Site Moderator changes, Da Schneib being the Moderator.

BenniContinuing from above, Physorg Moderator (Da Schneib).

The fact that Physorg's own Moderator (Da Schneib) is the lead Moderator for this chatroom explains why the Report Abuse does not effect any results, it's because Da Schneib is the lead Moderator on the reception end of those complaints, and of course if any are about him it gets dropped because he's the one doing it.

Over in another thread Stumpy tried offerring advice about System32 hacking, ignore it or risk damage to your OS.

jimmybobberYou do realize you can edit a comment for a few minutes after you post it?

^ This is a comment edit.

BenniNo, it was changed well beyond the 3 minute limit, you either have yet to pick up on it or you just don't care, and most probably in your case, both.

jimmybobberBenni.....then you don't care, so I was right it was "both".

jimmybobberKeep me out of your lies please.

BennijimmybobberBenniIf a moderator feels that changing the user's expression is warranted (e.g. removing some inappropriate text), the action should be logged by a thread in the Forum Issues forum. The post there should contain a complete copy of the user's original message as well as showing what changes the moderator made.

In such cases, rather than editing the post, it may be better to simply flag (report) the post, or to move the whole post intact to Quarantine, so that other moderators can help decide the best course.

Read, read, schniebo. Did you as a Physorg Moderator do any of the above? Or do you just want to carry on here as a despicable liar that you have never engaged in CHANGING the contents of postings, and in some cases eliminating them without due process of notice of change including your own?

BenniYou do comprehend what I am trying to do here don't you schneibo?

Ok, if you don't. I'll digress a bit. I'm knocking myself out badgering you at Physorg to delete my account, while In the meantime making it clear to the rest of the chatroom why at a sudden point in time they read no more Benni, what happened to him?

In followup to your deletion of my account, I'll be back under another moniker, and after a few postings under the new moniker, I'll identify myself as the former Benni whose account was deleted because he caught one of Physorg's Moderators purveying in so much foul mouthed filth that he was embarrassing all but the same few who would 5 Star him for any manner of his foul mouthed filth.

Let's just wait it out from this point on & see when Da Schnieb gets up the cahunnas to delete Benni's account, 10, 9, 8........................

Captain StumpyI don't know if dementia is involved, but benji exhibits a lot of the characteristics of dementia or similar afflictions of the elderly (or traumatically injured, or mental patient)

This whole "Site Moderator, Da Schneib" is a good example - if DaS were a moderator, benji, eggy and most of the idiots on PO would have been banhammered long ago, including me, probably

LOL he probably didn't know you could do that

honestly, considering some of his comments here, I think he didn't realise you could edit

he also thought Mods couldn't PM you after the PM function between posters was deleted

Whydening GyreAnd Benni will prob'ly just delete his own account.... Like he promised to... :-)

Captain Stumpysorry yall...

Surveillance_Egg_UnitI believe that, Benni. I recall reading some comments made by Captain Skunky and Da Scheide (Da Schneibo) that one or both of them had contacted/emailed someone at, I presume, Physorg Hdqrtrs to request that Da Scheide be given the unpaid job of Moderator - and that he was willing to do the job without pay.

IF Da Scheide was somehow chosen/recruited to act as Moderator for Physorg, then Physorg management must not have read the vast majority of DaScheide's posts

Surveillance_Egg_Unit@Benni

Of course, it is easy to see in all this time that many of Da Scheide's self-aggrandising comments do offer evidence that Da Scheide has certain mental issues which cause him to look up math equations in sites such as Quora so that he can present that same information in THIS site and that his cheering squad should heap praise on him.

I see that Whyde and several others have succumbed to Da Scheide's snake-like charm. But that is THEIR CHOICE, no matter that they are contributing to Da Scheide's very profound mental issues - those issues whose names I have been searching for. I may have to consult some books at University medical library to find what such delusions are called.

A big thanks to theghostofotto1923 (SpookyOtto) for providing Da Scheide's moniker, as that title is most appropriate.

Surveillance_Egg_UnitYOU, as a nonscientist, and a mere scholar of the sciences, seem to be taking sides against Benni, whom you don't personally know. Why? Is Da Scheide so much more appealing even though he is a LIAR?

Benni.......because to him it's easier than having a real discussion about REAL science, after all, Pop-Cosmology is fun, he doesn't need to think & he's off into some kind of nirvana out in some vapid wasteland where his favorite Physorg Moderator lives on that plantation of funny farm psycho-babble.

BenniSomething I've done a few times now is to Report my own Comments, that way you know Physorg's other Moderators, other than just Moderator Da Schneib, may be getting filled in as to what's going on in this chatroom, that Moderators are not logging CHANGED COMMENTS in accordance with standard guidance & practice that I posted above.

Those other Physorg Moderators are probably scratching their heads wondering why someone would Report their own Comments. For example, just as soon as I submit this Comment, I'm going to followup with a Report. on it. I did send email over to Science X with regard to this issue, we'll see if any of those brave & wondrous souls care anything at all about what goes on with their Moderators, maybe they're just more concerned with ad revenue like Zuckerberg is.

OK, gotta go, Merry Christmas.

Surveillance_Egg_UnitNo matter the size of the Earth, the Gravity at its SURFACE can neither increase nor decrease as that gravity is commensurate to the Earth's size/proportion at the flat surface. In an asteroid hit at the flat surface, the extra volume/weight will not add any additional gravity at that surface. However, the velocity/acceleration/energy of the infalling/free-falling body gives extra weight temporarily to that body until it contacts with the flat surface when gravity becomes normal again.

MrBojanglesBenniBo, not only does my SCIENCE far exceed anything you know, but I'm sure I can dance better than you as well.

DRoseDARsBenniIt's what happens when website administrators allow their Moderators like Da Schneib edit Comment posts made in this chatroom. If you don't like it that others have been noticing Da Schnieb's missing Comments, and those of others, then do what I'm doing to put a stop to the practice. Of course if you think it's OK, then unlike me,do nothing.

Whydening GyreSEU... If it adds mass, it adds gravity. If it adds enuff surface area, it will decrease surface gravity, but not total gravity.

Da SchneibDRoseDARsEdit: OHNOES EDITING MOD GESTAPO lol dude get a grip DaS is not das mod. This whole thing is ridiculous.

BenniSo tell us o'master of the blowtorch, What is the force of TOTAL GRAVITY on the surface of a black hole? How about at it's center? If you come back with INFINITE, the next question I'll ask you is how can a single stellar body contain ALL the gravity that exists in the Universe?

Maybe there's a Physorg Moderator in the room who can explain it?

Da SchneibF = GMm/r²

jimmybobber"The force of total gravity" WTF man.

BenniWell of course it's "nonsense", just my point. How is it you recognized the absurdity of the question, but you're unable to comprehend that infinite gravity cannot exist at the surface of a finite stellar mass? You don't think that's absurd do you?

DRoseDARsThis hostile arguing is really silly, over dumb words for god's sake.

jimmybobberWhen you say "Total Gravity" and something like "Total Gravity doesn't change: I instantly think of Gauss's Law for Gravity.

https://en.wikipe..._gravity

"The gravitational flux through any closed surface is proportional to the enclosed mass."

This means your really talking about the "Total Mass" of something.

Seems to me you are mixing up total mass and gravitation force(which varies based on the distance between two objects that have mass. Closer the masses, stronger the gravitational force.

As for infinity. You already know my view on that. General Relativity is not complete. It doesn't factor in Quantum Physics. There is no infinity. We just don't know how to describe what happens in a black hole yet.

You do realize that Mathematics is a tool and equations don't tell us "what something is."

Do you even realize that? There are limitations.

DRoseDARsjimmybobberDRoseDARsBenniThe reason for the "hostile arguing" is because popular Cosmology keeps trying to spin narratives that known immutable laws of physics in a finite universe are not immutable, that our college textbooks are WRONG, that there is an alternative science beyond a finite Universe.

BenniConstant Mass => Constant Gravity...........an absurdity to black hole enthusiasts.

.......then look at a picture of one & maybe you could be on track to find out? Oh, that's right, there are no observations of a BH by which a pic can be made. Well, back to the drawing board isn't it?

Explain this to Physorg's Moderator Da Schneib, schneibo. He's the one who pushes 19th Century TUG Math as his basis for the formation of BHs.

.....and all you believe in is the bull.

jimmybobberBenniYou don't comprehend even one word of what you just wrote. The reason you put up such obscurity is because you are using weasel words to create a narrative for infinite gravity at the surface & center of a black hole, a complete violation of the Inverse Square Law for gravity.

It's obvious you're another of those living in the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology where the Inverse Square Law of zero gravity at the center of a certain kind of stellar mass doesn't exist, BHs, just like the author of this article who doesn't believe it.

You obviously don't believe gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, so you are expending a lot of semantics here trying to create illusions that a CONSTANT unchanging mass squeezed into a smaller volume ADDS new gravity to a stellar mass body, right?

jimmybobberWhat do you not understand about F = GMm/r² ? It's a simple formula.

Lets say M = mass of earth. m = mass of you. r = radius of earth.

Now let's say we shrink the size of the earth such that the radius is r/2 but the same mass. Then if you stand on the surface your at r/2 the force of gravity is F = 4*GMm/r^2 where r is the original radius of the earth. The force is 4 times larger. No extra mass, no extra "total gravity."

Whydening GyreJB,

Benni gets it. He just wants to word play.

Guess his kids don't want him "skiing the estate" with them...

MrBojanglesTo which Benni will reply:

"How do you pop-cosmologists explain an INFINITE DENSITY on a FINITE stellar MASS??"

BenniI see your math problem, you think r² in the denominator is the radius of the earth. It isn't, it's the distance between the centers of mass of the two objects. When r² becomes zero as I have explained previously to YOU & schneibo, the equation reduces to F=ma from which the force of gravity of a single mass body is calculated. Can you do that on your own or do do need assistance?

jimmybobberI could have easily done the same with point particles.

No idea what you mean by saying F = GMm/r² reduces to F=MA when r goes to zero.

F = ma = GMm/r² gives a = GM/r^2.

I hope you realize the acceleration due to gravity of the earth at 9.8 m/s varies with r. 9.8 m/s is the acceleration on the surface of the earth.

jimmybobberBennijonesdaveJesus, the stupid here hurts! Stick to mopping, you uneducated loon.

jimmybobberThat statement makes no sense at all.

Even if the two masses magically combined so they have the same center of mass you'd have the formula

g(r) = GM/r^2 which is the gravitational field strength at distance r, where M is the combined mass. The units would be Newtons/Kilogram.

There would be no force until another object with mass (m) entered the field of mass M.

Then you can calculate the force of gravity with our friend

F= g(r)m = GMm/r^2

Still have no idea what you mean by the force of gravity becomes f=ma.

granville583762Who can rid us of this troublesome priest

Priests and their Gods

as we lesser mortals

who bow and scrape

tug our forelocks

and bow before this mighty priest

and beg forgiveness for our sins

as this troublesome priest

who thinks

every one else

but him self

are

only deemed fit

to mop the floor

or in this metaphorical priestly world

this jonesdave priestly world

deems mankind and all

are only here to serve

and when jonesdave slips his sandals

deems us all only fit to mop his priestly brow

and

Wash his saintly feet, suffering the ravages of fin rot

Benni......simply because two bodies have merged into a single body, this is a single body equation, you know, once there were two & the two merged into one.

jonesdaveJesus, what a twat!

jimmybobberF=ma in the earths gravitational field is not a single body equation. "m" is the second body! The earth being the first.

On the earths surface we us F=mg where g is 9.8m/s^2 because it's a simple approximation when a mass "m" is near the surface.

F= ma = GMm/r^2.

a = g(radius of earth) = GM/r^2 = 9.8m/s^2

F=mg.

Now I understand why you can't seem to get anything on this site. You literally think F=mg everywhere in the earths gravitational field and never changes.

jonesdavehttps://emandppla...ndFg.htm

What happens when r is reduced?

granville583762In the galactic arms

in stars equally spaced from the galactic centre

where each star is in the same angularity of orbit

each star sweeping equal angles in equal time

as all galaxies rotate at the same angular velocity

irrespective of size or mass

as gravity decreases to zero at the centre of galactic mass

the orbital force on each star is dependent on all the stars in the arm

it requires the total stars and their radii's to their galactic centres

only a calculation a supercomputer calculating billions of stars in instantaneous orbital motion can compute

as there is no darkmatter

no darkgravity

no darkenergy

simply

F = G.M.m/r²

but

in this complexity of orbital's

a pattern has emerged

so

as we argue over the niceties of galactic darkmatter

it makes no never mind with regards to spiral galaxies

all spiral galaxies rotate the same

Irrespective of size, mass or gravity

Da SchneibDa SchneibP = mv

That's a vast simplification, of course, as anyone who knows Special Relativity Theory knows, but it's close enough to get spacecraft to Pluto.

BenniDa SchneibF = GMm/r²

The "total gravity" is the total mass/energy.

This is physics.

BenniIt's the change in gravitational force between two bodies over distance.

Whydening GyreSemantic silliness.

Its the formula for determining the amount of gravitational force that would be exerted by any body on any other body at any fixed given distance at any point in time.

The only thing that changes is the RESULT, when variables change and you have to recalculate...

BenniBenni>

Whyguy>

Whyguy did you need to use so many more words that are less concise as a descriptor of the equation?

jimmybobber"..... Now you're changing the argument, and sure it's a single body equation, the "m" being the single body on which Earth;s gravity is exerting it's Force."

You do realize if the Earth is exerting a force on a mass that is not a single body equation.

You do realize that the "single body" exerts a force on the Earth as well.

This is all described by F = GMm/r² where M = mass of Earth and m = mass of "single body"

jimmybobberCaptain StumpyNote his refusal to accept any other belief than his own in that same thread, even when called out for his faux pas?

Non-MOD edit: that is benji in a *nut*shell. special emphasis on *nut*

there are considerably more links to his epic math (and other) fails on this site that has been collected

Da Schneibgranville583762The Law of Areas: A line that connects a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal time

there are similarities

in spiral galaxies

that just as a single planet orbital sweeps out equal areas in equal time

Multiplicities of orbital's of billions in galactic arms, sweep out equal angles in equal time

does

this

mean

Johannes Kepler, 27 December, 1571

had he had access to the spiral galactic orbital data in the 1500s

Johannes Kepler would have instantly realised the similarities in orbital's

Of sweeping equal units in equal time

granville583762Of Kepler's Orbital Laws

of equal areas in equal time

of Spiral Galactic Law

of equal angles in equal time

if we had realised this

anytime

between the 1500s to 20000s

we would have bypassed Fritz Zwicky

bypassed Fritz Zwicky and his darkmatter

bypassed his eternal smoke screen

as can be clearly seen

Fritz Zwicky and his darkmatter

has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with spiral galactic orbital's

as

Fritz Zwicky and his darkmatter

has been a most effective smoke screen

we

can at least give Fritz credit for Obfuscation

but

his little deception

has been clearly unmasked

as he has achieved the benefit he aimed to derive

but

there is one aim he has not achieved, he has not created darkmatter

darkmatter does not exist

it is not required

it is not needed

as

Spiral Galaxies orbit equal angles in equal time

Irrespective of size, mass and gravity

Bennigranville583762Jimmybobber, as you are subdividing your radii

take your formula

F = 4*GMm/r^2

your radii r = r/2

your formula then becomes

F= G.M.m/(r/2)²

jimmybobberIt's basic f'n algebra. Good grief.

jimmybobberIwinUloser = 0 for something that exists in reality,

and "r^2 =0 so it drops out of the equation."

I was hoping though to see someone ask / answer: Can r < 1? If so, is it describing something that eternally collapses toward 0? I can't imagine a universe composed of fractals really caring much about Euler.

granville583762That's the whole point of formulas

it takes the mathematical calculation out of the equation

BenniWhen are you gonna learn how to write equations?

jimmybobberIf you don't believe me plug in some numbers and verify it.

Here is some helpful links so you can learn basic math.

https://www.wikih...ractions

https://www.maths...ion.html

BenniLet's get this straight, you're giving lectures about learning basic math, in the meantime you don't know how to write a basic equation !!!!!!!

Whydening GyreIt is not THE change. It is a fixed point. You need to recalculate a different point to have a different reference from which to calculate THE change...

Da Schneibjimmybobber"That's the whole point of formulas

it takes the mathematical calculation out of the equation"

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