Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Singularities

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by nåte on February 19, 1999 21:49:57 UTC

: A mass doesn't have to form a singularity in order to become a black hole, all it has to do is shrink to a size smaller than it's Swartzchild radius. The idea of a singularity arises because after the neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome there is no known physical law that can prevent the mass from continuing to shrink until it winks out of existence with 0 spatial dimensions. Most scientists think that a theory of quantum gravity will show that it doesn't actually do this.

I understand the theory of thought concerning an "actual" black hole. But my argument is based on a FOR always outside the Schwarzschild radii, and the reasoning being is due to the fact that our cosmos is finite. Space is expanding, so therefore nothing existing within S/T can possess attributes with that of an actual infinity. I, no doubt, believe black holes exist, but possess characteristics that do not present paradoxes/infinities. I propose that nothing collapses beyond the Schwarzschild radii, but rather becomes infinitely close to the critical radius. This would support characteristics within relativity. i.e.. nothing with mass can exceed the velocity of light. Same with a "potential" infinite black hole. It becomes infinitely close, but does not pass.

I know we have conversed many times about this, but I still see no way that an actual infinite black hole can exist from any FOR outside the EH.

However, I can postulate in my mind the understanding that there does exist an infinite black hole beyond the EH, but would exist outside of time. This seems to be a paradox (and it may well be) in stating this, but how can we define something that does not exist within our spatial dimensions?

I picture our universe as a bubble, and the black holes would represent "holes", if you will, protruding through the balloon without disabling the balloon's characteristics. IOW, the holes extending through balloon have tube like walls connecting one hole to the other, outside of S/T.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins