The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Planets are made in black holes  (Read 4237 times)

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« on: 23/09/2007 19:26:35 »

What I am trying to convey here is difficult to express clearly, but excluding the uniqueness of their characteristic “purpose”, the only significant things about the nucleic properties of matter that seems consistent, is that every element's nucleus has a different proven density and atomic weight.
If gravity is a unique attractive force that works “the same” on all matter, why would the nuclei of all atoms of every element not have the same density, even if there were different valence shells across the table of elements? In order for their atomic weights to be different, the atom sizes of different elements would have to vary widely, which they apparently do not. Is that not logical? If everything has gravity, which is a universally “attractive force”, then there can only be one “intensity” of attractive force in any of the 100 odd elements. If a commonly standard force was acting on atoms of different sizes, then each atom would have to be receiving an equal intensiveness of that force, but that could not be so, because all nuclei are purportedly about the same size, but their densities are not.
If gravity is not a commonly standard attractive force that is affecting all matter, there can be differences in valence between the various elements. Otherwise, how could valence cross over lines of a “static state of force”, such as gravity is said to be? This would imply that some elements have more gravity than others, but excluding the number of electrons in each, the only things that each atom has that vary with others are density and weight.
We are speaking here of dimensional and attractiveness equality. I can find no place where single atoms’ nuclei of different elements are identified in different “groups” of dimensional “sizes” or variations of “gravitationally-attractive intensities”. The atomic weights and densities vary, but attraction is a facility of valence, (or electromagnetism), which both depend of course, on electricity.
An atom is a singular particle upon which the only active demands that can be made, are those of an electrical nature which can be measured using the mathematical formulae of Coulomb's Law. Valence and electromagnetism are the only forces that can activate the purposes for which the atom came to be. This theory contends that gravitation is but an imaginary “force” which alleges to influence attractive movement between the various states of matter, yet “gravitation”   is not an electrical force. The fact is that weights will fall naturally, without attraction. They fall differently in the nothingness of space than they do within an atmospheric friction, so what is said to be “gravity”, seems simply to be “weight”.
The mathematical formulae created to accommodate the observations of “Newton’s gravity” just happened to have been written before Coulomb's Law came along about a hundred years later, and no notice was seriously given to the likelihood that Coulomb explains the functions attributed to gravitation.
Coulomb's law, developed in the 1780s by French physicist Charles Augustin de Coulomb, may be stated as follows:
“The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges.”  (Does that sound familiar? How about, as in Newton’s 3rd Law?)

So what can be said of the fact that “gravitational accretion” is the common explanation for how the “round bodies” such as planets and suns came to be? Perhaps the answer can be found in the black holes that permeate our galaxies.
It is widely believed in science, that an equal amount of matter and antimatter was created at the moment of the Big Bang, yet little of the antimatter can be accounted for out there, so let us think of another possibility. If most of the antimatter is contained in black holes, which summon all passing matter into their cores, then the warring factions would be eliminating portions of one another over time, causing the singularities to grow under the intensive pressure of containment. Round balls would be forming, composed of the remaining matter that found insufficient antimatter with which to do battle. It would all be surrounded by unchallenged gas molecules that found no antimatter equals to balance with, an event which would destroy one equal quantity at every encounter.
It seems logical that the elemental antimatter content of every black hole would vary with any other in the universe, and that the bypassing (incoming) matter would be different in every single case. At the finality of every “war” between the two supplies of “ammunition”, the resulting products would be bodies of round, or even irregular shape that were left when the antimatter supply of the black hole was the first of the two forms of matter to be exhausted.
In the case of large planetary bodies, the liquid cores could certainly be attributed to the enormity of the surrounding mass, particularly if the mass was buried in a heavy atmospheric envelope around the body. Sometimes, when a black hole was “consumed” by its demands from surrounding space, it might only have been partially formed into a round shape, since much of the warring activity had taken place on one or two areas of the growing singularity.
With all due respect for conventional science, this method of the formation of round bodies seems to be a reasonable assumption, and with all given evidence considered, I believe that it makes more sense than “gravitational accretion”.

Fleep


 

another_someone

  • Guest
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #1 on: 23/09/2007 20:08:14 »
I am sure there are others who can look into greater detain in what you have said, but I shall try and highlight what I see as problematic with it.

every element's nucleus has a different proven density and atomic weight.

This is incorrect in a number of respects.

Firstly, the distinction between elements is in their atomic number, and the distinction in atomic weight distinguishes the different isotopes of an element.  This is a slight matter.

What is more significant is to ask where you have evidence of differences in the density of the atomic nucleus of different elements?  Different elements have a different number of protons, so an element with a higher atomic number will have more protons, and thus will be larger as well as heavier - so where do you get the notion of a change in density?

The other problem is that while you try and explain the nucleus in terms of gravity and the coulomb force (I am not even sure how well our understanding of gravity extends down to the subatomic level), but you have totally ignored the strong and weak forces.  The strong force (now more commonly regarded as a manifestation of the colour force) is the force that is attributed with keeping the nucleus together (the force of gravity would be minuscule, even if it were shown to exist at that scale, and would simply not be able to overcome the coulomb forces within the nucleus).
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #2 on: 24/09/2007 22:02:26 »
Hi;

Thanks for comments. I'm in red and you're in black print.


This is incorrect in a number of respects.

Firstly, the distinction between elements is in their atomic number, and the distinction in atomic weight distinguishes the different isotopes of an element.  This is a slight matter. (Yes, the atomic number indicates the number of protons in the nucleus.)

What is more significant is to ask where you have evidence of differences in the density of the atomic nucleus of different elements? (Density is a “closeness of substance, i.e., a compaction, so what I am saying is, that the atomic number of an atom of iron, (At. Wt. 26 ) has 26 protons in a tighter compaction than an atom of aluminum, (At. Wt. 13). You are implying that an atom of Lithium, (At. Wt. 3) is much smaller than an atom of Lead, (At. Wt. 82).

Different elements have a different number of protons, so an element with a higher atomic number will have more protons, and thus will be larger as well as heavier - so where do you get the notion of a change in density?
Are you saying that one atom of lead is 27 times bigger than an atom of lithium? Atoms are almost all the same size. Have a look here: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/atomsize.html


The other problem is that while you try and explain the nucleus in terms of gravity and the coulomb force (I am not even sure how well our understanding of gravity extends down to the subatomic level), but you have totally ignored the strong and weak forces.  The strong force (now more commonly regarded as a manifestation of the colour force) is the force that is attributed with keeping the nucleus together (the force of gravity would be minuscule, even if it were shown to exist at that scale, and would simply not be able to overcome the coulomb forces within the nucleus).

What do the internal forces that hold any atom together have to do with gravity, which is alleged to act upon the exterior of material things, e.g. – moon “pushing” our tides? Looking inside an atom for “gravitational effects” is not germane to my theory. Just look at the theory of the black hole please. I have nothing to retract so far, as I see it.

fleep
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #3 on: 25/09/2007 19:18:41 »
(Density is a “closeness of substance, i.e., a compaction, so what I am saying is, that the atomic number of an atom of iron, (At. Wt. 26 ) has 26 protons in a tighter compaction than an atom of aluminum, (At. Wt. 13). You are implying that an atom of Lithium, (At. Wt. 3) is much smaller than an atom of Lead, (At. Wt. 82).

You are not comparing like with like.

You are talking about the size of the atom, while I was talking about the size of the atomic nucleus (since all the protons and neutrons are contained within the nucleus, and by far the major portion of the space taken up by the atom is the space taken by the electrons).


Are you saying that one atom of lead is 27 times bigger than an atom of lithium? Atoms are almost all the same size. Have a look here: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/atomsize.html

No - I said nothing about the size of the atom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model
Quote
From purely energetic considerations of how far alpha particles of known speed would be able to penetrate toward a central charge of 100 e, Rutherford was able to calculate that the radius of his gold central charge would need to be less (how much less could not be told) than 3.4 x 10-14 metres. This was in a gold atom known to be 10-8 metres or so in radius--- a very surprising finding, as it implied a strong central charge less than 1/3000th of the diameter of the atom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_size
Quote
he nucleus has approximately a constant density and therefore the nuclear radius R can be approximated by the following formula,

R = r0A1/3

where, A = Atomic mass number [ # of protons (Z) plus # of neutrons (N) ] and r0 = 1.25 fm = 1.25 10−15 m (r0 varies by .2 fm depending on the nuclei) . Literature: Krane, Kenneth S., Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley, 1987.

What do the internal forces that hold any atom together have to do with gravity, which is alleged to act upon the exterior of material things, e.g. – moon “pushing” our tides? Looking inside an atom for “gravitational effects” is not germane to my theory. Just look at the theory of the black hole please. I have nothing to retract so far, as I see it.

Since you are looking at the the size of the nucleus of an atom, I would have considered the internal forces within the nucleus to be key to determining the size of the nucleus.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #4 on: 26/09/2007 01:41:13 »
OOOh! You're a great dancer. However, I don't care to play with semantics and comparative interpretations of how the size of atoms is determined, or who said what. What I expected and desired is an appraisal of the logic of my theory, and why you don't think the theory (about black holes)itself is logical. If it isn't, then everything else is just "meat".
why won't you tackle the theory?

fleep
 

Offline K.Margiani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
  • I only try to help of mammals kingdom.
    • View Profile
    • COSMOGEOLOGY
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #5 on: 30/09/2007 14:43:27 »
Usually planets and stars are forming after eruption from the  spiral galaxies nucleuses.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #6 on: 30/09/2007 17:38:01 »
"If gravity is a unique attractive force that works “the same” on all matter, why would the nuclei of all atoms of every element not have the same density,"

Why should they?

This would only make sense if the only force involved in determining their density were gravity. As it happens gravity has a tiny role in this. The nuclear forces have the only significant effect.
Incidentally, the density of the nuclei of atoms is fairly nearly constant. Certainly much more so than the density of the elements.

Also, the most notable property of black holes is that things don't get out of them in any macroscopic way. Since (unless the entire unverse is a black hole which may be possible) the planets such as earth are not currently inside black holes they never were. Since they were not inside black holes they cannot have been made there.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #7 on: 02/10/2007 15:08:29 »
It is widely believed in science, that an equal amount of matter and antimatter was created at the moment of the Big Bang,
Not it isn't. I am not aware of any physicist or cosmologist who believes this. Perhaps I have my head buried in the sand. Please cite an example or two of any who hold such a view.
It is widely believed that almost equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created. Almost equal and equal are two entirely different things. It is the imbalance between the two that has left us with a matter based Universe. Your black hole speculation is based upon the idea that there is missing anti-matter. This is incorrect. Therefore you have created a hypothesis to deal with a problem that does not exist.
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #8 on: 04/10/2007 00:27:19 »
Hi BC;

You said: "The most notable property of black holes is that things don't get out of them in any macroscopic way. Since (unless the entire unverse is a black hole which may be possible) the planets such as earth are not currently inside black holes they never were. Since they were not inside black holes they cannot have been made there."

Maybe I didn’t do a good job of explaining what I meant. I am proposing a possibility that our own planet and many other bodies now in space were once formed by beginning at the singularity of black holes. The holes were of various sized accumulations of the antimatter from the Bang that science is still unable to account for. Each planet/moon/other massive body would once have been a black hole that drew in everything passing by, as they do, and warring between the antimatter that composes the black hole, and the matter coming in.

The idea is that each black hole has a different composition of anti-atoms of a variety of our known elements, so whatever comes in is warring only with what is there of its own opposite. Let’s say, for a pure example, that a huge meteor of pure iron gets drawn into the hole. It is gradually diminished in size as its atoms are “eaten away” by the mutual-destruction process of warring with the anti-iron atoms it encounters. At some time in the process, whatever is left of the meteor becomes part of the singularity, which continues to grow; perhaps over millions of years. This happens with all incoming matter. Some incoming stuff is completely destroyed, and some is taken into the hole in more quantity than the hole has anti-matter of a particular element’s type, to be able to war anymore with that particular element. There has to be some of both matter and antimatter for the war to continue between any two elemental combinations. If there is not, the left-over matter gets packed on the singularity.

This continues with the constant addition of new incoming elements of every kind, and the anti-matter is eventually depleted to nothing. All that remains is the singularity, now compacted into a ball, the size of which would depend on the original size of the black hole, and the “massiveness” of its antimatter “supply”. In effect, at the end of the war, both the incoming matter and the present antimatter have been used as “fuel” to destroy each other, while all during the destruction, radiation had been streaming into space, as black holes show.

If this is true, every black hole must eventually turn into something, because as long as any part of the antimatter supply exists, it will continue to draw matter into itself. When no antimatter remains, the singularity may have grown into a planet the size of Jupiter, or of Venus. The character of each ball or remnant of the process would consist of what was originally in the black hole, and what was taken in. If passing gas balls flew into a hole, the remaining ball might have an atmosphere of some resulting composition. The “war” would be over, and the ball might become trapped in an electrical circuit within the galaxy where the black hole was located.

Thanks

fleep
 

Offline fleep

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #9 on: 04/10/2007 01:04:44 »

Hi Ophiolite;

You said: "It is widely believed that almost equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created. Almost equal and equal are two entirely different things. It is the imbalance between the two that has left us with a matter based Universe. Your black hole speculation is based upon the idea that there is missing anti-matter. This is incorrect. Therefore you have created a hypothesis to deal with a problem that does not exist."

I try to use "seemingly logical and well-sourced" quotations that I have found, but things get lost sometimes, and now I don't remember where I got it. Do you suppose I would make that up? What would such a fabrication gain for me? I would never do that.

So what makes anybody else's wild speculation any different than mine? What makes anybody qualified to say that other speculative "views" of what might have possibly occurred at the dawn of creation, are "incorrect"?

If you disagree with my theory, based on a whole theory from my imagination, then you should be working with your own imagination to explain what black holes do.

Imagination is free, and so are its "products". Make up your own, and believe yours, if you don't like mine. I might even agree with yours, if you write one.

Thanks for your comments.

fleep
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Planets are made in black holes
« Reply #9 on: 04/10/2007 01:04:44 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums