0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Airthumbs on 31/01/2024 03:15:12...Oh and btw isn't infinite mass the same as stating infinite energy? You guys really think that a singularity has zero size and infinite mass? Really? Seriously? Your not winding me up or anything?What infinite mass?
...Oh and btw isn't infinite mass the same as stating infinite energy? You guys really think that a singularity has zero size and infinite mass? Really? Seriously? Your not winding me up or anything?
Quote from: pzkpfw on 31/01/2024 03:32:03Quote from: Airthumbs on 31/01/2024 03:15:12...Oh and btw isn't infinite mass the same as stating infinite energy? You guys really think that a singularity has zero size and infinite mass? Really? Seriously? Your not winding me up or anything?What infinite mass?If an object has infinite density then it must have mass? And for that density to be infinite so must mass/energy?
and yet it seems there is a consensus towards infinity and zero which when you think about it is very counterintuitive.
Nearly all of the responses to my question have included information about a singularity being infinite and of zero size
hmmm... mostly OK. We know any particle of mass m cannot hold a constant radial co-ordinate r once r<Rs, it must travel to the singularity at r=0 where its worldine terminates. However r=0 is a non-removal singularity in the Schwarzschild solution. The Schwarzschild metric does not apply at r=0 and I really have no way to determine the size of the event or point at r=0, if indeed that is an event that exists in my universe. Only if you say "stuff it, I'll just put the numbers in anyway" will you be able to argue that the mass all ends up in a region of space with 0 volume.
Maybe a better approach would be for me to ask this...... a black hole has a given mass, we know the size of space it occupies. I am sure it is possible to calculate the following.... given the mass we know for any given black hole and the physical size of the blackhole at what density would that mass need to be to fit inside the physical area?
I mean literally think of it as a sphere of matter condensed no further than it needs to be to fit inside that physical region of space we can observe where a black hole is present.
I have learned a lot but also I feel I have learned that some scientists are blinded by theory and maybe have become a little blind or bias to reality.
I am sure it is possible to calculate the following.... given the mass we know for any given black hole and the physical size of the blackhole at what density would that mass need to be to fit inside the physical area?
When the density drops below the point that gravity escape velocity drops below C
I don't understand the response of a moderator stating that there is no mass inside a black hole and that they only rip things to pieces
The consensus currently is that a black hole can exist with a mass of one gram?This seems a little off?
I keep thinking that mass and compression are the key here
And yet it seems the scientific consensus [...] is that once a black hole is formed it remains as a black hole regardless of it's mass?
The geometry referred to by a previous reply is simply the shape of the gravity well as a direct result of the presence of condensed matter.
I read up on the Schwarzschild radius concept. From what I can infer from the information it seems that this is used to define a black hole using the amount of mass it takes to create one.
So from what I can tell from reading about this is that it actually seems to support the possibility that once the black hole does not contain enough mass to maintain the gravity well it's radius would become larger than its Schwarzschild radius and is no longer a black hole as light can then escape.
HALC "They don't have a density at all. For that, you'd need a meaningful volume. It does have a meaningful mass (that and charge and angular momentum. No more)".
No, the event horizon radius would shrink in proportion to the shrinking in mass. Remember, all of the mass is concentrated into a singularity of zero size (this is why Halc says it doesn't have a meaningful density. Objects of zero size would have infinite density).
I do not agree that a singularity is of zero size.
I am under the impression that it is not possible to state what is inside a black hole as we lack the tools currently to investigate.
So it is a learning curve for me to discover that some people use theory as fact.
Density, all we know is that the mass calculated must exist within that region of space time beyond the event horizon, thats all we know.
Maybe a better approach would be for me to ask this...... a black hole has a given mass, we know the size of space it occupies.
Halc is simply trying to explain the intricacies of black holes by taking quotes and explaining the relevant errors. Unless one has a good grounding in GR(which I certainly don't) many statements may seem counter intuitive and difficult to grasp. I have never found Halc to take pleasure in correcting errors and I have seen him go to great lengths when some posters fail to understand some critical point with way more patience than I could ever muster.
HALC are you an expert on the contents of a black hole?
the singularity as I said before is a creation of math to justify the solution, and in a much more scientific way I believe that Einstein basically said the same thing.