0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
How can you crush a proton without breaking it to its basic elements as quarks and Gluons?
So, if you crush/break that interact between the quarks and the Gluons, we actually break the proton.
Gluons is energy. Not mass.
Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost forever without violating the energy conservation law?
So, at the same moment that you crush/break the proton, the gluons is lost as energy (heat or flare)
In other words - at the same moment that the proton is crushed into a singularity, the gluon is transformed into pure energy (as it is energy) and as we can't have free quarks, those quarks also should transform their mass into energy.
the particles aren't moving as they crushed to zero point.
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?
In any case, can you please offer the article that proves that you can crush a proton to zero without breaking it to its basic elements or losing most/all of its mass into pure energy.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
Don't you agree that there must be a limit for that "close together"?
So, do you mean that it make sense to crush a proton to absolutely zero size and still maintain its structure and all its mas/energy in that zero size?
If you crush a car, than you break its structure and all its internal liquid will run out.
So, even without breaking the atoms of that car, it must lose some mass (due to the fact that all the liquid had been lost).
If you crush a living animal as Bug, you break its structure and all its liquid will run out.
Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?
Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.
If you take this ratio to the infinity and hope to get zero size, than you must know that you also get zero mass/energy as a left over.
Hence, don't you agree that there must be a limit for the minimal size after the crush?
So far you didn't offer any article that could support this unrealistic "sense".
How can you still keep any sort of mass/energy at zero size?
So, please again, would you kindly offer an article that proves the feasibility to crush an object (any object as Car, Bug, atom or particle) to zero size and still maintain its structure and its total mass/energy in that absolutely zero size.
Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizonNothing can get out of an event horizon, so the mass/energy of the object being crushed can't get out either (except through Hawking radiation).
The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.
So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?
Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
Therefore, that compressed matter could form some sort of a very heavy an hot plasma that move or orbit at the core,
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
(please, theory D - not model D)
Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.You just don't understand common sense and logic.
You can't say that it "surely" can't be zero. Like I said earlier, the limited speed of light does not allow a material body with structure to exist inside of an event horizon.
Simple question for you.Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?Because the four fundamental forces cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51(please, theory D - not model D)You literally said that your model requires a miracle in order to work. That ain't a theory.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51(please, theory D - not model D)
If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.
Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3That message was clearly incorrect.
You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.
None of them supports your assumption for zero size
Everything in my house is in England, but that does not mean that my house is the size of England.Everything in a BH is within the event horizon, but that does not mean the BH is the size of the EH.
However, I don't want to argue about it.
Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.
I have stated that the Hawing radiation and all/most of the phenomenon that we can monitor around the BH is due to the BH's magnetic field.
So, if you accept the idea that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field, then there is no need to argue about its real size.
Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.The Total mass is always a multiply of the density by the volume.If The BH size is zero (physical radius is zero), then by definition its total mass must be zero.
Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.
As the magnetic field is relative to 1/r there is no need for any sort of miracle in order for Theory D to work.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:05:49Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.Because they are talking about the event horizon, not the singularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:05:49Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.
Hawking radiation is not caused by magnetism.
If you insist that a black hole has a magnetic field and use the Earth and Sun as analogues, then what you have is a magnetic dipole.
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gifB = μ * I / ( 2 π r)Hence, B is affected by 1/r
Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.
Therefore, you still couldn't prove this wrong assumption.
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons
...I'm not sure that we can clearly understand how the magnetism works at the BH/SMBH, ...
The poles are located high above the physical mass of the SMBH. So, it acts as virtual poles that go all the way up to 27,000 Ly
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".
so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?
So Please - try to shut down the magnetism at CERN and see that we won't get any sort of radiation.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons or particles.Gravity by itself is useless for new created particles or photons.This is your biggest mistake.Hence, Hawking radiation or any sort of radiation won't work without Magnetism!!!
Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.
The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.