'Baked Alaska' Black Holes?

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Newbienoble

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
'Baked Alaska' Black Holes?
« on: 28/08/2011 15:51:18 »
I am a totally non-science guy so I'm aware that what I am about to write is probably completely wrong as are some of the words I use to describe it. I'm hoping that the really smart people on here will be able to see through my 'half-baked' idea and see if 'Baked Alaska' black holes have any redeeming features and probably be able to easily explain why it's wrong.

It started like this, I thought about 'Time' last week and came to the conclusion
(remember I know close to zip about science) that:
Time is a measurement of energy/particles in motion (not sure of the right word)
Also that therefore time is relative to how much energy is applied.
I.e.By applying more motion or energy time gets faster and
with less energy/motion of particles time slows till it almost stands still - perhaps at absolute zero?

A very nice guy replied and explained that it's unlikely to be correct, using black holes as an example, because he said there is a huge amount of energy and motion at the event horizon of a black hole and yet here time is very very slow.

So I looked at a few articles on black holes and the thing that struck me most is that despite all the massive energy being drawn into the black hole the temprature inside the black holes is actually close to Absolute Zero and so this is my half baked, 'baked alaska black holes'idea, and of course I have no scientific stuff to back this up.

I think to destroy matter or tear apart particles you need to reach the maximum of energy, i.e. maximum temperature, pressure and also maximum speed, motion etc. 

I think when the centre of a heavy star dies it is extremely cold and dense and all the remaining energy of the star is drawn towards it, exerting enormous pressure onto the centre so that it becomes even more incredibly dense but not a singularity.
So despite the pressure and temperatures on the outside the centre is dense enough not to be destroyed (no maximum speed) and the wall/barrier around the edge of the centre which the incoming energy can't penetrate is the 'event horizon.'

However all the matter/particles being drawn towards the centre and the event horizon are aprroaching not only maximum temperature and maximum pressure but also maximum speed (unlike the stationary centre) till the point where the matter/particles are destroyed or ripped apart as they smash against the impenetrable dense cold event horizon wall.
If the particles are destroyed it's possible the dense core within the event horizon thins out to fill the space but it's more likely to me that when particles are ripped apart that a new formless matter remains which is nearly void of energy, motion, temperature etc. (which moves in waves like at/near absolute zero) and that this new compacted 'sea' of minimum matter expands in direct proportion to how much matter is ripped apart as it approaches the event horizon, forming a new wider event horizon or 'shoreline' each time, although it is probably very compacted as the pressure from the outside pushes it extremely close together.    

I think this is why time is extremely slow from the inside travelling out of a black hole because it is close to absolute zero and there is very litte or no motion so something travelling from the inside out would take almost 'forever' while on the outside matter is being gravitationally drawn in extremely fast etc. and reaching maximum energy so anything travelling towards the event horizon will appear to be travelling faster and faster but it will never pass the event horizon because as matter nears all the maximums and then hit's the minimum matter 'wall' it is ripped apart.

I also think it's possible that even though it happens very slowly the small dense centre of the black hole starts dissipating/thinning losing some of it's energy or density into the sea of minimum matter around it till it finally reaches a 'tipping point' where it is no longer strong or dense enough to withstand the pressure of the outside forces and at this point the black hole collapses, maybe like a submarine going too deep in the ocean and all the particles that were being drawn in around a huge perimeter of a huge black hole now all rush in towards a very small centre point extremely quickly resulting in what we called 'The Big Bang'

I know there must be loads of scientific reasons why that can't be true but I just wanted to post it so I could find out what they are, apologies again that I know very little about science and thanks for looking at it.
« Last Edit: 28/08/2011 17:54:36 by Newbienoble »


Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
'Baked Alaska' Black Holes?
« Reply #1 on: 28/08/2011 19:44:22 »
You appear to have got several ideas mixed up and rather than try to sort out all the bits in this epistle I will give you on important fact.  If a black hole is isolated and there is no other material around it.  The event horizon is undetectable except from the otical effects on distant light and the gravitational gradient as you approach it.  The gravity gradient  gets very much less less the larger the black hole is.   It is true that a 10 solar mass black hole would tear you to pieces long before you reached the event horizon but a 50,000 solar mass black hole would be quite uncomfortable but survivable (for a moment)  and the one million solar mass and above black holes that live in the middle of galaxies you could cross the event horizon without noticing at all.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!