Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:14:44 UTC No. 16628856

>>16628855
black holes never form
they take an infinite amount of time to form, due to time dilation
any black hole is going to be frozen in time doing its gravitational collapse thing, the singularity never forms, its just forming forever

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:16:24 UTC No. 16628858

>>16628856
How do you know when you have zero proofs nothing can be seen inside the event horizon

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:28:44 UTC No. 16628860

>>16628858
>How do you know when you have zero proofs
i dont know if black holes are real, however as a fantasy construct their rules are all established and basically they are collapsing into a black hole, it never forms. I mean the singularity. The event horizon can form much sooner, somewhere i read that its possible to be inside an event horizon if you just have enough stars close together, not even with any kind of gravitational collapse, it would just feel like normal space

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:37:02 UTC No. 16628866

What a retarded board. Completely undistinguishable from crappy /x/ tier ramblings.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:16:17 UTC No. 16628876

>>16628855
There's no singularities. Einstein's equations break down when faced with conditions of extreme gravity environments and run into a problem, leading to infinities arising in the equations, which by itself, should tell you something isn't right. An infinitely dense and small singularity can't arise from a finite amount of mass. There are already alternative black hole descriptions known which fit the Standard Model and would also solve the Information Loss or Firewall problems. Also these models give a clear answer as to how these "holes" are created and how they eventually rebound from their state.
I understand why the whole singularity idea (actually an error in the equations) is so interesting, as it gives rise to many theoretically interesting phenomena such as wormholes or actual baby Universes.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:30:14 UTC No. 16628958

>>16628855
>singularity inside a black hole is actually just a portal to another universe
There is a possibility.
But the way I see it, for this to be true, Black Hole have to essentially be their own mini pocket-universes.

For "Wormhole to another Universe" theory to be true, Black Holes need their alter ego White Holes to exist.
But we don't see any. There's tons of black holes to observe, but we've never seen a White Hole, the other end of the wormhole/portal where the matter and energy captured by the black hole spills out.
However, there is an alternative.
There is a single candidate for the title of "White Hole", but it's the Big Bang itself.
It does tick all the boxes of a potential white hole.
- It started out as a singularity, an point of infinite density.
- Then it "exploded" and released all the matter and energy that was stuck in the singularity.
- The Law of physics make it impossible to "go back", similar to the event horizon of a black hole.

So there could be some truth to the fact that "Black Holes are actually wormholes", but if you ask me, it would be a one way trip, and you would end up in a smaller pocket Universe.

If you want to push the concept even further, there's a theory of Cosmological Natural Selection.
Basically, Universes form black holes that cause other Universes to be born, but with different cosmological constants.
There's a natural selection process where Universes with physical constants that favor the formation of black holes produce more offspring universes.
Then it concludes by saying that universes conducive to black hole formation may also coincidentally support conditions for life, as the processes (like supernovae) that create black holes also contribute to the distribution of elements necessary for life.

I find this extremely interesting, so I wanted toshare and see what y'all think of this theory.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:37:33 UTC No. 16628967

>>16628876
>There's no singularities. Einstein's equations break down when faced with conditions of extreme gravity environments and run into a problem, leading to infinities arising in the equations, which by itself, should tell you something isn't right.
While it's true that "infitinies shouldn't exist", unfortunately they do.
Singularities exist. It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Black Holes are the proof.
We have observed them, ande even measured them.
We've taken a "picture" as you might know of the one at the center of our Galaxy.
We've also measured the collision of Black Holes with the LIGO detector.
These have confirmed the existence of black holes.
There's also all the other indirect observations.
Most of which is just calculating the orbits of objects around black holes.
If you're still not convinced, there's also the binairy systems, where a star's mass is being sucked in by the black hole.

>An infinitely dense and small singularity can't arise from a finite amount of mass
Yes it can.
There's a minimum mass for black holes to be stable, but in theory you can make them out of any mass, as long as the spade where it is condensed is small enough.
It's called the schwarzschild radius and you can calculate it.

Also we've recreated these singularities in experiments with the Large Hadron Collider. It's just that these singularities are really small/light and they don't last very long, since they're too small to be stable.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:43:33 UTC No. 16628969

>>16628958
Black holes are literally holes, the fabric of spacetime is ripped causing the matter to fall out and into a 4-dimensional space.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:34:11 UTC No. 16628986

>>16628967
I didn't say black holes don't exist. Sure, they most certainly do. What I meant is their actual, internal nature and dynamics. Because black holes are notoriously hard to observe directly, because all you see is the matter around it getting spun up to incredible speeds when forming an accretion disk, which causes a powerful magnetic field to emerge from the disk, causing some of the matter to be ejected in incredibly powerful jets localized at the poles of the magnetic field.
Yes, we know they exist. None of our observations up to now, however, are able to properly describe the true nature of these objects. I have mentioned there are various models meant to remedy that part of Standard Model which clearly fails to properly describe such an extreme object. Remember Ultraviolet Catastrophe? Read up on it if you didn't. This is exactly what happens when a model is mostly correct according to observations, but runs into problems at energies above a certain threshold, making the equation giving you, ultimately, an infinite result. It's absolutely a fault in the model, black holes are likely matter further compressed into quarks and gluons (which have far more degrees of freedom than typical matter, so you can have immense amounts of quark-gluon matter in a very small area - just like a black hole.
Cosmic Censorship hypothesis also talks about that - it makes sense that if an object is dense enough to collapse into a black hole, which is basically a quark-gluon plasma sphere, we're unable to perceive it directly precisely due to free quarks "hiding" themselves. An object made of free quarks must be at the same time dense and hot enough to collapse into a black hole.
At this point we can keep guessing what really happens inside the hole. Which supplementary model is correct? I don't know. But every single one of them fit, make sense and resolve the "singularity" problem which simply never arises.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:37:09 UTC No. 16628987

yes, she just reached a singulatiry. we're looking for other leads now

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:10:01 UTC No. 16629043

>>16628969
>Black holes are literally holes
They are said to be mostly empty, except for the singularity.

>the fabric of spacetime is ripped causing the matter to fall out and into a 4-dimensional space.
So when you mean "ripped", you're trying to say that the matter escapes into a 4th spatial dimension?
Considering the appearence and behavior of black holes, it's not out the realm of possibilities.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:25:13 UTC No. 16629048

>>16628986
Very interesting post. Thanks for the clarification.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:03:58 UTC No. 16629114

>>16628969
>the fabric of spacetime is ripped
nothing of the sort is described by any model, and btw models is all there is.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:09:29 UTC No. 16629125

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=black+hole&st=phrase

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:03:18 UTC No. 16629383

>>16628855
Black hole is a white hole in another universe.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:40:20 UTC No. 16629544

>>16628855
>>16628876
Can there even really be said to be an event horizon if hawking radiation comes out from it? isnt that literally light?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:31:42 UTC No. 16631842

>>16629544
>Can there even really be said to be an event horizon if hawking radiation comes out from it?
The black hole just slows down time, things can go in and go out. The inside and outside are not disconnected like popsi says and just as objects can cross the event horizon they can also leave it. Things just slow down
The singularity also never forms, as the collapse itself slows down due to its own gravity

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:43:30 UTC No. 16631848

>>16628855
It's just a planet like object with such extreme gravity it blocks all light

>infinite density
>infinite distortion
>infinite matter

lmao even.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:29:22 UTC No. 16632246

>>16631848
it doesnt block light or prevents it from escaping, it just slows down thing to such a high level it looks frozen on a human lifespan scale

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:48:26 UTC No. 16632253

>>16632246
past the event horizon it slows anything including light down to the point where it cannot escape
that's basically the definition of a black hole

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 04:23:39 UTC No. 16632263

>>16632253
>past the event horizon it slows anything including light down to the point where it cannot escape
Not at all, things follow an orbit that crosses the event horizon. Things can move in both directions, anything that moves in can also move out the same way
Only issue is that the orbits are very slow

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:12:41 UTC No. 16632563

>>16628855
ywnbaw

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:37:23 UTC No. 16633194

There's only one universe and it's Tychonic and Newtonian

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:12:50 UTC No. 16633519

>>16631842
Every observer experiences proper time. If you cross event horizon you wouldn't notice a difference. You can't. You cannot return from beyond the event horizon because there is no geodesic that leads you outside. Leaving the event horizon is unphysical.
>>16629544
Hawking radiation doesn't come "out" of the event horizon. It's just the natural consequence of the interaction between QFT and event horizon. Virtual waves traveling in opposite directions are separated by the event horizon so it appears that the ones moving away from event horizon are emitted by it while the ones inside it have no way outside to balance things out.
It's also purely theoretical and you couldn't test it even if we had a black hole close by to probe.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:08:30 UTC No. 16634050

>>16633519
>You cannot return from beyond the event horizon because there is no geodesic that leads you outside.
False, you can just go back the way you came in. Simply, there are orbits that cross the event horizon, some closed and some are hyperbolic. On both types any object (say a particle) can cross the event horizon, accelerate massively towards the singularity, loop de loop and exit. It takes as much energy to exit as was gained falling.
People think in terms of newtonian mechanics because they calculate that the escape velocity is over C so it must be impossible, but its an invalid newtonian calculation. A photon will never accelerate or change its speed, it just blueshifts and redshifts, a highly energetic photon can exit the black hole in a redshifted condition

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:36:38 UTC No. 16634220

>>16634050
Fuck it, sure.