/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11352774
>infinite amount of gravity,
na it has finite mass and generates a "finite amount of gravity". if you put a finite amount of mass into singularity, it has infinite density. remember: a black hole will "get bigger" the more stuff that goes into it. but in reality the black hole is an infinitely dense singularity at the center of the sphere. the sphere itself is just the area where stuff cant escape the attraction. the black hole isnt where the stuff is. the stuff is in the center crushed into a 1D point.

onions

>>11352774
ok on paper it shouldnt happen but the edges of sub atomic particles are overlapping. it goes like this . when a star dies it might go supernova if its big enough. a nice big neutron star. when it goes kaboom sometimes it then implodes instead of mostly being scattered outward. when this happens matter is crushed into its base components

the problem is mass wise you cant justify a black holes size being as small as they tend to be seen. so even as dark matter (just sub atomic particles) there isnt enough volume for the mass. so everything is overlapping. no 2 objects can be in the same place at the same time. except for when they are in a black hole

so if gravity works on volume vs mass you get a instant black hole every time the mass per square inch was way way over what can normally happen

>>11352774
That thing doesn't exist. So, nothing. Or anything you want, since it's imaginary.

>>11352781
Thanks for your answer anon

But do you thing anything can remain stationnary in the universe?
How do you know that an infinite number of black holes isn't reciprocally attracting/repelling each other with infinite gravity each?
after all, at the core of most galaxies there is a black hole
I don't know if you'll get my point of view here

>>11352795
I don't think it's all about mass though most scientist think it is
they discovered black holes and neutron stars that couldn't exist according to their predictions

>>11352801
It does because you can see it in your head anon
the universe is creating itself everytime you think of something

>>11352774

If you truly find "black holes" fascinating, then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4NffTr_GMk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2-lH9ewuA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8y3VrrVEpI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2A4qXJQjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdWTH08u30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZ5O0jTH8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI14fpM3ouU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8RRN8rY00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc9PB_4F-OU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmROfjgViLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIgmsQOKnmk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz-Bwi5xTTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUC_a-IMmGs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLC4MA6_Oq0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvNCWMD6so4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IdMz8PkGZM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeIHTCdOGWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-03lh_tHMJ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKYvUtpJXA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_KkLvG22A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot-9R2GZxp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYrgJrBFr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-03lh_tHMJ0

We have no idea. GR, while it is correct, can only account for space outside of a black hole. Infinities do not happen in the physical world, infinities in mathematics tells us that our models are an incomplete description. The singularity of GR only tells us that the inside of a black hole exists differently from how we currently conceive spacetime.

My guess is that black holes are a higher energetic state of space.

>>11352774
We have no idea and we will never know. The idea that a black hole forms from a collapsing star is a conjecture, not a theory.

>>11352811
Thanks anon

>>11352819
>Gee, I wonder how something so massive and energetic could come into existence?
>Oh, stars? You mean those massive, energetic bodies with limited lifespans? Nah, there's no way they could create that
>Black holes likely just popped into reality from the vacuum.

>>11352774
https://jaz.konch.moe/7kibeI6ieBEv.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF
https://www.tau.ac.il/~colin/courses/AtmosElec/Potemra%20ASS%20144.pdf

>>11352832
Imagine being this retarded

>>11352806
>But do you thing anything can remain stationnary in the universe?
Nothing is necessarily stationary in space. That's the whole "relativity" thing. A rogue black hole could theoretically swallow us whole tomorrow without warning. I'm not sure there would be detectable gravitational waves for us to get any sort of warning beforehand either, not that it would matter.

>How do you know that an infinite number of black holes isn't reciprocally attracting/repelling each other with infinite gravity each?
>after all, at the core of most galaxies there is a black hole
Yeah I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain further?

>>11352835
thanks but most of this is way about my level for now atleast, saved anyways

>>11352842
>Yeah I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain further?

I meant that everything have a gravitational field
Currently I'm attracted to you gravitationally and vice versa but the pull is way too weak
But if several black holes have infinite gravity, they could each compensate fo the infinite pull of eachother thus maintaining a certain balance in the universe

Then when the link fail, it goes back to another big bang and starts all over again
But I know it seems and is retarded, since we know for a fact that the expansion of universe is accelerating
Just trying to find a reason to this absurdity


>A rogue black hole could theoretically swallow us whole tomorrow without warning.
So would a gamma ray burst or a big rock
Guess this will happen again at one point of another

>>11352774
nice dubs. chekme

>>11352868
>But if several black holes have infinite gravity, they could each compensate fo the infinite pull of eachother thus maintaining a certain balance in the universe
The problem with this theory is not only that gravitation is attractive (not repulsive) but even if anti-matter exhibited anti-gravitation (we don't know this, and there isn't enough anti-matter to cancel this out to cause a universal stasis) still this wouldn't make sense because the lowest-energy state for charges to be in is at the surface of a volume. Also we know that black holes move. All of them. There is no "universal stasis". In other words, lets say the universe is a sphere, if black holes repelled each other this would mean that the place that ALL black holes would want to be is at equal distances around the edge of the universe with none around the inside. This is what happens with static electricity.

>Then when the link fail, it goes back to another big bang and starts all over again
This can happen regardless. This is called CCC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
It's possible that the acceleration isn't fast enough to overcome gravitational forces, meaning a Big Crunch will occur. We are quite certain that it is fast enough though.

>Just trying to find a reason to this absurdity
You and me both

>>11352811
gtfo pseud

>>11352838
>>11352946
I am sick of these child-minded underage b& basically going "hey, look at me! I've isolated the anon I think you all will commend me for insulting!" 4chan isn't about being a dick willy nilly. Kill yourself.

>>11352781
>the stuff is in the center crushed into a 1D point
How does that even make sense? How does stuff become 1 dimensional?

>>11352985
>How does stuff become 1 dimensional?
because once you've accepted a faulty premise like "the more dense, the more gravity," you can do anything!

>>11352988
>"the more dense, the more gravity," you can do anything!
i mean gravity is only infinite on the interior where curvature variants asymptotically go to infinity. also this does not mean "you can do anything"

>>11352985
>How does stuff become 1 dimensional?
how do things have 3 spatial dimensions? when you have too much mass in an area of space, gravity is so strong that everything collapses in on itself. you think of mass as "something" but fundamentally everything is just confined energy, and "mass" is an emergent property of this phenomena.

>>11352988
>the more dense, the more gravity
No one believes this. Gravity is related to mass, not density. If you have point like particles and gravity that is related to distance between particles, the force between them does approach infinity. It does not mean infinite gravity though.

>>11352781
>>11352985
Doesn't really matter, the 1D point calcs are prolly just artifacts of general relativity being incomplete. The inside is functionally an irretrievable state.
The properties knowable from outside are the important parts desu; mass, the charge, and how fast its spinning.

Naked Singularities are probably impossible too.

>>11352774
a giant chain reaction moving just under the speed of light.

>>11352976
Fuck off dumb cunt. I stated that black hole formation theory is a conjecture which is true and he responded like a typical pop sci retard

>>11353131
Kill yourself you stupid fuck.

>>11353131
>black hole formation theory is a conjecture not theory
high iq thread

>>11353131
>Mathematical theorems with real implication in engineering, astronomy, ect. predict black holes forming from stars
>Nah, it's just conjecture, it's all conjecture
>You can't know nuffin

>>11352795
Actually its very common for two particles to exist in the same space. The way we measured the size of a neutron is by counting how long it takes for an electron to "pass through" it. On the sub atomic scale, classical mechanics don't apply.

>>11353143
Ok nigger so have we ever observed a star imploding to form a black hole? Here’s a hint: we have not. Next you will tell me the Oort Cloud is fact and not conjecture

>>11353150
>pass through" it
How do you know it's not just going past it? Electrons are small, neutrons are big. Imagine you're flying straight through the upper atmosphere of Jupiter to get to the other side. You are within the planet, so to speak, but you're not occupying the same space in the sense that a 1D approach would have you think.

>>11352774
Atheism