Collapsing to a singularity

[Anonymous No.11822572]

I'd like to discuss a major problem I see with black holes (no I'm not the theology anon), here's my problem with the theory

My understanding
>A collapsing star will not form a singularity until r=0

The problem
>As r->0 G->infinity
>Assume this process takes X time from its own reference frame
>We know that time dilation occurs due to gravitational pull based on GR such that ∆t ->0 as G->infinity
>Intuitively this means that the collapsing of a star into a singularity would take an infinite amount of time from a reference frame outside of the local singularity

This implies one of two things, either GR fails in a case in which it should apply in which case GR should be reworked/tossed out
Or black holes cannot form within the currently understood age of the universe which either invalidates the black holes hypothesis or introduces one of two things; a much larger timeframe for our current universe if we assume the big bang happened as described by the literature or the big bang never happened at all.

I'm not an expert in the field so feel free to let me know if I've missed some fundamental concept, otherwise discuss.

[Anonymous No.11822580]

>>11822572
Stars don't collapse. That's not how stars work, anon.

For redpills into how stars actually work and which type of stars are most likely to support life around them, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usz28nAYdT0

Also: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UdIacwIr5Scrrf5KCfvRTDC
And: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UdAwCXUCvl23_5DOjGMPq7d

Also these two videos:

https://youtu.be/mINsiT70OHE?t=1h05m21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usz28nAYdT0

[Anonymous No.11822581]

>>11822572
> understanding
>A collapsing star will not form a singularity until r->0*

[Anonymous No.11822582]

>>11822572
Not OP but bumping for interest. I get black holes are stable GR result, but can they form in finite time?

[Anonymous No.11822595]

>>11822572
>>11822582
>GR

[Anonymous No.11822603]

>>11822595
related

[Anonymous No.11822621]

>>11822595
>>11822603
Why do you need all that when >>11822572 is a pretty clear and concise issue that is obvious from basic math/intuition

[Anonymous No.11822845]

>>11822580
>>11822595
>>11822603

what are some other science forum's that shoot fast and loose and have a reasonable amount of actual students and graduates? The concentration of schizo's and boomers have rendered /sci/ unusable.

[Anonymous No.11823923]

>>11822845
How is this a schizo thread

[Anonymous No.11823933]

>>11822572
>intuitively

[Anonymous No.11823992]

so would it look frozen in time? and if so what exactly would it look like
or is the idea that it wouldnt happen and that kind of collapse isnt possible

[Anonymous No.11824162]

>>11823992
The idea is that it would/could happen on extreme timescales far outside our universe's proposed current age of 4.5 billion years which means we shouldn't see any, but we do.

As this objects radius decreased during collapse it (the rate of radius change) would appear to slow down so much that changes in radius would be unobservable (so yes, essentially it would look frozen in time)

[Anonymous No.11824166]

>>11823933
> t. Biologist incapable of understanding abstract concepts

[Anonymous No.11824291]

>>11823923
Black hole schizanon always invades these kinds of threads: >>11822580

I'm no fan of the rationalwiki articles that overlap with politics in any way, but they're usually pretty good with stuff like this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

>Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

There are lots of these fringe types. Another one is https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein's "holographic fractal" universe crankery (they have a subreddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal))

[Anonymous No.11824351]

>>11822572
>Intuitively this means that the collapsing of a star into a singularity would take an infinite amount of time from a reference frame outside of the local singularity

>I'm not an expert in the field so feel free to let me know if I've missed some fundamental concept

The fundamental concept you are missing is that we can formulate the laws of physics in curved spacetime in a way that is independent of reference frame (or coordinates on spacetime, which is the better way of thinking about it in a GR context). This idea that it takes infinite "time" really means you chose a bad coordinate system for describing the physics and your coordinate system does not cover the entire space (sort of like how polar coordinates technically don't cover the poles of a sphere).

Of course people have taken the equations for the stress energy tensor for a fluid interacting with gravity and shown stellar collapse to a black hole. Physicists are not stupid and those are exactly the kinds of things they check.

[Anonymous No.11824420]

>>11824291
>There are lots of these fringe types. Another one is https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein's "holographic fractal" universe crankery (they have a subreddit at https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal))

What happened to us being a 2d projection on the edge of a black hole?