Why are people so convinced that black holes are a point of infinite density...

>itt people act like they know what they are talking about despite only seeing a couple of YouTube videos or reading a couple of articles in popular science

General relativity is undeniably true.

Right. My masters in astrophy-- ... nah

That's why I'm asking the combined intelligentsia of user

>watches ancient aliens one time

Well there you go. General relativity is why people think black holes are a singularity with no volume.

Well it was longer ago than that but I guess you are right. They were proven wrong by a bunch of people who instead of studying it watched some online videos

>combined intelligentsia of user

Hahahaha

No chance it's a false conclusion?

General relativity is known to break down yet people seem so steadfastly convinced of this.

Of course there's a chance it's a false conclusion. Science doesn't make absolute proclamations of truth. It can always be wrong.

>undeniably true

You mean so far has stood up to all investigations into but still doesn’t align with other theories that also stand up to investigation and that’s why we continue to look for a combined or universal theory?

I am agreeing with you, actually. The dimensionless point is just a point in space, not the containment space of the matter being drawn towards it.

It's more of an asymptote, isn't it? approaching, but impossible to actually achieve

Sure. But it is delivered to high school students with such authority that people stop even questioning the concept. It's brainwashing and creating a legion of adherents that is religionesque.

Matter losing its spatial dimension breaks logic and IMO it's not a forgone conclusion.

I want to start a movement

You mean except for scientific laws

Nope. Scientific laws are also not absolute proclamations of truth.

its called physics. look into it. might solve that mystery of yours about flat earths as well.

Gravity is pretty solid. Woo woo, don't know exactly why, but I'm happy to proclaim firmly that you won't drift off the planet.

Yet gravity is falsifiable, and if it were to be falsified then we'd have to change our understanding of science to fit the new observations.

Obviously you can't prove anything about what a black hole is with our technology. The idea is that mathematically in our current view of physics that's how it has to be. It's either that or our view of physics is somehow wrong.

However i agree with you, logically it doesn't make sense. Most things in physics make logical sense, but that one does not.

Attached: 2C3458A6BBFC4DCA82A660991E544315.jpg (836x543, 111K)

>Most things in physics make logical sense
Not once you get to extremes that are outside the realm of our common experience they don't. The very small, the very fast, and the very massive all behave strangely.

If gravity were falsified I would start a company making long flexible tethers to stop people floating away when they go out to check the mailbox

Neat.

Similarly, I'm not at all convinced of the big bang singularity. We have taken valid evidence of an expanding universe and applied a thought experiment to reverse it. It's a logic disconnect with far too many assumptions... and it stops people thinking of alternative explanations.

Fwiw, I'm not a flat earther. That is just stupid... but i do question everything

What you imagine as the black hole is its event horizon, not the hole itself. that is the singularity in its center.

> it stops people thinking of alternative explanations
It doesn't though, as alternative explanations have been proposed.

When I've thought about the big bang the only way it makes sense to me is if at some point our universe will collapse back on itself and then create another big bang. If it's a cycle it makes sense to me, but if there's only ever been one big bang that does not make sense to me.

The evidence is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down, so...

>alternative explanations have been proposed

Name a likely one. I'm always down to read up on cosmology.

True, like at some point there is a particle that can not be cut in half.

However some things do make sense to me, like the relativity of speed to time, stuff like that.

That's why i said MOST things. There are definitely outliers and extremes that don't but i think the majority do

I'm not sure what the general consensus is now, but I've heard both

The general consensus is that the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Ive read about multiverse models where black holes are new universes, just in reverse. As ours tends to infinity, thiers tend to singularity, from our perspective. Of course from their perspective it tends to infinity and generated black hole universes that appear to tend to singularity.... like a nested multiverse.

I thought it was interesting

You niggers act like you've never taken any sort of physics classes in highschool or college. You can calculate the density of a black hole by the pull it has on other objects and by how much light they bend. Given their size, Black holes have almost an infinite amount of gravity.

Attached: 1555007719349.jpg (500x492, 39K)

eh you got that not quite right.

black holes tend to accumulate mass in an ever so smaller area. they are not in that state and from our perspective will never get to that point.

infact if you could stay for a microsecond inside a black holes center it means outside time went so quick by that there no longer is any universe around... so you have all this mass falling and falling for an eternity towards the mass center. never reaching it.

also ironically two black holes colliding can infact remove mass from inside the event horizon. thats why two black holes merge into one that is less mass than both together.

it's a bunch of speculation by people who think they're wise

Not going to try. You're just looking for an argument and your mind is clearly to narrow to be changed.

a black hole is just the beginning of it and at the end is a while hole which releases everything it sucks in as energy and light. the center of our solar system is a while hole, but where is it's black hole

fucking WHITE hole not while fuck this autocorrected bullshit

white holes are a big pile of bullshit.

nontheless
>the center of our solar system is a while hole
shows that you have absolutely no fricking clue. you just said our sun is spewing out solar mass after solar mass of matter

Your question makes no sense, are you talking about volume or density?

division by zero is not a defined operation . division by a value approaching zero may have a limit of infinity .

The question makes perfect sense. Density is a function of volume

Scientists are trying hard, but the truth is - we don't know shit about black holes.
These objects don't allow for almost any kind of experiments.

No it isn’t.

no one knows that
scientists can tell you anything and you cant prove theyre wrong
i say there are unicorns inside black holes and fuck you
anyone who will try to check it will be destroyed by black hole

HEY EVERYONE JUST SHUT UP THIS SUPER SMART DUDE WHO DOESN’T HAVE A JOB AND LIVES JERKING OFF AND STORING HIS CUM IN HIS PARENTS BASEMENT IS GONNA TELL US HOW SHIT REALLY IS

>Implying traps and trolls are not a waste of time

You can’t know for sure what exactly lies beyond the even horizon, here’s the one at the center of the Milky Way throwing suns bigger than ours around at millions of mph.

Well, where do you get Your news from? Someone who dispenses their cum out in the open for everyone to see?

Worth the risk. Beam me up Scotty

Not that user, but care to explain how the fuck density isn't a function of volume?

Forgot pic

Attached: 0815F175-8350-4C88-8C30-0F9A4C45872F.gif (792x696, 1.09M)

Don't forget that as seen by distant observers, matter in a collapsing star is never seen crossing the horizon. So the proper (nonrelativistic) calculation involves computing the gravitational potential energy of a spherical shell with the given mass and the Schwarzschild radius as its radius. The gravitational potential energy U of a shell of mass M and radius R is given by is given by U = −3GM2/5R. If you substitute the Schwarzschild radius, R = 2GM/c2, you get U = −3c2M/10. So only about 30% of the collapsing object's mass is released as gravitational energy.

Easily, a pillow has a large volume and very low density, tungsten has very low volume but very high density. Volume and density are 2 completely separate measurements.

Ok, but does it collapse to a dimensionless point or retain some volume?

black holes are where God hasn't finished creating

Attached: bouncy (1).gif (236x222, 1.18M)

OP, here is your confusion And here is your answer why

galaxies wouldnt exist without black holes

and galaxies wouldn't exist without God

Density is mass divided by volume, I have the vague impression that you are trolling

God is the Universe.

multiverse + everythingness

>so you have all this mass falling and falling for an eternity towards the mass center. never reaching it

This actually made something click... although it's counter intuitive.

black holes collapse for ever because of some kind of time dilation?

That doesn't seem possible. Surely the mass just collapses and its done

Fucking kek, that's not what anyone means when they say volume is a function of density. I suppose you forgot mass tho. It's a 3 part relationship, so forgetting one leaves out any hope for a pattern.
Density = mass/volume
Volume = mass/density
That's as fundamental as F=ma

Attached: 4536819218.jpg (2308x1616, 153K)

Collapses to what?

A black hole singularity is the dimensionless point where all matter pulled into the back hole is concentrated. It has infinite density and therefore does not exist within space-time as it is the point of infinite curvature of space-time. The big bang singularity is where all the mass of the universe used to be concentrated. It had all of the properties of a black hole singularity but from it 'grew' space time and matter was released into this space as the fundamental particles of very high energy. This is the big bang. Therefore, the main difference is that a black hole singularity is the end of space time (and pulls matter in) and the big bang singularity is the beginning of space time (where matter and space were made 'real').

Why would it have infinite density?

Collapses until it can squish no more. Until the quarks are touching balls and no more empty space can be squished out?

That would be the logical conclusion.

>But it is delivered to high school students with such authority that people stop even questioning the concept.
While minors are not necessarily fully developed people, it is still somewhat up to them to cultivate their own sense of curiosity and wonder. Though I will say this is something that formal secondary education often fails to conduce.
Throughout education, we're often told progressively more complex half-truths, because it's an unspoken assumption that some levels of truth are inaccessible or difficult to understand for developing minds. We develop shorthand to explain difficult concepts while trying to train towards, and establish, a foundational understanding.

And god wouldn’t exist without super-god

>doesn’t understand science so it must not be true

How does it feel to be the smartest person in the world?

and super - god could not exist without super - duper god

Attached: trapjesus.jpg (600x910, 140K)

Turtles all the way down

How does it feel to offer nothing but glib quips? I bet you are a hoot at parties - lots of dumb shits to call out eh?

I'm not suggesting the earth is flat here.

No you are suggesting if YOU can’t understand it then it must be false. Plenty of people do understand the concept

A singularity is a point in space where there is a mass with infinite density. This would lead to a spacetime with an infinite curvature. Singularities are predicted to exist in black holes by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is a theory that has done remarkably well at matching experimental results. The problem is that infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that the theory is too simple to handle extreme cases.

Ok, I actually looked into it and the best research supporting me says the quarks aren't necessarily excluded from sharing the same space if they have a different spin, so theoretically even the quarks can be superpositioned after a certain point.

However the best argument supporting you says even then there's a plank length and a plank density, so as infinitesimally small as it is, it's not infinitely small.

I hereby concede the argument to you

I think you underestimate the curiosity of intelligent 15 year olds interested in physics. I think the problem is more with the curriculum being set by adherents to their own training (typically the 65%ers of the teaching world) and not the analytical explorers of the world. More emphasis on the unknown is needed to inspire the next generation of thinkers and less emphasis on rote learning yesterday's news

Does a black hole have volume?

Attached: 2093779862.jpg (1884x1454, 170K)

I don’t know. Ask a physicist

I'm trying
Why are you here?

Nobody is convinced of that because infinite isn’t a unit of measure, it’s just infinite.

Right. All I'm saying is that it must be impossible for matter, any amount of matter, to occupy zero space. 'The singularity' is just a thought experiement

I don’t expect to talk to a physicist on Yea Forums. Maybe a cashier at WalMart. I am here for banter and lulz

And to be a smug condescending wanker from the sound of it

Enjoy the trap threads

Enjoy asking the uninformed questions they are not qualified to answer

Yea Forums always has the answer

Funny or correct. You offer neither

Yea Forums is rarely correct or funny.

*anymore

Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out faggot whore.

I apologize . You have proven yourself a true intellect who is someone who has a valid position on this issue.

It breaks down at the quantum level, which it was never intended to explain anyway. Both quantum mechanics and relativity work remarkably well to explain the things they are meant to explain. They don't play well together though, and this is an indication that modern physics is missing something very fundamental. Physicists recognize and freely admit this though. Its not like they've ever claimed that we have a complete understanding of physics. If that were the case they would hand in a final report and call it a day.

This is all part of the soft pussy generation that feel like “everyone’s opinion is valid”.

No only people on Yea Forums claim to have a complete understanding of physics. The more you learn the more you realize you don’t know

>infinite

Attached: A3A96843-E73A-4DA6-87AA-57BF4F53C577.jpg (600x518, 51K)

>Yea Forums is rarely correct or funny anymore
That’s why I said shut the fuck up. Don’t be a fool.

black holes dont exist. the math does not work.
the only black holes they think exist are in binary star systems becauze of "weird gravity" .
more fake nasa news

> I know this because I watched a YouTube video done by a high school drop out

There is no 'law if gravity.' There is the theory of gravity. Modern science is very slow to label things as a law.

there are ultranigger holes in centers of galaxies

Well by all means, explain away the other phenomena we observe and call black holes

Attached: 4079751219.jpg (1514x1624, 189K)

To be honest. Yea Forums is correct about things over 70% of the time when people aren’t being biased about facts. Also your sense of humor is shit. You can fuck right off.

phys.org:
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

you not smarter than her moron.

Yeah be serious user, he has finals to pass this is no joke.

LMFAO! The earth is flat... for fuck sake. NO SUCH THING AS BLACK HOLES

Whatever you say bucko.

go to phys.org and read for yourself. the stupid computer model they released was not made by and astrophysisist.

I believe the houton-mesina chick since she did the math and debated hawkings

Op isn’t answering because he thinks I’m trolling him but I’m not.

The universe is not infinite
Black holes are not infinite

Nothing is infinite because infinite is forever never ending which is not a unit of measurement and no scientist uses infinite unless they’re referring to a multiverse.

>Mersini-Houghton

check her work douchbags who havent figured out NASA is a SJW shillhole

Laughing feels good man..

Attached: 1FEE891E-1FB9-4C1B-9238-3630C5F53ACF.jpg (370x300, 21K)

YEAH GET SUM PUSSY BRO FORREALS

Retard.

Or Allah as we like to call him.

>The universe is not infinite
Broadly speaking there are 2 possibilities for the universe:
1. Infinite and eternal. Has no beginning and no edge. Properly infinite.
2. Big bang - universe is finite and has a leading edge as it expanded out from a 'singularity'

Spatial analysis 101

I guess you like option 2. Im not convinced that the big bang makes sense tbh

Attached: the black hoe.jpg (575x1024, 81K)

>Most things in physics make logical sense,

Almost the whole of modern physics lie outside of our everyday experience with reality. It's completely unintuitive, and has required the development of some very abstract and complex mathematics for anyone to even be able to begin wrapping their brains around. I mean can you actually visualize 4d space in your head, or what traveling at the speed of light would be like? Not really, because your brain isn't wired for it. It wasn't anything the human brain needed to know for survival. Classical physics on the other hand involves things that are useful to understand for survival. You might not know what velocity is, but if you were a caveman hunting with a bow and arrow I guarantee you would either be intimately familiar with how it works, or you'd starve to death.

I have a weird theory that after the initial expansion it slowly gets consumed by black holes until the black holes have nothing left to feed on but each other, eventually once only one of them is left it’s so massive it collapses back into the beginning of a new Big Bang, and the cycle repeats itself.

Practical physics vs theoretical physics

Pure math can be very creative. Sometimes it can over complicate things and serves no purpose other than to propagate itself at which point it becomes more art than science.

Most of the truths of the world are described with elegant simplicity

It's called the big crunch and is in no way a new idea.

The superstring theories. M-theory in particular.

I knew someone must’ve already had that theory, I thought of it while watching a YouTube video.

I'm 100% with you. I think we should go back to calling them quasars as well.

>phys.org
Wew lad!

What is really funny is that we could be living in a false vacuum and at any point the universe could change to the real vacuum and in doing so could change almost if not all natural constants and destroy everything that exists currently. To go even further beyound it might have already happened somewhere in the universe and is expanding at the speed of light towards us so there would be no warnings of it hitting us.

Black holes will be the longest lived single objects in the Universe, but they slowly evaporate via Hawking Radiation. In time all that will remain are subatomic particles swimming in a sea of ever expanding darkness, never encountering each other. Pretty bleak actually.

See, there was this thing called the big bang. It was a lot like a black hole, but the entire universe was compressed into a single point. It was dimensionless. Everything was basically nothing. And it was surrounded by nothing, held together for an infinite amount of time because time didn't exist back when the universe was nothing. There were no outside forces because the universe was everything, existing in a stagnant state, taking up no space where the concept of time could not be applied to it. And from this single point where nothing changed, without any outside forces applied, everything just spread out.
>Still with me?
Now, a black hole is much like the universe was. A lot of stuff just gets more and more dense until it stops existing in space or time, and everything in the space surrounding it gets locked down because it can't escape the gravity created by it not existing in space or time.
>So will all black holes go the way of the universe and just spread out?
Why not? The mass of a black hole used to be stable and took up a defined amount of space, until it didn't. So why couldn't it go from not taking up space, to taking up space once again? Eventually, all the matter that's locked down in a single point will be let go, and that's that.
>Is the universe going to compress again?
Sure! Think of it like a bouncy ball. It goes up, then it comes down. One day, the universe will spread out so far that it won't be able to support itself. It will collapse in on itself and start the process again.
>Will it ever stop bouncing?
Course not! Energy is neither created nor destroyed, and the universe is everything, every bit of matter and energy is the universe, so it will always "bounce back" to the same "height" after hitting the "ground" because the "ground" is itself and it can't lose energy by transferring energy from itself to itself.
Glad I could clear things up for you. If you have any questions, fuck you. This is how it is.

So black holes turn into Yea Forumstards?

Quasars, or active galaxies are galaxies whose central supermassive blackholes are actively feeding on large amounts of matter. They are something we observe in the very distant universe, and not the local universe. The further back in time one looks the more common they are, though we certainly have galaxies in the local universe, and most of them host supermassive black holes. It is very possible for a local galaxy to become active however. Our own will in about 4 billion years when it merges with the Andromeda galaxy. It's not that mergers don't occur in the local universe, its that they are increasingly rarer as time goes on, and all galaxies not gravitationally bound in the same clusters, move away from each orher.

Forget black holes there’s plenty about space that could affect us directly to be freaked out by:

Asteroids
Solar flares/cme
Gamma ray bursts (kill us all and we wouldn’t even see it coming or know what hit us)
Pulsars,(if a beam ever comes our way we’re toast)

>infinite density
According to model that best describes reality as we know it. Here's the thing: the model is far from perfect. "Infinity" is a simple way of saying the model we use does not predict what happens under such circumstances. "Infinity" is just a fance word we use for "error".