Culture and Religion

A world view where the guide for society is based on human nature,
 not on ancient scriptures.  Home  or Topic Groups

 

Impossible Black Hole - Reaction

My post questioning a black hole unleashed a stream of comments in the Cosmology group.

The premise of that post is rather simple. A black hole singularity cannot exist as claimed because matter compressed into a sphere with zero volume means it has no mass to exert a force of gravity.

I had questioned whether a black hole could exist.
I also made an unfortunate reference to chemistry near the beginning and that became the red flag for the raging bull. This is a ‘cosmology’ group.  I made another mistake mentioning only 3 states of matter: gas, liquid, solid. I did that because I began with a description about how gravity affects those 3 states. That omission of other states of matter, not relevant at the time, became another target for derision.

For some, cosmology is like a religion to be fervently defended. I triggered that defense mechanism.

I know that a person might react to a surprise first by emotion and later by reason.
I did not expect this level of emotion.

Proceed with caution because there are many insults, some crude.

These comments appeared after the post. Each comment is between a pair of ' 'I removed all other’s names.
The first comment was from a site administrator:
'
Before anyone makes any rude comments, I accepted this post to help educate the poster beyond the classical states. So please only comment to help educate.
'

Other comments followed:

'
Serious physicists dont like the infinite density singularity either. There is an avenue of string research that replaces the point with a very small manifold.
'


That's like saying Einstein is wrong because it doesn't conform to Newtonian Physics. Chemistry is not the fundamental science. Physics is. All of Chemistry is a subset of physics, one we look at closely because the study of matter and its changes is a significant part of our world even when considered in isolation. You really need to study more chemistry before making broad pronouncements like that.
'
 actually, a star of many masses of our sun can compress, through supernova, higher orders of masses of elements. And even compress enough matter beyond the schwarzschild radius To form a black hole.
'

I inserted my comment into the stream:
<
 I picked chemistry not physics because I see a problem with compressing a solid into zero volume. That is not really a topic for physics. Physics would expect mass to require a non-zero volume at the end for the force of gravity..
>

More comments by others followed:

'
 I didn't bother to read your entire refutation of black holes simply because they have been observed to exist which completely negates everything you have just said. The evidence exists for black holes.
'

'
 I was going to comment that. But, as full of errors as his post is, there is an important question hidden inside.
What is a black hole? And it’s an old question.
Is it a volume=zero + mass=infinity point in space? Is it a very small extremely massive object?
Also, Volume is not related to mass. At least not directly.
There are ways to figure out mass using volume. Mass=Density X Volume.
But volume alone doesn’t indicate mass.
'
'
The properties of atoms doesn't exist in black holes because the atoms have collapsed into quark crystals taking up less space as a super solid with no atomic or molecular properties , but containing all the mass to create the event horizon with it's massive gravitational force describing it's mass
'
'
Okay, so you just say that black hole is really non-existent in a chemistry manner... But Physics and the math behind the General Theory of Relativity states that in a singularity is a point in space where the curvature of the fabric of space time is so curved that it is like a vortex that even light cannot even escape.
Don't make a chemistry driven research to a astrophysical problem. Yes, not all scientist approved that singularities exists but it is.
'

'
No he says a black hole can’t be a point

'
There's more than 3 States of mater/energy. Such as plasma..
'

'
It violates the rules of physics and chemistry .and for what i like it.the whole science we know that ends at the event horizon.black hole concept is really intresting.hope in near future we will be able to understand these black giants in more details.why?what?how?many questions are there.
'

'
Idk if this a troll post or just lacking understanding. Nvm the fact that those three states are not the only states of matter in chemistry. The existence of neutron stars alone disproves your point. Also, black holes do have do have defined volume. That's how we know it's mass. There are also two camps on black holes. Either the information is stuck on the event horizon or there is a singularity Ib the middle. We don't know the answer yet, but we'll know soon enough
'
'
There are many, many “states” of matter, Bose Einstein Condensates are another. I think you need to go back to basics and make sure you’ve checked all the definitions on the way, cause it appears to me that you’re redefining things to suit a world view rather than the other way around.
'

'
The property of a black hole that contributes to its apparent mass isn't "matter" is energy-momentum. Theoretically, energy doesn't need any specific "volume" to exist. There may be an upper limit to the energy density of a black hole, but it has nothing to do with a particular volume of 3-dimensional space.
'

'
I disagree with the initial premise.
Article from February 12, 2004: (We learned it in grade school. There are three forms of matter: solids, liquids and gases.)
But that's not even half right. There are at least six: solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates, and a new form of matter called "fermionic condensates" just discovered by NASA-supported researchers.   <a link to an article about that>
'
'
This is the time where the scope of Chemistry should go in a Universe level. Your comment shows that there are still A LOT in Chemistry that open from Physics.
'

'
 Lol omg stfu. Im dumber got having read that. Stfu again. Go do some reading. A lot of reading.
'

'
5, Bose-Einsten condensate too ?? this guy should be in 8th grade
'

'
Wow never thought that someone could disprove so much in such a small way.... give that man a Nobel prize...
'

'
The OP is flawed. The chemical bonds in gas molecules and liquid molecules are equally strong. The OP should have said "intermolecular forces"...
'

'
 If you are saying gravity do not form any solid structure then please tell how neutron star are formed even planets are formed from it
'
'
Only one word BULLshit
'

this comment from admin:

'
Woah stop the hating! No need to attack! OP was just commenting with what he knew. There is so much to learn. Everyone who has commented has something about physics to learn. Honestly, I cam say no one who has commented does not know it all and still can learn. This poster is learning. May not be at the same level as others, but be nice regardless. Seriously , help out. Contribute. Dont ostracize.
'
More comments resumed:
'
I think I dropped 12 IQ points just reading this
'

'
Consider the core of a blackhole as only one element which is only made of quarks
'

'
"Chemistry defines 3 states of matter: gas, liquid, solid." Well, maybe for chemistry not in physics. There is plasma. Plasma is the most common state of matter in the Universe. Chemistry as such... again, close to a black hole we can imagine matter enters it as a chain of its components, like atom by atom... not much chemistry there. Btw, who said that BH's has radius zero??? They can be huge!
'
'
exactly, BH has radius more than zero.
'
'
Im pretty sure we took a picture of one
'

'
3 states of matter? there are more than 3 dude...that was 50 years ago
'

'
 As for the zero volume, you may have a point; I haven't studied enough to understand the reasoning behind that.
But chemical entities (atoms with complete shells of electrons that are chemically viable) would be broken down into their components, as ions or perhaps even the nucleus would be fragmented into a soup of neutrons and protons (or even further into quarks? maybe energy?) in that sort of environment.
'

'
Subscribe to Pewdiepie
'

'
Hmm odd because we just saw one the other day!
A sphere with zero radius - is that a sphere? A black hole is correctly a singularity.
'

'
NO COMMENT, I AM ABOUSTLEY SHOCKED BY THIS POST
'

'
 Lmao if u base ur an understanding of physics on 4th grade chemistry then yes sir u r right xD
'

'
You must be joking!
'

'
.well, without the basic knowledge in chemistry, physics, it's hard to discuss advanced physics. Many do just that.
'
'
Um, what happened to plasma and Bose–Einstein condensate?
'

'
,the original poster is from 18 th century.....
'

'
I'm surprised they figured out how to work FB.
'
'
 Perhaps she/ he knows English....and FB is highly user-friendly....
'

'
 must be awesomely user friendly if three states of matter figured it out.
;-)
'
'
Space is a function of time. If time was given arificially to the inside of black hole, it's size wouldn't be 0. Our distance measurement makes no sense inside a black hole
'

'
 When someone with no idea tries to use chemistry to explain physics
'
'
A long handle nut-cracker can compress matter.
'

'
 I appreciate your curiosity. It is good that you are questioning such stuff but I suggest you to go read physics from the basics and understand it properly before posing such a question. You cannot explain a physics concept using chemistry. It is like saying that the Chinese and the Americans look the same when compared.
And besides there are more than 3 states of matter. Plasma is the 4th and bose Einstein condensate or exitonium is the 5th and 6th fermionic condensate.
Stay curious but learn what already exists to make sense of the questions that you get from time to time. That way you'd be able to weed out ridiculous questions and come up with good ones.
'
'

'
How is nonsense like this not being screened out by the administrators. I recent decided to leave a quantum physics forum, because the admin were letting absolutely any crap to be posted. I hope not to have to leave this forum for the same reason. Aren't there enough pseudoscience platforms for these ignorant people.
'

'
yeah.... almost every one these days is a kinda Quantum physist.
'

'
It does not violate the rules of chemistry. There are seriously too many nuts in this group.
'

'
I too left a previous Physics group. This is so annoying. I came on here to learn. I am a Physics teacher by the way and have no problem with speculative views and questions.
'

'
 this sums up lack of info in a scope of modern physics & science...
'

'
Hey buddy black hole does exist and now you have a picture of that too.
How will you explain the disappearance of space stuff?
Answer:
1.existense of black hole
2.it swallow everything around it
'

At this point I added my own comment to the stream:
<
 There are so many comments about chemistry, as if it should not be mentioned at the start. Apparently 3 sentences later in the post should have been at the start.
'
In chemistry matter consists of atoms, molecules, and compounds. Every particle of matter requires the space for the nuclei, electrons and molecular bonds.
With no volume there is no matter. Therefore there is no gravity.
It is impossible for this geometric point to still exert a force of gravity.
'
>
Comments resumed:

'
According to general relativity, energy, of which mass and matter are two forms, produces gravity.
While the structure of a singularity is unknown pure energy has the ability to create gravity, if the total mass of the core of a collapsed star was compressed into energy that would be a explanation.
Remember that just because chemistry doesn't go into the more exotic forms of matter, or into the constitute parts of protons and neutrons, quarks, gluons etc.. doesn't mean that those elements of physics don't exist, only that limit of chemistry doesn't have to cover them.
'

'
Or simply energy and mass are two sides of the same coin...??That's what basic chemistry doesn't consider because we don't see it in daily visible activities
'
'
 Yes, yes, and thermodynamics means evolution is impossible.
'


'
When a star is in the final stages of collapse it exists in a state of nuclear matter (quark matter, or neutron degenerate matter) which is not really related to the familiar phases of matter you cite. In fact the only thing keeping it from collapsing completely at that point is the Pauli exclusion principle.
Black holes have nothing to do with chemistry. You're gonna need General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to really even start to get a grasp of what's going on when a massive star collapses.
Incidentally quark matter is thought to be a superfluid, but we don't really know because we've never observed any.
'

'
Earth physics are totally different Than space physics...
'

I added my own comment into this stream:
<

This comment stream is fascinating. I am learning about different perspectives. This group's motto is 'learn with us'
Chemistry describes the composition of matter in the universe. How can chemistry be irrelevant?
Chemistry is at the atomic level while quantum mechanics is at subatomic level. Physics describes energy and motion in the universe. I never considered a basic science could be irrelevant.
I also feel physics (or chemistry) on Earth absolutely must apply beyond our atmosphere. To assume physics is different out there allows anyone to propose any untestable theory. If that conjecture is given any credence then our science has lost its rational foundation.
To propose a point exerts gravity, with no volume for mass, is not rational science.
>

comments resumed:

'
much of the material in astrophysics goes beyond chemistry. If you heat a molecule enough, it will break down into atoms and then ions and the bulk of the material studied is in that state, a plasma. Another common and important state you need to know about is a "Bose-Einstein Condensate".

In general, when talking about highly compressed matter, the pressures are such that normal chemistry is overwhelmed, atoms are arranged based on the lowest energy packing condition but modified by quantum effects.
The state of matter prior to a black hole is a neutron star and we are only just learning about that but basically it consists of layers of elements surrounding superfluid neutron fluid. It is prevented from collapsing by neutron degeneracy pressure.
Beyond some maximum mass, a neutron star cannot be prevented from collapsing by any know process and the result is a black hole. What we mean by that is a volume of space not much smaller than a neutron star and bounded by an "event horizon". That object still has the same mass as the star that collapsed to form it but what happen inside is hidden from us and cannot cause any external effect.
'

'
 If gravity can't compress matter, a long handle nutcracker can. How long would the handles have to be to attain the same compression found in a black hole?
'

'
Yes. Very long.
'

'
 There are now 5 states of matter:
Gas
Liquid
Solid
Plasma
Liquid/Solid (most recent)
'

'
 Dont forget about Bose einstein condensate.
'

'
 I was just about to comment that plasma is another state of matter. I didn’t know liquid/solid so thanks for the info. I’ll do some research!
'

'
Your whole premise is flawed. The laws of chemistry are not absolute in all conditions. The laws of physics are what the laws of chemistry are built on. There is no violation of any laws. Do you really think that no one has explored this in the past, that you are the first to think of it? This is one of the best examples of the Dunning Kruger effect I have seen in a long time.
'

'
 ''The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are.'' But if the debate were worded slightly differently you would not have known that "The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.'' The only problem with your assessment is that stating what one believes may not show low intelligence.
'

'
 ...a sort of narcisism? Then it's an PD.
'

'
 in this case the person posting knows about some laws of chemistry, thus thinks they have enough knowledge to disprove all the science for black holes. They have great confidence in what they think they know, when they do not really understand it. The Dunning Kruger effect has nothing to do with intelligence. Everyone no matter how intelligent is capable of falling victim to it. I myself have done it in the past, and I am sure I probably will in the future. By becoming aware of that cognitive bias, I do it less often now. It is not because I am more intelligent, but I am more aware of my internal biases. You have implied low intelligence from my statement earlier, and that is a pretty far reaching assumption that is not implied by the original post.
'

'
 It would be good worded as a debate.
'
'
Infinite matter piling on would produce infinite compression all due to gravity.
'

'
If not for the basic laws that govern physics chemical cocktails wouldn't exist you stated yourself a chemical is matter well my friend matter is mass it doesn't violate any law of Chemistry i understand your a new member and we all welcome you but research before you post something like this we are all happy to share knowledge but please don't take a harsh comment to serious when a post is so ridiculous learned people are short on patience but you will be led forward regardless have an awesome day
'
'
 The image of a black hole captured a little while ago could it be the long awaited picture of sagittarius A
'

'
Chemistry is built upon the works of physicists ,most laws in chemistry are laws made by physicists that were simplified to suit chemistry
'
'
What about the state called plasma?
'

'
Chemistry relates to bonds created by electromagnetic links, stars are made of plasma where the temperature is too high for electron bonds to exist, and in the material of neutron stars, the gravitational pressure exceeds electron degeneracy so they are forced into the nucleus to convert protons into neutrons so there are only a few residual free electrons.
'
'
It doesn't sound right to me either, that there is a singularity inside a black hole, whith infinite density. but I'm absolutely convinced that black holes are very much real. We don't know what's going on inside the event horizons, but all that mass is in there, in at least extremely high density.
'

'
Black holes cause new chemistry laws and such

'
Am I missing something? I was under the impression that plasma is a fourth stage of matter. I'll read the rest of your post now but I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why I'm wrong
'
'
What about gravity's linearly scalable "pile on" effect (reference where you said gravity doesn't have sufficient force to compress matter)? An infinite pile of football players creates an infinite force.
'
'
 Your statements are just that, statements with no actual explanation or evidence as to why you're contention that black holes can't exist should be given any actual thought. You also appear to be pre-supposing that in such a region of spacetime the laws of chemistry should hold true when the mathematics that suggest the occurrence of singularities actually implies that the standard rules of physics and chemistry break down at these extremes. Also your contention that there's an issue with the possibility of mass having infinite density is an issue when the whole premise of the concept seems to imply that this is in fact the case. Why would the volume of the mass preclude the increase in density either? What about the extreme density and resulting massive forces of gravity in neutron stars? If you're contention was right you'd probably have an issue with those too but they are much more easily observed and what do you know, the predictions made by modern physics match up really well with observations, the same physics and mathematics that implies the existence of everything you claim to be impossible.
Just out of interest are you actually a chemist with the commensurate level of education and knowledge required to actually fully understand the arguments you're making (quite poorly, I must say) or have you just watched some YouTube videos so now fancy yourself an expert on all sciences?
'

'


I added my comment to the stream:
<

Obviously I must be mistaken to expect principles of physics still apply here and beyond Earth. No matter how you much you compress matter there is still matter at the end in some volume, just very dense, but not infinitely dense. Even a neutron star is probably as dense as something can be, but at the end it still exists in a non-zero volume. To get to that zero volume, while still exerting a force of gravity requires a leap beyond accepted physics, Physics requires mass for gravity. A point with zero volume has no mass. Physics on Earth would not encompass that condition so this must be special only beyond Earth.
>

Comments continued:

'
You were right but in one important regard, wrong.
There are 6 types of matter.
1. B.c condensate
2. Solid
3. Liquid
4. Gas
5. Plasma.
6. Solid/liquid.
All of these vary based on pressure and temperature. These sort of things depend on gravity as well other forces.
I suggest you read all the comments on my recent post I made in here. Might help you quite a bit :)
'
<I looked for any posts by this user but I found none.>

comments resumed:

'
Hey we don't know so much about science and what we know that's not only true.
'

'
The dude should first Google a neutron star. This will explain to him how chemical interactions can be overcome by huge pressure. In fact, he should probably start with a normal stellar fusion process.
'

'
 Some very interesting points, and it's always good to think of all angles of a theory as part of the scientific pursuit. If you look at just the sciences observed on earth over millenia, theories have continued to be revised again and again, as scientists think of new ways to explain and decipher the reality around us, and we will continue to do so. It was Newton, that as enhanced by Einstein, now String theory, whatever's next. It is often stated that the laws of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole break down. I don't think that's the case. I think, there are simply new and unfathomable laws of physics at play.
'

I added my own comment to the stream:
<

 No one noticed I agree with Einstein.
His quote: 'black holes are where God divided by zero.'
In a single body universe all the mass in the universe would collapse into a geometric point in the accelerating observer's space-time.
Einstein knew physics could not apply within this theoretical geometric point (zero radius) in this space time.
I agree with Einstein when he apparently realized this theoretical result in the observer's space time would never actually exist in the universe where physics applies.
I had a post about space time where there is a distinction between the observer's space time and physical space. I just took relativity to its logical conclusion.
Cosmologists now expect black holes, despite lacking conformance with physics, actually exist in the universe or 'physical' space, not just in an observer's space time.
I find it ironic I am being ridiculed for agreeing with Einstein.
>

Comments resumed:

'
There is no pull force known as gravity. Vectors only push. Two mass are in no way attracted to one another, they are pushed together by forces external to the two mass system. I cite the Cassini effect as the first experiment done that corroborates the statement.

Therefore, the black hole is formed by forces pushing onto the mass after an explosion such as the one prior to collapse that blows an envelope of mass away from the object such as the eye of god.
'

'
The rest of us probably agree with him too when it comes to the "singularity", but what is observable is only the region outside the event horizon and for that observation matches prediction so in that sense black holes have been proven to exist since Cygnus X-1 was found in the 1970's.
'

'
There is no pull force known as gravity.
Correct, general relativity describes gravity as intrinsic Gaussian curvature, not a force.
TG: I cite the Cassini effect
I think you mean the Cassimir Effect, but that is tiny, what creates the black hole is the infalling material from a supernova that created a neutron star or the merger of two neutron stars as was recently observed as GW170817.
'

I added my own comment to the stream:
<


An X-ray source is not a confirmation of a black hole.
A known source for a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation is synchrotron radiation, even from radio to X-ray. Sandia National Laboratories duplicated this phenomenon here on Earth with their Z-pulse machine which is a powerful X-ray generator.
The donut recently observed near the center of M87 is a plasmoid which has a torus shape.
>

About the same time I added my comment, another comment was added to the stream:

'
why do you think that if black holes exist it implies that there's a problem with the principles of physics?
What do you think is actually going on in the middle of galaxies if black holes are impossible? I'm genuinely interested in hearing any ideas that are able to predict experimental data and observations as well as relativity seems to.
My suspicion however is that your ability to follow physics ended somewhere around classical mechanics so rather than trust others, with more experience or ability to understand, your knee-jerk reaction is to exclaim its impossibility.
'
After reading that I added this comment to the stream:
<
My response to:
'
What do you think is actually going on in the middle of galaxies if black holes are impossible?
'

Cosmologists generally ignore electromagnetic effects.
A known source for broad spectrum radiation is synchrotron radiation.
Instead of pursuing that cosmologist pursue a black hole with an undefined mechanism for generating X-rays.

That donut observed near the center of M87 is a plasmoid. Here is a video about that. It takes about 15 minutes for the complete explanation of the donut and the jets.

link

>

I found it ironic a site admin liked this comment; this is the same admin that had been reluctant to allow my post to be available to the group. That was the very first comment.
This also caused this response:


This doesn't seem impossible.
'

Another comment appeared later:

'
How much Chemistry do you know cause you can ask yourself some questions that might be illuminating.
'

I will monitor for subsequent comments but interest in the post has apparently waned. I expect my reputation in this site is quite ruined.


Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Select  Cosmology to see other posts and comments to that group.