Two Behemoth Black Holes, the Largest Ever Discovered, Could Swallow Billions of Suns

I guess this squashes that "black holes don't officially exist" comment that someone posted in the Dark Matter article today....

i believe that on the "other" end of the black hole, resides another universe or dimension undetectable by man. maybe even a big bang.

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

I wonder what happens at these black holes. Mighty interesting.. These stars must have quite great velocities before hitting the black hole. This angular momentum must be conserved. So I guess these holes are also spinning.

If so can it keep on growing? If it gets larger, will the gravity still be enough to work as the centripetal force necessary to 'swallow' more stars?

What happens when two black holes collide? Can a black whole be the cause of a big bang? What happens at the centre of the black whole? Are atoms compressed so hard that essentially the biggest imaginable atom is created?

Guess it will take some time before we now the answers to all these questions

Essentially nothing you can imagine "happens" in a black hole. In fact, happening itself doesn't even happen. "Happen" is a characteristic of 4 dimensional space, and a black hole's singularity is believed to be 1 dimensional. So not even the common laws of physics apply inside one.

Black
Hole
more
Hole
More
Black
Hack, Hack
Kapu-eee, spit, splat
You on the other side.
Now you begin again!
Enjoy! :)

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

eh the big ol black holes have nothing on my brothers ex wife. now THATS a big black hole!

I'm really getting quite sick of the advertisements between pages here, when I click on an article and get redirected to a full page ad.

WTF is Undertone anyway? As if I gave a shit. KEEP IT OFF MY SCREEN!

And it's a shame that we don't have any REAL pictures... who gives two lumps about artists' conceptions??

Show us the real images, damnit!

mind blown.

I don't understand how those black holes are found/discovered. If they are millions of light years away, by the time they are seen, couldn't they have moved really far away already? Or do they not move? If they don't move shouldn't they be expanded many million times of that size already through the millions of years? Would we have been swallowed by it by now? So many (silly) questions... Teach me!

But more importantly, could these giant black holes swallow Ron Jeremy?

Imagine the monster star that made it.

Actually there's a black hole that's been estimated to be even larger than these objects at the center of a BL Lac object called OJ 287. If the estimates are correct (they've been called into question) at 18 billion solar masses it would dwarf even these monsters. It's about 3.5 billion ly from us.

MrTerence

I can address a few of your questions. First, most black holes are indeed spinning, and you're correct, angular momentum is conserved (though, naturally, a single star wouldn't have much ability to change the momentum of a 10 billion solar mass black hole).

Black holes most certainly can keep growing, in theory indefinitely (so long as there's sufficient matter to fall into it). Although, Stephen Hawkings also theorized they emit particles (Hawkings Radiation) and therefore will eventually evaporate (taking on the order of trillions to thousands of trillions of years to do so). And as they eat, their gravity becomes even more powerful. At this point, gravity > all.

If two black holes colide, they swallow one another and merge, taking on the combined angular momentum of each. As far as atoms being compressed, atoms aren't the smallest object in the universe. A Hydrogen atom will be compressed to the point it breaks up into its quark components. Now, whether it can be compressed further than that is another question. Either way, the theory goes that the pull of gravity in a black hole compresses whatever objects fall into it into a space of zero volume, or infinite density.

Basically, objects get compressed to a ridiculously small size, but then now that they're closer, gravity pulls them even closer, further compressing, and so on - infinitely. From the perspective of infalling matter, it would feel like it was always falling, forever.

So, to that end, we actually do have a fairly good idea about black holes, although all of it is theorized -- we have very little observational data of them, and no observational data of what happens inside the event horizon.

But, just as Physics correctly predicted the occurance of black holes before they were obsereved, there's no reason to suspect we can't predict what happens inside them, even if we cannot observe it.

@jfjet

One of the primary ways we locate them is by measuring their mass. When a star, for example, orbits an essentially black space at insane speeds, it requires a certain amount of mass to keep that star in orbit. Based on that, we can calculate the central object's mass and determine it's a black hole. Likewise, quasars and other phenomenon are specific to black holes, which can also indicate the location of a black hole.

However, you're absolutely right; we're seeing these objects only as and where they were a long time ago (in the case of this black hole, 337 million years ago). So it's most certainly not in the same spacial position as we're viewing it now.

Finally, everything in the universe is moving, relative to something else. There's no such thing as a stationary frame of reference. So most definitely these black holes are moving (in fact, they're moving extremely fast, just as our galaxy is).

What I find interesting is... how can you weigh something that doesn't actually exist in our space/time? How can you even begin to calculate the weight of something that for all intents and purposes is just a giant vortex. That's like saying that a whirlpool has weight outside of the water that is displaced to cause the whirlpool.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

CodeZero,

Black Holes do in fact exist within our space time. What happens inside them compresses material to a single, volume-less point of space, but it still interacts just as much in our frame of reference as anything else.

A whirlpool is an entirely different phenomenon because it's a measurement of the downward direction of water -- a wave function. A black hole is a point of immense mass that has fallen within its schwartzchild radius. Entirely different things.

Again, you measure the mass of a black hole based on the orbit of objects around it -- a certain amount of mass is absolutely required to keep an orbiting object in orbit. Any more mass, and orbiting bodies would be sucked inside. Any less mass and orbiting bodies would fling away into empty space.

So measuring the orbiting bodies gives us a very accurate idea of the mass of the black hole.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more modern methods of doing this as well which I'm not aware of and are far more eloquent/accurate, but that's the one I'm familiar with.

Regardless, we cannot say that just because a point mass falls within its Schwartzchild that it therefore ceases to exist; it does not. It simply begins to operate under much different mechanics *internally* but still have the same gravitational influence on surrounding objects *external to it* (Anything outside the event horizon is considered external to the black hole).

@ToomeyND, not quite. Black holes have never been observed and are only theoretical at htis point.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/black-holes-don/

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html

Aldron, reread the article.

By the way, Aldron, your quoted articles are from 2007 and 2005, respectively. They do not contain up-to-date information.

@CodeZero

"how can you weigh something that doesn't actually exist in our space/time?"

The same way we weigh the Earth: with a giant scale:)

Seriously though, weight is not the same as mass.

A black hole is a really bad name for it. It is not a vortex. It is simply a very massive object. The matter does not disappear from existence. The matter is all there, just in a different form. A black hole retains its net mass, inertia, spin, and charge. Gravity from a black hole is no different than gravity from a star. It's just that black holes are simply more massive than most stars.

From the article above:

"To weigh the black holes, Nicholas McConnell and Chung-Pei Ma at the University of California-Berkeley used the Keck and Gemini observatories to measure the speed of stars moving around the black holes. The faster the stars were moving, the more gravity was needed to keep them in check, so the researchers used these velocities to calculate the black holes’ masses."

@Canadian Skeptic okay here is an article from 2011 by scientific american.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/28/maybe-black-holes-dont-really-exist/

Please at least acknowledge other scientists findings or you are participating in dogma which science is not.

@Aldrons Last Hope

You mean you don't agree with main stream science? How shocking! (sarcasm)

Anywhere from 1,000 to 1,600 PHDs in physics are awarded each year in the US alone. Simply because it is uttered from the lips of a PHD holder does not make it fact, or even credible. And if a scientist says that "maybe" black holes don't exist, it isn't time to rewrite the textbooks.

Black Holes are widely accepted among the vast majority of reputable physicists. Not fact, but the leading theory. Leading… as in, way, way, way out in front.

It is not dogma, it is called the PIER REVIEW PROCESS. Right now the best explanation for what is being observed is a black hole. So says the physics community. Everything else will be viewed with skepticism, as it should be. That is science.

@democedes did you read the article? A black hole is a paradox and cannot exist in 3 dimensional space. More likely at the center of the galaxy is a dark star. A star comprised of dark energy.

Main stream science is being funded by people who want to push forth their own agendas.

There is nothing to re-write, black holes are just a theory, it isn't written in stone somewhere.

JUst read the article will you?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/28/maybe-black-holes-dont-really-exist/

All i'm saying is that there are other theories out there that also explain the phenomena at the center of galaxies....and the author is not just a generic PHD, he is highly respected in the physics community.

They only way to keep pushing forward is to keep an open mind.

Hmm very interesting answers. But I'm not so sure about the answers concerning the centre of a black hole.

For example look at the earth (and do not consider other bodies) when you on one side all the mass is beneath you (more or less) and you are pulled down. But if you are in the exact middle (centre of gravity) is there still a gravity force? because if the mass is all around you doesn't this mean you are pulled in every direction with the same magnitude? Such that the nett gravity force should equal zero?

Doesn't this mean that in the centre of the black hole other forces will be predominant and that both time and space are less influenced by gravity?

I find the singularity of a black hole hard to imagine. But I guess I should see the mathematics to get a clearer understanding. We should not forget however that our models break up when closing in to the black hole.

@Aldrons Last Hope

"Main stream science is being funded by people who want to push forth their own agendas."

You are suggesting a conspiracy? I am shocked! (no, not really)

Yes I did read the article. Alternate theories to black holes are a dime a dozen. Actual data is hard to come by. Until this guy has some hard data to back up his ideas, it is just another alternate theory.

In his own words:

"I doubt that this event alone will dislodge black holes as the astrophysical community’s standard model for compact objects."

There is a fine line between being open-minded and being outright gullible. I think a good measure of scientific skepticism is far more productive.

Right now, all information on Black Holes is pure speculation and the math supporting it has been tailored to make them work. We don't know what happens to matter than falls into a black hole, we don't know if it stays within this space/time or if it is ejected into another space/time. If we find that black holes do infact empty into another space/time than the vortex/whirlpool analogy fits. Even Hawkins speculated that a possible "white hole" could exist where all consumed mass and energy is expelled.

I know "mass" and "weight" are different, however the article clearly states it "weighs as much as 9.7 billion suns" so my inital entrigment stands. There is no way to judge the weight of an object that we don't yet fully understand, I get the fact that they are assuming that at the given rate and amount of capture that it would equal the weight estimate, however assumptions are never facts.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

"All i'm saying is that there are other theories out there that also explain the phenomena at the center of galaxies"

I'll reiterate an oft-used phrase: not all theories are created equal.

The prevailing theory is that black holes do exist, both because of their mathematical logic as well as for the observational data we have on them. Are you able to identify a theory that explains one or two points that the current black hole model does not? Certainly. But to assume that alone changes anything is to disregard the mountain of evidence favouring the black hole model.

Consider a scale. On one side you have a few rocks in favour of some other alternative theory to black holes. On the other hand, you have a boulder representing the evidence the black hole model explains. Weighing the two of them, which do you choose to be more likely to be true? The boulder, of course.

Which isn't to say that the black hole theory can't be supplanted; of course it can. It will, however, require an even larger boulder representing some new theory. This argument is the same as intelligent design vs. evolution. Can intelligent design make sense of a few, minor details the the evolution model cannot? Sure. But the absolute mountain of evidence is still on the side of evolution. That's just the facts.

Code Zero

Nothing about the math has been "tailored" to make black holes possible. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It wasn't until a good decade or two after Einstein released his general theory of relativity that some other scientist altogether informed him that relativity not just suggested the possibility of black holes, but rather dictated it.

Einstein was abhorred by the thought, and figured such an object could never exist in reality -- not because the math didn't add up (it did), but because he felt that such a thing would be an assault on nature. Einstein's feelings were based on philisophical views, not on math -- his math predicted beautifully the existence of black holes, whether or not he intended it to.

Then, much later, Hawkings took these predictions of black holes and reversed time in the equation. He found that doing was entirely possible from a mathemetics perspective -- which is what Hawkings is, a mathematician. This was dubbed the "White hole" and eventually yielded prospects about the big bang (a term not technically accurate, as there would have been no sound), and which we also find a towering mountain of evidence supporting. See the Wikipedia entry for the 4 main pillars of evidence supporting the big bang, if you're interested.

The point is, gravity is an exclusively attractive force. Further, it becomes stronger the closer objects are to one another (I believe on the order of 8 times stronger each time you half the distance). The only reason every star in existence doesn't implode into a black hole is the release of energy from the nuclear reactions, which creates an equilibrium between the attractive force of gravity and the repulsive force of that release of energy.

When that release of energy subsides -- such as all the hydrogen and helium is used up -- the star goes into freefall towards its centre. Sometimes this will allow even heavier elements to be fused, due to the even stronger forces generating more heat, sometimes this causes a violent explosion (actually, most times) obliterating the star outright, or other times after a massive release of energy, a central core is left behind.

Depending on the mass of the star and what it was made out of, this could be something like a neutron star (the whole star is made out of entirely neutrons) or, when everything is just right and all the particles contained can fall towards the centre, a black hole is formed.

Keep in mind, a black hole is only defined by its properties of being so massive that, within a certain radius around its core, light cannot escape it. The properties beyond this point are up for grabs. You could prove that, at the centre of a black hole, actually exists a solid lump of matter that you could touch and hold like anything else. Or maybe something else entirely happens to it.

But proving something like that does nothing to disprove that a sufficiently massive body can get to a point that light not just bends around it but is actually pulled in. That theory is close to law at this point.

As far as the weight vs mass issue. As with your scientific american article, popsci is a magazine, not a peer reviewed journal. The editor simply mixed up her terms. It's not the "weight" that scientists measure when identifying black holes, it's the mass.

Oh I wanted to briefly disect this statement as well:

"More likely at the center of the galaxy is a dark star. A star comprised of dark energy."

This statement is ludicrous and one of the reasons I have a hard time being swayed by your arguments, Aldron.

Dark energy is the *repulsive* force of the universe that keeps it from collapsing back into itself, as one might expect -- dubbed the "big crunch." Instead the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating, not decreasing -- which will inevitably yield the "big freeze."

But a star made out of dark energy? That just doesn't really make any sense.

Anyone remember all the "mountains of evidence" that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe? I refuse to buy into any currently unproveable explainations for anything. The day those theorys became law, then I'll be swayed. Until then, absolutly everything we "know" about black holes is subjective and grossly distorted by billions of years time. By all means enjoy the theories that exist today, but just becaus there is evidence doesn't mean it's truth. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, nor am I trying to dissuade you from your own thoughts.

The simple fact alone that we are getting data back from the Voyager probes that was impossible for us to dectect from inside the little protective egg of magnetic shielding we call our helosphere/helosheath lends me more towards that fact that we don't have a freaking clue what we are looking at. Who knows what other information is being filtered, corrupted or distorted as it fights to make it's way into our sensor banks.

The bottom line is we are infants standing in the house, looking out at the front yard and street though a screen door. Everything is distorted and not all the information is making it to us.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

The evidence for a flat earth amounted to "if I look out at the horizon, it appears flat." That wasn't a boulder, it was a pebble. Unfortuantely, that far distant in the past, all the information they had on such matters were pebbles, so that was the best they could come up with.

Now, however, we do indeed have boulders.

Your request that you won't believe it until it's "law" is silly. You do not convert theories into laws; they do entirely different things. Laws describe how things in the universe must interact. Theories explain how and why this happens. Laws state, theories explain.

The theory of gravity is just that: a theory. But no one in their right mind is worried that one of these days if they jump, they will fly right off the face of the earth.

We were infants once when it came to knowledge of the universe. Now, however, I consider us to be adolecents.

Michio Kaku posits a 4-tier technology scale, whereby a tier-4 civilization is capable of harnessing the energy of entire galaxies, whereas a tier-0 civilization utilizes nothing more than the energy of plants and the like. He places us at a tier of around 0.7 or 0.8.

We're definitely still young, but we're not infants. We actually know a great deal.

@democedes yes I am suggesting a conspiracy, a conspiracy to keep people to mislead people. Ie (global warming, over population hoax). As for this no ,not saying there is a conspiracy, just people grasping at straws.

Also “a dime a dozen” haha please.

Also if you are going to quote something, quote it in context.
“I doubt that this event alone will dislodge black holes as the astrophysical community’s standard model for compact objects. On the other hand, the unique properties of the March 28 event, together with other ways that the dark energy star theory might be tested in the near future, such as direct millimeter VLBI observations of the massive compact objects at the center of own and nearby galaxies, may soon allow the astrophysical community to see that black holes are really crystal stars.”

Stop being a sheep, you are the one that is gullible. Black holes cannot physically exist in this reality, because the point of the event horizon is 1 dimensional, and we are in 3 dimensional space.

Anyways, I was just being devil’s advocate when I suggested this theory…but it’s really starting to make sense. I’m still going to go with black holes do exist, but I do whish this brilliant scientist get funding for his ideas. Since everyone is searching for dark energy and it may be sitting there in the center of our galaxy. He invented the fist working X-ray laser, has contributed to string theory, as well as came up with the concept of gossamer metal. What did you do? He is willing to be ridiculed by the closed minded scientific community, even though his math works. Just like the man who theorized quasi-crystals, all you nay-sayers keep being proved wrong. I’ll keep laughing at your
Short-sightedness

Aldron, I'm curious what scholarly journal you derive "Black holes cannot physically exist in this reality, because the point of the event horizon is 1 dimensional, and we are in 3 dimensional space."

Link me a paper that makes this exact claim -- the claim that black holes do not exist *because they exist in 1 dimension.* In fact, Id like to see the article that even argues black holes exist in 1-dimension, period.

Let me be clear. I'm not asking for your layman interpretation of physics. I'm asking for your source.

@canadian skeptic, I’m also Canadian, but that’s where our similarities end.

You call the dark star theory ludicrous?? You claim to know how dark matter works?? Wow you must be a nobel prize contender. This man that I am quoting is highly respected, and for him to put forth a theory like this that would not only be ridiculed by his peers but also by layman that don’t have a clue to what they are talking about, he obviously risked a lot and had a reason to do so.

Have you heard of the swastika? Do you know what that’s a symbol for? (dark energy star) Many ancient cultures believed there was a dark star in the center of our galaxy, from the Mayans, to the Hindus. Now if the Mya could calculate the galactic orbit thousands of years ago (and nasa only did it in the 90’s) You think they could be right about this?? No? I thought you might be skeptical of that..LOL

Also Michio Kaku : All he does is regurgitate other people’s work. I can’t believe you quoted him..LOL. He’s a good author and showman, but scientist he is not. If you believe we are truly close to being a type 1 civilization you should be very concerned, because we will blow this planet to shreds with our current mentality.

We are still infants, your ego might lead you to believe otherwise, but last I checked we haven’t set foot on another planet, a long way off from being an intergalactic civilization don’t you think??

Aldron, you keep mixing up Dark Matter with Dark Energy. Which is it you're talking about? I really do wish you'd make up your mind, it's actually quite confusing.

You're quite an interesting fella. You complain that I discredit the opinion of a theoretical physicist, George Chapline, regarding a blog post he made in a magazine, then you attack my choice of quoting Michio Kaku?

By the way, Michio Kaku has his PH.d in theoretical physics with a focus on string theory. He's one of the pioneers of that theory and one of the biggest names in that line of physics - not as an author, as a scientist.

Hell, Dr. Kaku built a particle accelerator -- a gigantic loop that accelerates particles to near the speed of light and collides them to see what happens -- the size of a football field out of copper wire when he was in high school. His University education was paid for because of it.

I counter your proposed super-scientist because he's going against the grain. If you want to get this right down to a battle of who has the coolest scientist, your George Chapline isn't competing with Kaku, he's competing with Hawkings and the rest of the scientific community. And Hawkings *does* have a Nobel prize.

But that's okay. Chapline risked his career to argue a point the scientific community disagrees with, therefore he's right.

Good call.

I wonder of the other dimensional cosmos on the other side of the black hole sees an incredible white spot with everything being ejected out?

Grunt, if the Big Bang is any example of a "white hole," technically there wouldn't have been any colour. The concentration of energy was so dense for the first couple hundred thousand years that light couldn't actually escape it.

But technically, yes, matter exploded outwards from a singularity and underwent extremely rapid expansion, until it arrived at what we have now (and it continues to expand).

However, I think we can safely assume that the matter doesn't actually leave to go anywhere from black holes, at least the ones we observe -- namely due to their conservation of mass. They, at best, only *extremly* slowly reduce in mass, and for entirely different reasons.

Still, that's not something I'd be prepared to say is impossible, by any means. Just not with the ones we know about.

@Canadian_Skeptic, what do you mean "by the ones we observe". No one has ever observed a black hole. You are observing phenomenon at the center of the galaxy which you are attributing to a black hole.

Chapline based his work on the work of his college Robert Robert Laughlin, a condensed matter physicist at Stanford University who won a Nobel for his work on quantum fluids.

You said" But that's okay. Chapline risked his career to argue a point the scientific community disagrees with, therefore he's right."

By that logic, you are implying that because a majority of scientists believe something it must be true?? So I guess all you darwinians were proven right that the "negroid" could never be good at sports. LOL today's accepted THEORIES are tomorrows facepalms.

Please explain to me how stars even formed around a black hole, wouldn't it's gravitational pull absorb the material before the stars could form...LOL...don't worry they are still trying to figure that one out.

I meant 0 dimension, it's common knowledge that the event horizon occurs at a theoretical 0 dimension, whatever that is. So how does a 0 dimension point exist in 3 dimensional space?

Dark Energy and matter are inverses of each other...you should read up on that. But in the case of the center of our galaxy, i'm talking about dark energy.

Lastly I never said flat out that black holes don't exist, I'm just presenting the fallacies in the assumption that they do physically exist and I'm presenting alternative theories by accredited scientists.

Aldron, You're right that just because the mainstream scientific community says something, that doesn't mean it's correct. But in the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you wish to present an argument to counter the existing opinion of the scientific community, you better have your ducks in a row.

To quote another person, James Randi, it's good to keep an open mind; but not so open your brains fall out. It's good to challenge the status quo, but not every challenge is good.

Now, you're making a few claims here:

1) The event horizon theoretically exists in 0-dimensional space. Apparently, this is common knowledge.
2) Because the event horizon exists in 0-dimensional space, it cannot therefore exist in 3-dimensional space.
3) Dark Energy and matter are inverses of each other.

Give me the sources of each of these statements and I'll consider your position. I've got a sneaking suspicion you can't.

By symmetry, gravity is cancelled at the center of black holes.

To avoid the perceived impossibility of all the mass at a single point, a black hole could be a hollow shell. The thickness of the shell would be determined by the density limit of matter. As matter is added, the radius of the shell increases, while the shell thickness stays approximately the same.

Similarly, the Big Bang didn't have to come from a single point. It could have been a hollow sphere with an incredibly dense shell. As a sphere, it could have a center point without being infinitely dense.

Also, Big Bangs could be local events within a much larger universe, similar to how super novas are local events within galaxies.

Thanks,
-Tony

Canadian_Skeptic, for someone that's a self proclaimed "skeptic" you seem to be rather sure of the current evidience and how funny you think that just because we have become more advanced that we "know" all about things we can't even fully understand. What if the whole isn't a hole at all, and is merely a large bubble of an extra-dimentional space, if a 3D person were to dive through a 2D plane it would appear as several ovals morphing into larger ovals moving apart with another odd shaped oval appearing at the center growing then morphing into another larger oval etc, etc. The fact is, every single thing about "black holes" is pure and utter speculation based on information that is distorted by time, space, our helosphere and our atmosphere. We don't even fully grasp time in the galactic sense. We think we do, but we don't have a clue. But I'm glad that you think you are correct and everyone else is wrong because you say so and because you can point to papers written, that doesn't make what's out there what they think it is. It is in fact no different from when the earth was flat and at the center of everything. We are making judgments on an object so far out of our reach that it's absurd. In 1000 years when we might be able to actually get close enough to see them better, I wouldn't doubt if they look back at the studies and laugh, just as we do now about the "scientific facts" from years ago.

Anyway, have fun trying to shoot other people down that don't agree with you or that can actually have thoughts outside of the mainstream belief system.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

"But I'm glad that you think you are correct and everyone else is wrong because you say so and because you can point to papers written" - internal contradiction. I can't be disagreeing with everyone *and* agreeing with the scientific community at the same time.

I'm making exactly 1 claim here: matter can become so dense that, if light falls within a certain radius of its gravitational centre, it will be sucked in. I feel extremely confident about that point, and current theories based on "shady" observation and strong mathematics backs this up.

What happens inside a black hole, its properties, and so on -- that's more or less speculation, at least from where I stand.

Other than that, I'm making a request: cite your sources. Because it seems to me you're coming to conclusions and presenting them as fact without any reference to the scientific community at large.

And if the scientific community is wrong at this point in time -- that's just fine, because the eventual correct answers will come from them, not from you or I. And who knows, maybe they got this one right (after all, they know enough to send a man to the moon -- I think that's a slight improvement over when we felt the Earth was flat).

What I refuse to do is side with the lone maverick scientist, for no better reason than his being a lone maverick.

um... The Einstein-Rosen Bridge...
Or you can enjoy reading information from my Favorite Theortical Physicist.

http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=423

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to prove with that source. The existence of wormholes?

@Canadian Skeptic, yes common knowledge. And you suspect I can’t?? HAHAHA…

A Shwartzchild Black hole’s (non-rotating) singularity occurs in 0 dimension, as in not a point in space but a point in time (huh?). A ring singularity occurs in 2 dimensions. SO AGAIN, explain to me how a 2D point can exist in 3D space. You ask for references…..try wikidpedia. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Again how can something with so much mass have zero volume?? It works out very well on paper, but in reality…I have a hard time believing this is possible (or I should)

I am not going to provide proof of my question to you about 0,1,2 dimensional objects existing in 3D space, the question is self explanatory.

As for dark matter and dark energy being related. Energy and matter are related, so why not dark energy and dark matter be related??

I quoted a paper that is saying, in the center of our galaxy is a star composed of very dense dark energy. Now to be fair, this falls in the same category as black holes because dark matter and energy have never been observed. Just the effects that we attribute to their existence.

Aldron, I asked for 3 sources to these questions:

1) The event horizon theoretically exists in 0-dimensional space. Apparently, this is common knowledge.

You cite wikipedia, but neither article states your claim. The closest they come is saying "singularities occupy 0 volume." That is not necessarily the same as saything they exist in 0-dimensional space -- and *certainly* not the same as saying they can have no influence on 3-dimensional (or 4-dimensional, or 2-dimensional..) space.

Find me a source of your exact statement.

But regardless, I don't even care so much about this question so much as its follow ups, 2 and 3. It may well end up that black holes exist in 0-dimensions while still exerting an influence on 3-dimensions. See point 2.

I just thought it was fun to make you find a source you felt you knew existed and realized it's not so easy. I'm sick like that.

2) Because the event horizon exists in 0-dimensional space, it cannot therefore exist in 3-dimensional space.

You don't provide a source for this. Instead, your response is "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't happen." Just why can't an object exist in lower dimensions, exactly? Your inability to comprehend it does not constitute a valid argument.

Let's posit for example that string theory is accurate (it's not, at least not in its current form, though perhaps someday it may be vindicated -- or perhaps not). In this theory, all physical objects boil down to the vibrations of energy (strings).

In such a case, it's entirely possible that either A) these energy strings require no specific amount of space/volume, and can be compressed infinitely or B) that the space they require is so incredibly small that, from our vantage point, compressing them to the lowest possible value is equivalent to saying 0 volume. It's not actually 0 volume, it's just so small we really can't tell the difference with modern instruments.

So there you go, an alternate theory -- which also actually exists and is worked on by physicists. Just because we don't understand why something can happen, doesn't mean it doesn't. A single photon can exist in two locations simultaneously; that makes absolutely no sense, but it happens.

3) Dark Energy and matter are inverses of each other.

You're retreating a bit, I see.

You didn't originally state they are "related," as you do now. You stated they're inverses of one another. Those are vastly different claims. Not enough is known about either of them, but it may well turn out they're related somehow. But inverses? Now that's a hell of a claim. So, either back up your claim or accept your initial statement was a little.. over zealous.

By the way, matter and energy are related by possibly one of the very few physical equations popularly known, E=mc^2. What equation equates dark energy and dark matter? And anyway, even this equation doesn't suggest matter and energy are inverses. It actually says they're the exact same thing, just different forms of one another -- like water and ice. Readily convertible (sorta) into one another. It just takes a *lot* more energy to create matter than it does matter to create energy.

By the way, a little informational tidbit for you: the word "dark" doesn't demonstrate any comparison between the two phenomenon, dark energy and dark matter. It denotes only that they're difficult to observe. The same is true of black holes -- they're "black" because no light escapes, therefore they literally appear "black."

Physics is obvious like that.

@Aldrons Last Hope - "Stop being a sheep, you are the one that is gullible."

I'm dissapointed. I was hoping for a proper "WAKE UP SHEEP!"

@Canadian_Skeptic

"To quote another person, James Randi, it's good to keep an open mind; but not so open your brains fall out."

I have heard that before, but I still choked on my soda when I read it. Well said, Sir.

@Canadain Skeptic ,0 volume @ singularity means 0 dimension, it's the same thing.

I will post this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

"0 in all spatial directions" means 0D = 0 dimensions.

This is accepted knowledge. Kaku tries to explain this paradox with string theory, super string theory, and M-theory, all of which is very elegant mathematics, but have no bearing in the real world.

"Dark Energy and Mater are inverses of each other" I withdraw this statement.

@democedes...I have to give the people what they want soooo...

WAKE UP SHEEP!

I'm down with your explanation of 0-dimensions. I think there's still a subtle difference between 0 volume and 0 dimension, but I digress. The point was never really to challenge the validity of this statement, so much as your source - and the wikipedia entry does not actually make this claim (it states 0 volume, but says nothing of 0-dimensions).

I accept your withdrawl for statement 3. However, how about statement 2?

"Because the event horizon exists in 0-dimensional space, it cannot therefore exist in 3-dimensional space."

I'm still curious about the source of this one. I'm also willing to accept that by "event horizon" you actually mean "singularity."

Yes yes, the event horizon does occupy 3d space, the singularity however does not and that's where the conundrum lies.

Ahh, ALH again. At his usual antics of bleating "sheep!" towards anyone who disagrees with him.

I'm usually quite content to lurk on these threads without comment, but I must ask: since when is Wikipedia acceptable as an authoritative source for anything? I would not have gotten away with that back in undergrad, and here we are talking about theories that challenge Nobel prize winning PhDs. Please, if you're going to cite a source, make your effort worthwhile, for your own sake, really.

Yeah, I could have busted ALH on the Wikipedia thing, too, but I decided not to. For one, I wanted to challenge his arguments as much as his sources, and even his Wikipedia links didn't say what he thought they did.

But two, to be honest, Wikipedia is very nearly as accurate as Britanica Encyclopedia -- and many instructors do in fact allow Britanica. And if you look at the entries for black holes in Wikipedia, for example, they're really quite well done.

I think the animosity towards Wikipedia is perhaps a little misguided. Certainly it's not a peer-reviewed journal if that's the level of discussing you're having, but for basic conversation like this, I think it's fine.

And if you really have a problem with it -- challenge the argument and show more respectable sources that contradict the wikipedia entry. I feel fairly confident that if it got right down to it, I could easily do that for ALH's comments (though, again, even his wikipedia sources didn't support his theory).

I tend to root for the underdog and that's why i will steer clear for the most part on this matter, but I will add that I agree that most knowledge that we learn is through trial and error and most of what we believe to be set in stone is actually not. Take Einstein for example: Theory of relatively has just been downgraded due to neutrino's. There is something that travels faster than the speed of light.

Just goes to show how little we truly know about space/time etc. We can hardly decipher the mysteries here on earth let alone vague objects in the vast reaches of space.

I, for one, would like to know how the ancients (mayan's, egyptian's, hindu's, celtic druid's etc) knew about space time so well. I mean, ancient tribes in Africa knew about Sirius B in Orion's Belt and we just discovered that with modern space telescopes within the past decade.

Maybe we need to reconsider what we've been brainwashed to believe and the pattern of thinking to something a little more expansive that allows the creative elements to sync with mathematical science.

What's your take on Dr. Mallett's time machine concept?
We have SO much more to LEARN.

I'd like to correct two statements from Ophiuchus_2012. First, the theory of relativity has not yet been dismantled, nor has it been (definitively) proven that some neutrinos move faster than light.

An initial discovery at CERN did suggest that these neutrinos moved faster than light by an extremely small amount (but still significant). And it was even deemed a 5-sigma level of accuracy (the point at which most scientists would call it an official discovery).

However, it was not claimed to be a discovery; at least not yet. Two studies have been released since, one confirming the result, and the other showing a different result (that neutrinos cannot move faster than light). At this point, it remains to be seen whether or not neutrinos can actually be able to move faster than light. Maybe they can; we don't "know" quite yet.

And even if they do, it remains to be seen how this will impact the theory of relativity. Whatever new theory emerges will not be a radically new theory; it will have to take into account and explain all of the existing phenomenon the theory of relativity currently does, in addition to this new phenomenon.

The same was true when Einstens theory supplanted Newton's laws of gravity. The theory of relativity is a far more accurate description of reality, but Newton's theories are still very much accurate; they're just not *as* accurate. The same will be true of this new theory, except that Einstein's theory and this new theory will be even more closely related than Einstein's to Newtons.

As for how the Mayan's knew so much about space, I think their knowledge may well be marginally exagerated (Im understating..). They understood orbital movements and various other phenomenon to a much greater extent than other civilizations, including our own until very recently in history. However, our own cosmological world view was largely held back due to the Heliocentric model among others, which supposed the Earth was the centre of everything -- it was a cultural view that held us back.

There's a lot of details to consider when comparing Mayan cosmological views to the evolution of Greco-Roman (European) cosmological views, particularly considering the dark ages and the immense impact that had on our scientific understanding of the universe.

I'd be interested in reading an actual paper identifying specifically what it was the Mayans predicted; were they aware of other galaxies; how accurate mathematically were their models; what did they use to base these phenomenon on; did they understand the different types of stars, or that we only see stars as they existed thousands, millions or billions of years ago; and so on.

And I'm not saying they didn't know these things, either (though I have significant doubts). I'm not educated enough on them. If they did, then by all means, they're a far more impressive culture than I currently appreciate, and I'm genuinely interested in scholarly articles, if anyone knows of any (no, Wikipedia will not suffice, this time -- nor will Fox News), indicating how far advanced they really were.

Regarding Dr. Mallett's time machine concept, other scholarly articles have been published to suggest issues with his conception; but I'm not sure if your question is really about his particular idea, or about the notion of time-travel in general (even as a theoretical concept), in which case, I don't see many issues with it.

From my standpoint -- and this is a personal opinion of mine, not scientific fact -- the laws of physics dictate primarily what is *impossible* in this universe (e.g., you cannot create energy, you can only change its form). Therefore anything not prohibited by the laws of physics are therefore allowable. If time travel is not prohibited by physics (currently it's not, but more research needs to be done), then it is therefore allowable (under the correct conditions).

Whether or not Dr. Mallett's concept is "the" correct device to accomplish this is fairly irrelevent, so long as the phenomenon itself can actually occur. If it can, the only prohibition against us actually doing it is the knowledge of how to do so.

The question than becomes is space travel required for time travel. Since it would effectively be influencing both realms it would be considered a space time or spacetime continuum.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.
Isaac Newton

Well, from a purely technical perspective, any time you take a step on Earth you're walking through space. But in terms of requiring you to actually be in outerspace, I imagine it would at the very least make any time travel feat much easier.

The spacetime continum is unrelated to time travel, though yes, since most time travel requires you to travel faster than light (however you accomplish that), it would mean bending space and time.

That said, it's only theoretically possible to do right now, and the models regarding it, from my vantage point, are incomplete. So I'm not willing to say it *is* possible, just that it *may* be possible.