My theory about black holes :)
Shut’up. I know, ‘am no physicist. And no scientist for that matter. That’s fine. I just had an idea and is likely to be wrong but it makes my brain giggle with curiosity.
Read the post. I just solved the black holes and dark matter mystery. hahaha #tromlive
tiotrom.com/2021/11/my-theory-…
My theory about black holes :)
Shut'up. I know, 'am no physicist. And no scientist for that matter. That's fine. I just had an idea and is likely to be wrong but it makes my brain giggle with curiosity.TIO
like this
Rokosun reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •AFAIK, the mass of a black hole is concentrated on a point called the singularity, this is the reason for its extreme gravitational pull. So for black holes to behave the way it does, it needs a singularity. Are you suggesting that this singularity is made of dark matter ?
How does this dark matter singularity become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map ? To me, this doesn't seem to solve dark matter but just complicates things even more, lol 😂
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •> Why is my theory making things more confusing
Singularity is more like a point, so calling it a "ball" is kinda misleading. Also, there's a lot of unknowns about dark matter, you're just making a lot of assumptions here, that stars convert matter to dark matter when they explode, that black holes convert matter to dark matter when it swallows something, etc. There's no need to make it this complicated when you can explain everything using a singularity made of normal matter, not dark.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •But singularity is weird and still just an assumption isn't it? What is a point? Black holes do have a shape and size and mass isn't it? Stars have those properties too, and in the center of a star is a lot of pressure. You can call that center a point.
I did make some assumptions is correct but won't say a lot of them. I assumed that black holes are made out of dark matter, something that it is actually studied and theorized. I mean the relationship between dark matter and black holes. The other assumption was that matter can transform into dark matter, something that @David Sugar sent a paper about which seems to suggest such a theory :P.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> But singularity is weird and still just an assumption isn't it? What is a point?
I don't know man, they're just super weird. I think the singularity idea was proposed because its gravitational pull is so strong that it pulls light and swallows it, I don't think a star can do that.
My understanding about black holes are pretty basic & I haven't read any of these proposed theories. I think the singularity idea & the general theory of relativity are more widely accepted, IDK.
@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •"Problem of other minds" is a perfect example of this, since there's no way to prove/disprove it. This is similar to the question "Is your red the same as my red?", Vsauce did a video about this problem - youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju0…
You're right, these might be a bit "bla bla bla", its still quite interesting to think about. They really show us our limitations, we can't know the answer to everything.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Yeah, maybe trying to categorize discussions is not that great. There are times where these could be useful, like the example of physics & chemistry, but it doesn't mean anything other than a rough idea of what we're talking about.
I don't know if there's any reason to be against the field of philosophy, that Vsause video I sent you earlier is pretty philosophical, but I can't say I never learned anything from it :)
@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Well they call it a hole...I know is not like a normal hole. But as far as I understand it doesn't spew what it swallows somewhere else since you can see it growing and account for the stuff it swallows. The Hawking radiation is simply a proof that they also lose "stuff". Stuff gets out. And probably that's normal matter since we can "see" it.
"It just pulls everything in to the singularity" - so you're saying it pulls stuff into that "point"? Then why are these black holes bigger, smaller, have a shape, a mass? I don't get it :D
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •"It just pulls everything in to the singularity" - so you're saying it pulls stuff into that "point"? Then why are these black holes bigger, smaller, have a shape, a mass?
I'm no expert, but from what I understand, what they mean by the size is the event horizon. The event horizon is a boundary inside which light can no longer escape. So intuitively, this event horizon should expand when the mass increases because gravity increases with mass.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •hmm isnt the event horizon the boundary between that dark circle (what i call as the black ball) and the visible matter? Something like this_
And the entire black disk is that "singularity"? Maybe I am confused....
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •This video explains it very well - youtube.com/watch?v=QqsLTNkzva…
Its really interesting cause there's a lot we don't know about black holes, maybe the truth is even more weirder than our theories, haha.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Oh yeah, the singularity might be of any shape, we don't really know much about the inside, everything after the event horizon is just black
Most black holes I've seen in pictures and stuff have a spherical event horizon, and I think the disk you're mentioning is things orbiting these black holes that glow because of their heat, that video explained it. If the event horizon is spherical, the stuff inside should be spherical too right ? I don't know enough about gravitational fields to know
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Could also be that there is no such thing as singularity...
Sounds right to me but how can we know :D. If I think about my black ball theory then yes haha.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> Could also be that there is no such thing as singularity...
Could be, but the mass of the black hole still has to exist somewhere inside the event horizon. The idea of a singularity is probably used to explain the extreme gravitational pull, maybe it'll have less space-time curvature if the mass is spread around VS on a densely packed point. So more space-time curvature means more gravity. I'm still not sure how scientifically proven this singularity thing is, this is my understanding.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •That video is talking about the same thing I said earlier. So its confirmed, dense objects have higher gravity 🙂
> this mass of a black hole is not that black disk we observe, but a tiny point in the middle.
Of course, the event horizon is not a physical boundary like the boundary of a ball, its a point after which light can no longer escape from the gravity of the black hole. And gravitational field is always much larger than the size of the object, think about sun pulling on earth.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •At least thats what they theorize ;)
Same for a black hole, it extends far more than that dark disk (ball).
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> At least thats what they theorize ;)
I don't know if its just a theory, what's happening inside a black hole we can't know, but we can observe the surroundings to prove that there's extreme gravity there that even light can't escape. Remember, light only moves in a straight line, but massive objects can bend the space-time curvature to bend its path. This has been proven, I recommend you look more into general theory of relativity, its very interesting :)
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •youtube.com/watch?v=0sr1Xeocuu…
I've been thinking about this video you sent me....... And I think I get it now, I understand why they theorized singularity to be a point. This is even more stranger & weirder than I thought, haha.
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Just think about that for a moment, this is one of the craziest shit I've ever heard, and its hard to believe these things actually exist ! 😲
Its really hard for me to grasp this concept, because its so different from everything I've experienced in my life. My intuition tells me that if more stuff gets sucked into the black hole, the singularity should get bigger. But it doesn't !
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Maybe it does....
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •If you're saying tremendous pressure can turn matter into dark matter, yeah it sounds plausible. This would also explain why stuff pulled into the black hole also become dark matter, because one thing that black holes and a collapsing star have in common is pressure ;)
I still have some doubts as to what happens after it turns into dark matter, but considering how little we know about them I don't think there's any point in us arguing over what "might" be happening, lol 😅
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Thanks for engaging I learned more things because of that. I wsn't aware that they are saying that a black hole is a black nothing but its mass is in a very dense center thats super small. I had the wrong impression that the black hole is the entire black thing. Maybe that's what made me think about it being a black ball. These two videos explain it well:
ytb.trom.tf/watch?v=poE8CuucCE…
ytb.trom.tf/embed/0sr1Xeocuuc
Although I will have to update my theory ( :)) ) it still may be wrong the way they are theorizing about it now. Maybe there's still a black ball instead of a black hole, and it is made of a different type of matter, maybe even dark matter.
You did great at explaining this, and I am very happy you have engaged in such a discussion :).
Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Those 2 videos are very good 👍
My confusion regarding this black balls theory is this:
1. Not even light can escape a black hole because its so dense that the gravity is in the extremes. But if it was a ball the same size (of event horizon), then it wouldn't be this dense and wouldn't have that much gravity
2. We don't even know if matter can become dark matter, let alone say that stars exploding will cause it. Its called dark matter cause we literally know nothing about it, lol 😂
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Actually the one who first came up with this theory, a mathematician some 200 years ago, called it a dark/black star and proved mathematically you can have such a star where light can't escape it because it is so dense. And black holes are actually stars....same way a neutron star is still a star. They call it "hole" and make things confusing a lot :D.
Exactly. We don't even know if it is matter. But has similar properties with a black hole that's why they are thinking black matter can in fact be black holes. They both do not interact with light/matter so that we can't see them, and have a strong gravitational pull.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> Actually the one who first came up with this theory, a mathematician some 200 years ago, called it a dark/black star and proved mathematically you can have such a star
I didn't knew about that, interesting... 🤔
Also, keep in mind that this mathematician can be wrong, there has to be a reason we don't call it a star anymore. Einstein published general relativity in 1915, before that we didn't had a clear picture of how gravity worked.
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Its possible for a star's gravity to bend light, this is actually how we proved general relativity. But a star's gravity is not strong enough that even light can't escape, if it were then it wouldn't be able to glow ;)
Also, when you call it a black ball, a dark planet comes to my mind. And I don't get how a planet can do what a black hole does. Even if your black ball was made of dark matter, the gravitational properties would be kinda the same as a normal ball.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •A "black hole" is a star. It is a collapsed star, same as a neutron star. So we can better call it a "dark star" or something like that. Now the properties of this dark star can be that its size are immensely small and dense, like the singularity of a black hole. Semantics. A dark star, or black ball like I call it, can be so dense that light can't even escape it. Why can't it be? Or can be that is made out of dark matter and combined with gravity it sucks in normal matter and converts it into dark matter.
A star doesn't have to glow. White dwarfs barely glow.
Take normal matter. A neutron star then the Venus planet. Both made out of normal matter. But the neutron star's gravitational pull is immense compared to the one of the planet Venus. Despite them being made out of the same matter. Why can't it be that dark matter that we observe scattered around the universe clump under tremendous pressures into a ball just like a neutron star, and have immense gravitational pull? :P
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •As long as we're talking about the singularity, the name we give to it doesn't matter. In my mind, I see stars as something that radiates energy, so its hard to call black holes a star. I know about hawking radiation, but its very different thing. In hawking radiation, none of the energy/matter that's released comes from the black hole itself.
From wikipedia: "A star is an astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity"
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •About dark matter, there is still the question of where that normal matter went ? If you're saying that normal matter turned into dark matter, then it would work AFAIK. But my question is "why ?". You're just adding an extra step to the whole process, there's no need for matter to become darkmatter for black holes to exist, so why make it more complicated ? 🤷
If scientists are looking into such theories, then they're probably doing it for entirely different reasons than us 😂
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •As explained in the article....it can solve 2 issues: 1. We understand what black balls are. And 2. It may explain how dark matter comes into existence.
Why would you invent the singularity (infinite point), or the "event horizon"? These are completely new things. To say that the blackness of a black hole is just stuff that we can't see because light can't escape the gravitational pull, is also an invention, isn't it?
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> 2. It may explain how dark matter comes into existence.
I don't understand this point, that's why I asked this question:
> How does this dark matter singularity become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map ?
The gravity of a black hole is so strong that nothing can escape it, so how can dark matter escape it considering their gravitational properties are similar to normal matter ?
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •> To say that the blackness of a black hole is just stuff that we can't see because light can't escape the gravitational pull, is also an invention, isn't it?
I don't think its an invention, that's how we define black holes !
(AFAIK, We defined them even before finding one IRL)
From Wikipedia: "A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing — no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it."
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Yes but that's still not fully demonstrated. It is an idea, that so far has some predictability. But so did so many other theories/ideas. It is a reason why I don't start to say that maybe atoms are just dark matter that absorb light, since we have "touched" the atom and humans have very well understood it so far. Not so for black holes.
I was reading through the history of black holes and from what I got from it, at first it was theorized that there can be dark stars, as I said in other comments. So dense that light can't escape them.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •And I explained: a normal star produces the chemical elements (atoms) we know of today. That means atoms made out of protons, neutrons and electrons. We understand that.
Now the same matter can form a cloud of gas that has a very weak gravitational pull, or under tremendous pressures a more dense object like a planet or a star, or a neutron star.
So, same matter, different "objects": from clouds of gas, to planets, asteroids, or stars of wildly different sizes and densities.
Why can't this be true for dark matter? What if dark matter is made out of different particles (atoms) and in most cases you see it as a sort of "gas" that still has a decent gravitational pull from my understanding, but at times under tremendous pressures it coalesces in the form of a star.
ofc this is pure speculation but an interesting thought experiment.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> in most cases you see it as a sort of "gas" that still has a decent gravitational pull from my understanding, but at times under tremendous pressures it coalesces in the form of a star.
Ofc, this is a possibility, I understand that. But my point here is that it can't go from a planet to a gas, only the other way around. So if you're saying all dark matter are created when black holes are born, be it a black ball/star, it'll never become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •When a star becomes a neutron star it loses mass/energy in the process of collapsing, and those remains will transform into gas clouds of the normal matter that this star was made of. That's what my "brian" :) told me one night, maybe when a star becomes a dark star, it transforms matter into dark matter and it also shoots out this sort of dark matter when it collapses, like all stars do.
Also I find it bizarre that this super strange "point" (singularity) has a magnetic field like all stars have. As far as I understand it. It makes more sense for it to have a magnetic filed if it is a dark ball in my mind at least.
Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> When a star becomes a neutron star it loses mass/energy in the process of collapsing, and those remains will transform into gas clouds of the normal matter that this star was made of.
Ok, this is actually what I wanted to hear, now your theory is making more sense to me, and I understand it better now 😀
I just couldn't think of any way its mass could spread out, haha 😂
So the answer is a supernova explosion that spreads out the mass of these black balls that are made of dark matter.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •> Ofc this can be true, but I find this one to be so wild.
Yes, and that's what makes black holes interesting, they are wild 😀
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •That's the theory. But we do not know for sure. Maybe there are all sorts of matter out there and forces. After all the normal physics and the quantum one are still not shaking hands from what I know. They had to invent a new kind of physics to explain those new particles.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •A big factor for confusion here is that I'm not really sure how much of the stuff I've heard about black holes are just a theory vs how much is actually evidence based. Everytime I hear about black holes, I hear all of these same things, singularity, event horizon, etc.
One thing we both agree here is that our knowledge about the universe is limited. I'm not saying your theory can't be true, I'm just trying to explain why I find it confusing. Ofc, we have different POV about black holes 🙂
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •Its interesting you mentioned quantum mechanics, cause that's even crazier, haha
> They had to invent a new kind of physics to explain those new particles.
New physics ? Dude, quantum mechanics is literally MAGIC !
Did you know that they actually teleported data using quantum entanglement ? If this isn't magic, IDK what is......
youtube.com/watch?v=yb38jozeDO…
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Thanks, I'll take a loot at that. I like learning about quantum mechanics, its probably the most insane/craziest fields of science ever. It feels literally like magic to me, and I can't believe these things are REAL, I mean WTF ?
BTW, you can try doing the double slit experiment at home - youtube.com/watch?v=kKdaRJ3vAm…
I'll do this one day when I buy a laser, a cheap one should be enough I think.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Atoms are spherical shaped and are made of even smaller sub particles, so its not that different from a star/planet (which is made of many small particles as well), atoms are just tiny.
I think of singularity as a point, its more exciting for me that way ;)
And considering how little we know about the universe, maybe the closest we can get to truth is to consider the latest science we know. Ofc, it can always be wrong, but that's just the best we can know from a scientific perspective 🙂
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •> Also, aren't moons same as planets?
This is actually an interesting question. I think technically they're kinda the same, but we gave them different names just to make communication easier for us.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Oh ofc, that's how I started the article. I am quite sure I am wrong, but I am also quite sure that science is more than capable of making fun of itself later on in life. So many scientists, the height of academia, thought of aether as a medium through which light travels en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminife… and they were so wrong. Or the theory about fire that was making a lot of sense and was accepted by all scientists at the time, yet it was so wrong en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogist…
So considering scientists say that we have almost no clue about what black holes really are, or what dark matter/energy are, then maybe they can be totally wrong. That makes me even more excited :)
Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Tio • •Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Of course I agree that scientists can be wrong. Coming from a scientific guy like you, it makes sense. You know very well where the limits of science are.
Funny story, I've heard this argument from a religious person, saying that science will say one thing today and another thing tomorrow, so its not reliable. I later said to him that where there's change there's progress, so science will keep correcting its mistakes and become better as time goes on, while religion is stuck in the past 🙂
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Yeah, time is just a way for us to measure change. I remember Jacque talking about this in the TROM documentary, sun didn't rise because its 6:00am, its actually the other way around. We get stuck in this mentality of seeing measurement as the thing you're measuring.
I think your way of looking at it might me more accurate. Its not time slowing down, its just rate of change of atoms or something that changes, that's usually what we mean when we say time slows down.
Tio likes this.
Tio
Unknown parent • •Any link for this one? I am interested :D
Tio
in reply to Tio • •What am saying is that the dark matter that we see scattered is like nebulas (dust/gas) that we see scattered through the universe. But this scattered dust/gas we know can coalesce into planets and stars, correct? Same may be possible with dark matter under immense pressures. So that dark matter can be scattered but also clumped together into a "dark star" or "black ball" as I call it :).
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •You replied to the wrong message again, haha. It didn't even tag me.
I wonder if its a bug in friendica or you just accidentally clicking the wrong reply button, this seems to happen from time to time. I don't know how it is in friendica, but if its a bug they gotta fix it soon.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Do I correctly understand your claim as the following?
Is there any other claim that I missed?
What is the problem that these assumptions may facilitate solving? How can (3) and (4) be implemented in practice?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Just to be clear, is it OK if I keep the discussion classical (as in, no quantum mechanics), or does your claim refer to any quantum effect?
When you say that "there is no event horizon", do you mean that ... ?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •I am afraid that my brain is too busy with "making money" these months so I can't be that engaged in such discussions....which is very sad to me but that's what this society makes out of us....we have to trade, else we can't make it.
As for your points I'd simply say what I said in the article. Gravity, from my understanding, is not very well understood nowadays. Maybe black matter is so heavy that's why it attracts matter into it and we think that's a black hole.
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Roma
in reply to Tio • •I may be too late to the party, but there are more good videos, explaining the blackholes scientifically and using very undestandable motion graphics:
youtube.com/watch?v=TLpfOUIFYu…
youtube.com/watch?v=uuWvJXZT5v…
This one is about the other objects in space:
youtube.com/watch?v=oLoLey75i2…
They even have one where you can imagine you are diving into a blackhole and what you perhaps can see (except being ripped apart immediately or "spaghettified" as serious scietists call it :D), again, according to the latest scientific theories and models are known to date (mind blowing!!!):
youtube.com/watch?v=4rTv9wvvat…
Here you can do that youselves in 360:
youtube.com/watch?v=17tEg_uTF_…
All in all, I recommenend that entire channel to watch, so you can take a grasp of very complex notions like space mechanics or quantum mechanics in a very digestable way: youtube.com/c/ScienceClicEN/vi…
Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Roma • •Roma likes this.
Roma
in reply to Tio • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Roma • •Roma likes this.
Roma
in reply to Tio • •Tio likes this.