Skip to main content


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

https://www.tiotrom.com/2021/11/my-theory-about-black-holes/

Future is FOSS reshared this.

this touches upon two conjectures. Some have suggested primordial black holes to explain dark matter. And recently some have suggested dark matter can convert ordinary matter into dark as well as tying that process into the question of dark energy.
And recently some have suggested dark matter can convert ordinary matter into dark as well as tying that process into the question of dark energy.
Any link for this one? I am interested :D
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.191802
As for primordial black holes being dark matter... https://www.cnet.com/features/black-holes-slamming-into-the-moon-could-end-the-dark-matter-debate/
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 😂
idk what you talk about with that singularity :D - any source?
Ah you mean "At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.". that's just a "may". :) So may-be they are wrong, or maybe the describe it weirdly. Or maybe it is but us still made out of dark matter :). Why is my theory making things more confusing if at the center of a black ball is such an immense gravitational pull that they call it a "singularity" point? :)
AFAIK, general theory of relatively is proven. I don't know if singularity makes space-time curvature infinitive, that's kinda confusing because infinity a theoretical. For example, we consider sun's rays as parallel even though its not at an infinite distance from earth, so the context matters.
Because I don't know the mathematics behind all this, I'm not sure which infinity they meant. Its possible that they meant the true theoretical infinity. I've heard the quote "black holes are where god divided by zero", so there's definitely some weird mathematics going on. I think Hawking radiation disproved that statement, IDK 🤔. Its been a while since I last heard about black holes, haha. Anyway, these things are weird AF, they're too dense for us to grasp ;)
Yup they are weird and real. That's mind blowing!
> 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.
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.
> 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
Yah ofc they are weird, I just entertained an idea I had. It is a fun discussion. But to have answers you need to do science, and that I cannot :D . I love these mysteries.
Yeah, its fun to think about stuff like this, I used to do that all the time. But without doing the actuall science, all we do is kinda like a philosophical pondering of the endless possibilities, its still fun though 🙂
@tychosoft
oh no not the word "philosophical" hahaah. We are just curious. :D thats all.
Does the word philosophy confuse you ? Haha, I'm just curious 😄
@tychosoft
It is very much associated with the field "philosophy". Which I hate since it is a lot of bla bla bla. You can't murder every interesting conversation by calling it philosophy haha. It is simply an interesting conversation. I don't want to talk about reason, and logic, and nonsense concepts :D - i am just allergic to that word.
We try to categorize things into different topics. This is sometimes helpful, like if someone said they're interested in physics and someone else is interested in chemistry, we'll have a rough idea of what they mean. But often times we can't really categorize everything into one or the other. Like asking if a hyena is a dog or a cat ? We invented these words like cat & dog, they're not real.
@tychosoft
I don't know if it should be called philosophy, but there should be a word for things that cannot be disproved, but can't really be proved either. There are people who argue that free will is an illusion, and some others say we might be living in a simulation. There's no way to disprove these theories, we can only just ponder about them.
"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 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

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.
Yes but philosophy means very much nothing of essence. And we talk about categorizing not animals and such, but discussions, which is even more abstract. It is great to think and come up with ideas about whatever you like, but to make a "category" out of these is too much for my personal comfort. I do not think it helps :P .
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
Well I had several discussions with people who studied "philosophy" and they all ended up very badly with them bla bla blaing so much that even they got confused. Maybe my distaste comes form there.
I've never talked with anyone who've studied philosophy, so I don't know. Because a lot of these are just speculations, I assume a lot of shitty theories might've ended up in this field, haha. But if you talk talk to the right person, I think every field can be interesting ;)
@tychosoft
idk...philosophy to me, from what I've read about it, is a confusing and bla bla bla field. But I am sure there are interesting aspects of it.
To me makes more sense than a "hole" in the universe :D. wtf is a hole haha. Things "get in" but where do they go? These "holes" radiate and have a mass....they have other objects orbiting around them....they can collide with other "holes" and create bigger holes. Seems more weird to me than these are just another type of star, a black star with a gravitational pull so huge that even light can't escape.
Its not actually a hole, you know that right. It just pulls everything in to the singularity, that's just an extremely powerful gravity. And for where does this matter go, there are theories saying its like wormhole, so it spews everything it swallows somewhere else. There's also Hawking radiation, which is more widely accepted I think. It solves this information paradox, because it shows that black holes radiate away.
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
"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.
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....
This video explains it very well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqsLTNkzvaY

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.
Yup very good video. Explains very well. However considering that it is is difficult to understand these monsters even my theory may end up being correct haha. In the end doesn't matter at all, what matters is that these exist and are mind blowing.
Yeah, like I said, the reality might be even more crazier that both of our theories, lol 😂
It very likely is!
BTW, from what I know about black holes, they don't have a shape. I've heard about spinning black holes, but never a cube/pyramid shaped one 😁
Well we can't observer them, remember!? But we can observe the outer side of them when they have lunch, and we for sure see a disk-like shape. Which can, in fact be spherical.
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
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
Could also be that there is no such thing as singularity...
If the event horizon is spherical, the stuff inside should be spherical too right ?
Sounds right to me but how can we know :D. If I think about my black ball theory then yes haha.
> 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.
Isn't a star that's 1km in diameter and has 1 tonne mass, having the same gravitational pull of a star that's 10km in size and still 1 tonne?
Yeah you're right, the gravitational pull will only differ with mass and distance, I was thinking of the spacetime curvature analogy.
But if you think about it, size does make a difference. If you're falling into a 10km size star with 1 tonne mass, you'll experience the same gravitational pull as a 1km size star with the same mass. But remember, gravity increases when distance between you and the star reduces, so you'll keep on accelerating as you move closer to the star. So on a 10km size star, the closest you can get to it is 5km (its radius). But on a 1km size star, you can go up to 0.5km where gravity is stronger 🙂
I think this video explains it well https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/stellar-life-topic/cepheid-variables/v/why-gravity-gets-so-strong-near-dense-objects - if am object is much smaller but has the same mass, then an object can get closer so the gravity is much stronger. But now we know that even the black ball, what they call as event horizon , is much smaller than a star. So it is already insanely dense and small. Like crushing multiple stars in a few km round object. Now what they are saying from what I understand from you, is that this mass of a black hole is not that black disk we observe, but a tiny point in the middle. This sounds very insane haha. Might be true tho, but insane. My black ball theory sounds less insane in that regard :D
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.
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.
At least thats what they theorize ;)
And gravitational field is always much larger than the size of the object, think about sun pulling on earth.
Same for a black hole, it extends far more than that dark disk (ball).
> 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 :)
hahaahha no no i am familiar with that. but maybe there is a very dense ball from which light can't escape, or maybe it is made out of dark matter and we don0t know wtf that is :).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sr1Xeocuuc

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.
So when a star dies and it collapses under its own gravity, 3 things can happen. If the repulsion between electrons are able to prevent the collapse, then it becomes a white dwarf. If the repulsion between neutrons stop the collapse, then it becomes a neutron star. But if the star is too massive and even those nuclear forces can't stop the collapse, then there's no other force known to science that can stop it from collapsing on its own. So it collapses into an infinitely dense point !
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 !
The reason why we can't compress everything into a point in real life is the same reason why I can't push my hand through the wall. The atoms/electrons in my hand repulses the atoms/electrons in the surface of the wall. But inside the black hole, the gravity is so strong that it overcomes these repulsion between atoms, so there's no other force to prevent it from collapsing into a point.
No matter how much stuff you throw into a black hole, the singularity will remain the same size. The mass of the black hole will increase and thus the gravity increases, so the event horizon will get bigger. But the actual size of the singularity won't increase, it'll just collapse everything into that infinitely dense point. This is just insane 🤯
My intuition tells me that if more stuff gets sucked into the black hole, the singularity should get bigger. But it doesn't !

Maybe it does....
I don't think it does, haha. I know its a little hard to understand but that's what makes black holes interesting, its not like anything we've seen before.
That's what they "suppose" :). I agree that this may be the case, but considering they know very little about these things, speculation is still a toy we can safely play with.
Ofc, I get your point. I'm not saying that its "the truth", we can only speculate. I just meant that that's how I see black holes, and it makes the entire thing quite interesting for me ;)
Yes but what if under that tremendous pressure it creates dark matter? :) I dont see that as a wild idea.
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 😅
That disk shape could also be something called "gravitational lensing" which happens around the event horizon. Its kinda weird TBH, crazy things start to happen when the gravitational pull is so high !
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:

https://ytb.trom.tf/watch?v=poE8CuucCEg
https://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 :).
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 😂
Thank you for engaging as well, we could discuss these things for hours without getting bored, haha 😄
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
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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"
Its also hard for me to call singularity a "ball" because now I have a better understanding of why they theorized it to be point sized. Even if it wasn't point sized, I still find it hard to call something so tiny a "ball". Would you call atoms a "ball" ? IDK, sounds weird to me.
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 😂
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 ?
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?
> 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 ?
> 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."
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.
AFAIK, We defined them even before finding one IRL
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.
If your theory proved to be right, they'll probably change the name from black holes to something like black balls (which you suggested) since it wouldn't fit the definition of a black hole. So instead of saying there's a black hole at the centre of every galaxy, they'll be saying there's a black ball there 😉
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Yah well when a star becomes a black hole I suppose it loses mass in the process of collapsing, squashing all of those atoms in the process.
I find it impossible to imagine it is a "point sized". What in the world does that mean? haha. Ofc this can be true, but I find this one to be so wild. Much wilder than perhaps it is a "dark star" made out of matter we do not grasp now.
Yes, you'll find it hard to imagine a point sized object cause its vastly different from anything we've ever seen. I don't know how to explain this, but I'll try. You just have to think about why a point sized object can't exist in our day to day life. If you think about it from the perspective of atoms and particles, then you'll understand that its because of the repulsion between these particles. Black holes are born when stars collapse that are massive enough to overcome all repulsions.
> 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 😀
Black holes are born when stars collapse that are massive enough to overcome all repulsions.
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.
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 🙂
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......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb38jozeDOs
Yah quantum entanglement is the craziest shit I've ever heard of. I highly recommend this documentary about the topic https://www.videoneat.com/documentaries/18789/einsteins-quantum-riddle/
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 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKdaRJ3vAmA
I'll do this one day when I buy a laser, a cheap one should be enough I think.
Very cool I will try. I am not not confused by this at all!
Atoms are different. We are talking here about a collapsed star, not atoms. But a group of atoms or some new kind of particles. A group of.
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 🙂
Yes but as far as I know sub atomic particles do not "obey" the laws of physics. They had to come up with quantum physics to explain them. A star is different, on a different level. I get your point, but an atom is not a "point" either. And is not round either, of course. It is a wobbly thing with clouds of electrons around them, and a core made out of protons and neutrons.
Yeah, I was just trying to say how I can't call something so tiny like singularity a ball. Ofc, it'd be different if your theory is right and is actually a star/planet, then we can call it a ball. This is why I said we have different POV when we think about a black hole, the singularity comes to my mind but maybe a ball made of dark matter comes to your mind 🙂
Stars do not have to be a "luminous spheroid of plasma", same way that what they call a planet should not necessarily be an object of X size that clears its orbiting path of debris/asteroids. Also, aren't moons same as planets?
> 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.
We call it a blach "hole" because of a movie theater or something like that, which was called the "black hole". About a prison where inmates will go but never come back. Just like matter seems to go inside of these "black stars" and never come back. So the naming was quite random.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I only have a rough idea of what black holes are, I don't know anything about its academic background 😁
And ofc that mathematician could be wrong, same as Einstein, Hawking, and the rest.
True, but the chance of us being wrong is much higher, lol 😂
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

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 :)
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
Or gravity....they thought for sure it is a force...
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 🙂
If science corrects itself, is always through science ;) . That's the cool part about it!
Isn't time also a human concept? We name time the transformation of stuff that we observe. I never understood what they mean by time. It is not like a thing...
We've invented a lot of such things, take charges for example. Someone went up and said "Let's assume there are 2 kinds of charges, +ve and -ve. Unlike charges attract & like charges repel", and we just kinda roll with it. Why does unlike charges attract & like ones repel ? Why does it have to be like that ? These questions don't matter as long as we're able to make useful predictions with our model. -ve numbers are also an invention, before there were only +ve numbers, and none before that
No I still don't get "time". What is time? I could never understand that. Like they say time goes slowly or may go faster, but aren0t they saying transformations that we observe in nature are slower or faster. Time doesn't slow down or go fast. Changes may. Like you know that experiment (mental one) that if twins are split apart, one spins around the earth at tremendous speeds, the other one stays on earth. Then the one that spins is a bit younger. They say because "time slowed down for him". But in my mind is not. Simply the human body (that twin) "transformed" (grew) slower. Maybe acceleration makes some particles react slower. And I think they proved that. But that's kinda it isnt it? :D
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.
How does this dark matter singularity become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map ?
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 :).
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.
Nah I just click reply. Maybe mastodon doesn't know how to interpret these haha. Mastodon replies are so weird.