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
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.
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
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.
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
"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.
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 - 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.
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 .
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, 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.
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.
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
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
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 !
> 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.
I think this video explains it well khanacademy.org/science/cosmol… - 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
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:
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 :).
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 🙂
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.
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 😂
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.
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).
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.
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 :)
> 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.
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 :).
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.
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
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 🤯
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 😂
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 :)
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?
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.
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?
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 😅
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
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 🙂
> 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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 🙂
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 🙂
> 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.
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 😉
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.
> 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.
I was suggesting that maybe they are entirely made out of Dark Matter. There is no "event horizon". How can this "solve" anything? Well in my mind they bring "home" these theories and are dealing with particles rather than unexplained forces and the ripping of space and the "disappearing" of matter and even light. If my theory would be true, and ofc probably is not, but if it was then is simply about different states of matter.
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 ... ?
We need an alternative relativistic theory of gravitation (ie an alternative to General Relativity (GR)), where there is no solution with event horizons
BH are formal solutions to gravity equations, but the black things we see in the sky are actually DM stars rather than BH
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.
I see, I wish you all the strength you need to overcome this. I have nothing against "necrobumping", so feel free to resurrect this conversation whenever you have the time for it !
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 Yeah, sure. Nice one, btw :) Maybe it will help to bring more details to your theory ;) Damn, I wish more convos like that in modern society. Like people theorizing stuff here and there about Universe, about their home. How much of a progress could we achieve with not only scientists thinking of it, but many more people involved..
I can imagine, man.. :( So called "civilized" society can't offer us more than trading ourselves to make a living and to help others to trade their shits by engaging into buying more and more stuff..
A new TROMjaro ISO is out and we have a FORUM! forum.tromjaro.com/ :) - finally! It is much easier to manage that for releases, bugs, and announcements. So from now one that's the place to visit if you want to report bugs, see about the new releases, or some tips we will provide. Changed a bit a few pages on tromjaro.com/ to reflect these changes. You can still follow these all via RSS tromjaro.com/follow/ but no more email updates for releases. #tromlive
I've heard that youtube is removing the dislike count from showing and people are baffled by it. But I don't see the point of dislike buttons to be honest, not that I care about the youtube ad-platform. If you dislike something then say what you disliked about. If you like something is like "I agree with this thing". But disliking gives no one anything useful. Our obsession with counting and labeling is just insane. All documentaries I've watched so far, thousands of them, had no like/dislike buttons or counters. I read about them, watch them, and have my own opinion. Simple.
Even for our Friendica I disabled the dislike button for my profile because I find it to be a knee jerk reaction button. Maybe something akin to reddit may make more sense, vote up or down, and see the total count of it. So if you vote 100 times up and 80 times down, you get a score of 20.
In any case these counters are a result of our trade based society where we label online stuff for the purpose of trading it. Views and likes and engagements equal money or other currencies and such. Else views
... Show more...
I've heard that youtube is removing the dislike count from showing and people are baffled by it. But I don't see the point of dislike buttons to be honest, not that I care about the youtube ad-platform. If you dislike something then say what you disliked about. If you like something is like "I agree with this thing". But disliking gives no one anything useful. Our obsession with counting and labeling is just insane. All documentaries I've watched so far, thousands of them, had no like/dislike buttons or counters. I read about them, watch them, and have my own opinion. Simple.
Even for our Friendica I disabled the dislike button for my profile because I find it to be a knee jerk reaction button. Maybe something akin to reddit may make more sense, vote up or down, and see the total count of it. So if you vote 100 times up and 80 times down, you get a score of 20.
In any case these counters are a result of our trade based society where we label online stuff for the purpose of trading it. Views and likes and engagements equal money or other currencies and such. Else views should make 0 sense, alongside likes and dislikes.
We have removed such things from our Peertube instance by default, so you don't know how many views, likes or dislikes a video has. It's much saner.
I know that the attention economy has given too much importance to these numbers, but I do think they have a point though. Usually people look at the like-dislike ratio on a video, so its similar to reddit in that way. Of course, the accuracy of this data depends on how many people have liked/disliked thr video and how the site deals with spam, which is an issue for sites like peertube.
My thoughts on getting rid of dislike counts.The blog post: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-to-youtube/That shirt! http://shop.MKBHD.comTech I'm ...
Even for things like documentaries, more scientific and fact based documentaries may have a better like to dislike ratio compared to blatantly wrong conspiracy ones.
And often times, the like/dislike ratio tells us more about the users of a platform than the quality of the content. For example, Peertube may have more engagement in tech videos because its built around that community. On that note, Without this info, how can I recognize if a video is underrated or not ?
Watch the video and judge for yourself. I have been watching so many videos and have eaten so much online content without a like/dislike ratio. Should be as simple as that.
I've been doing the same thing for years, I never really looked at any of these numbers and have been just consuming the content YouTube recommends me, that was the only thing I used my account for, lol. This was before I got into privacy/FOSS, now I don't even use my google account :)
But just because I don't personally use this feature, doesn't mean its useless for everyone. For me its kind of a habit, I never really take a moment to look at these numbers, haha 😁
Even these videos are a proof of why the dislike count is useless. They made videos about why they disagree with youtube's decision :). That's much better than they disliking youtube's decision :). If you simply dislike something, it tells no one why you did that.
Yes, I am all for critisism. But its not always possible for everyone to go around and criticise everything they disagree with, most people won't even have the time. For example, if I saw an antivax video on peertube, its much easier for me to dislike the video instead of commenting below trying to explain why they're wrong. There's already so many online content explaining vaccines, so I don't wanna waste my time arguing with someone over this. Disliking is a passive way of disagreeing :)
When you initially decided to remove the like/dislike counts, you said the same thing and I was supportive of it. This new decision from youtube and these videos are making me rethink about this thing. I remember someone from our matrix chat saying that he uses the dislike button. He said basically what I said above, he just don't wanna spent his time criticizing every video he dislikes, that's cumbersome :)
Yes, I am all for critisism. But its not always possible for everyone to go around and criticise everything they disagree with, most people won't even have the time.
Yah am not suggesting everyone who disagrees should make a video or leave a comment about that, but disliking it also makes no sense in my view.
For example, if I saw an antivax video on peertube, its much easier for me to dislike the video instead of commenting below trying to explain why they're wrong.
Yah I get you but then why not simply ignore it? Or just dislike it and the peertube system should have an algorithm so it knows what you disliked in order to not show you those kinds of videos. But having a public counter how does it help and who does it help?
> But having a public counter how does it help and who does it help?
Public counter is used to get a rough idea of the public opinion of a video. For example, if someone made a video with a misleading thumbnail, then that video would have a poor like-dislike ratio. If someone stumbles upon a nice video, how is he supposed to know that its underrated ? Without these counts, that info is hidden from them.
ugh....but misleading thumbnails are on pretty much all youtube videos, isnt it? and i didnt see people disliking these just for that reason. the public opinion can be ok at times, but in todays world i feel like it does more harm than good. lots or retarded videos with good rating, and good videos with poor rating.
> but misleading thumbnails are on pretty much all youtube videos, isnt it?
There are lot's of clickbaity videos on youtube, but if its just plain misleading then I assume people would dislike it a lot more. Because I don't take a look at these numbers myself, I'm not sure how people react to these nowadays, maybe they won't dislike it if the video is pretty good, IDK
> the public opinion can be ok at times, but in todays world i feel like it does more harm than good.
I know that likes/dislikes are not a good indication for the quality of the content, they just show you what the public thinks about it. That is the information it gives you, whether you agree with the public opinion is your choice. Perhaps my second question is more important here, without this data how would you know if a video is underrated or not ?
If I watch a video and liked it very much, I'd assume its a popular video but it might be underrated, there's no way to know without the like/dislike or watch counts.
Without any of these counts, I'd assume its a viral hit on peertube, based on just the quality of the content. But because I can see that this video only has 5 likes, I know this video is underrated and deserves more likes 😉
Video inspired by Sasha's article - https://www.bigworldsmallsasha.com/2020/01/07/prison-earth/ and recorded/edited by Dima https://dmitrylisenko.com/, Welcome to Prison Earth.
Underrated means a video doesn't have the popularity it deserves.
It'll help me understand the situations better, I would've wrongly believed that one video is viral just by looking at the quality.
For example, Imagine if TROM was super popular and you were getting thousands of emails a day. Would you be able to read all those messages ? Would you be able to make TROMcasts public if hundreds of people would join and overload the server ? That's quite a difference from how things are now.
But I dont get you....if our stuff is super popular or not, and I can't see that either way, how is it affecting me? Knowing that millions watch our videos or just 5 people, makes no difference for me. If the server is overloaded or our trom chats then that is something I will have to separately deal with.
As a content creator maybe you would see things differently from your perspective. Maybe it's easier for you to not care about these numbers. But not every creator would be the same though. But from a user's perspective, maybe we like to learn more about the creators we like. I gave an example of TROM to show how drastically different these things would be. For example if I'm writing an email to a creator, my message would be buried under thousands of others if the creator is super popular.
Also when talking about new/controversial ideas or opinions, I'd like to know how the public reacts to it. For example, I might like to know how well people receive ideas like nudism, which we did a TROMcast about. I know these wouldn't affect the quality of the content in any way, but I just like to know how well people recieve such ideas. It tells how open minded people are, and how well these videos work in changing public opinion.
Idk if these "advantages" outweigh the dis-advantages of such labeling systems. If you are worried that you may want to contact a creator but they are too popular, and you may not know that, this is not as relevant I think. You should try to contact them regardless. Lots of nonpopular creators don't give a shit about replying to emails, and the opposite is also true.
As for judging if some videos are well received by looking at the like/dislike counter....dik...is that relevant? Is the platform where it was posted relevant? Like if we post the video about nudity on fb/youtube vs peertube, I guess the audience is different.
Idk if these "advantages" outweigh the dis-advantages of such labeling systems.
The disadvantages lie in how people interpret this data, the data itself is not to blame. If people understand the limitations of this data, then its fine I think.
Is the platform where it was posted relevant?
This is what I said before, people's reaction changes from platform to platform. Peertube seems to be more revolved around the tech community, so we'll be getting the data from them.
Users should have the control, so if Peertube would allow me as user to disable/enable like/dislike buttons and view counts, then the admins should leave these options for the users. The reason I remove these from our Peertube is becuase users have no choice there. On Youtube they do have choices so I dont agree that youtube should decide for everyone and remove these options. Users should do that if they do not want to see such things on their videos or other videos.
However the dislike button makes no sense for me. It is a knee jerk reaction that tells nothing to the creator, and very little to the others.
Even though I don't personally mind any of these like/dislike counts, I still don't agree with youtube taking them away. I think people are pissed because they're taking away something without giving users a choice, basically forcing it upon people.
The way I see it, if someone don't care about these numbers, they can just ignore it, like how I do it. But it doesn't work the other way around, if you remove the button, its gone forever. This is what youtube did.
Letting each individual choose whether they wanna hide it or not would be the best thing, maybe peertube can add that as an anti-addiction feature or something. We already have such features in many mastodon clients - github.com/tuskyapp/Tusky/issu…
In todays world, we're surrounded by social media noise that hurts our mental wellbeing. I'd like to have a mode that cuts down on this to focus purely on the aspect of interacting with oth...
Yah I want to decide for myself ofc. This is why I did not remove the dislike button from our Friendica instance, only for myself from my settings....I don't wanna see this. Would be good if you can also disallow others to like/dislike your posts/videos. Let users decide ;)
Watched both videos. I would like to give them a dislike :). This one especially talks about how to be a prostitute and consider what people like/dislike on your channel.
If people see their videos as "careers" and "trading tools" then I get their frustration in both sides of the argument. And that I do not care at all about. :P
Even if you're not making content for trading/profit, you should still be open to criticisms and learn from these feedbacks, right ?
I'm not a content creator but AFAIK these feedbacks are helpful in improving the quality of the content. If I write a book, I'm doing it to share my ideas, and not caring about feedbacks would affect the quality of my content and I'll get less readers. This is fine, but if you're writing about something important, you want more people to read & know about it.
> That's why I recommend to remove the dislike button so you force people to give some useful feedback. A dislike tells you nothing.
Like I said, most people don't have the time to go around and criticize everything they see. Like/dislike button being a passive way of showing support/disagreement, more people will use it and the data will be more accurate. I think both comments and the like/dislike ratio is useful for getting feedbacks, they both compliment each other.
Ok we can agree to disagree then. As someone who created a lot of content over the years, a dislike is a 0 thing for me. Just an annoyance. Gives me no valuable feedback at all. And I am very open to criticism via email, comments, or the public matrix chat.
Here's a comment below that video which I thought was interesting:
When you show only the likes, everything just becomes about popularity, rather than quality; and the loudest opinions win, even if the majority disagree
It is already a popularity contest, and I was talking about removing the dislike button, since I am not in favor of showcasing the number of likes or even views.
You said you prefer the reddit's upvote/downvote system, so I don't think you're opposed to this idea of having a ratio/count. IIRC, You said you use this data for showing posts with high upvotes on tromnews, so it was useful to you :)
I didn't say I prefer the reddit one, I said that makes more sense than the like/dislike approach. I use high rated posts from reddit for tromnews so that we do not get a thousands posts a day. And they are from specific categories like photos from nature and such. It is a way to filter out the amount of them, not necessarily the quality. And that is a measurement of how many people liked a particular reddit post, nothing to do with the dislike button.
These days we will release a new TROMjaro Beta ISO. With the usual Manjaro updates + some fixes and new stuff from our part. Kinda tired these days trying to change my sleeping schedule and go to sleep earlier since the days got shorter. And I need to see the sun more often. Have some video editing ideas for TROM II that involve a digital tablet and a lav mic :). Should test them tomorrow! #tromlive
I think it is a bad idea for instance admins (fediverse) to ban entire instances. Unless there is a very very very serious motive behind it. And make it public when you do. Because this will cut ties with those instances and the users from your own instance will be unable to reach anyone from those banned instances. This is a dangerous game that many on the fediverse are playing. They seem to not grasp the consequences.
If we ever ban any instance then we will first announce it to all of our users, and then make it public. But unless there is severe spam flooding our servers, I do not see a reason to do that.
Users can block other users and for some federated networks they can block entire instances. Let the users decide! Not a handful of "admins". #tromlive
I would tend to agree for public instances. The Mastodon software doesn't have the same problem as PeerTube which tries to do suggestions and has the trending page, etc. which then will be flooded with nudity, conspiracy theories etc. which many users don't want to see in combination with their own content when you federate with everything.
The beauty of Peertube is that instance admins can say WHAT to be displayed on the trending page and so forth. Not what NOT. That's a much better approach. And then you also let users follow anyone they wish to from any peertube instance, rather than blocking entire instances so you can't even follow your friends from the banned instances. That's bad practice.
I'm admin on both so i might have a bit of a wrong perspective on things. But yeah from what you say it's a bit better in this regard for the user.
What I tried to say was that it's easier for an admin because they don't have a discovery page which shows stuff from other instances, therefor no real need to block instances nor to follow instances as an admin.
But if you're not admin and the admin blocks stuff it's not nice. At least you can move to a different instance.
Yes I understand what you mean, I was just surprised to know that peertube works this way, I thought that peertube admins could cut out connections to other instances entirely, but it seems like I was wrong.
BTW, mastodon has global timeline instead of the discovery page on peertube, so don't they both have this issue ? @tio
On Peertube the Admin can follow whole instances which I tried to do, to get recommendations, but then pictures of naked people would show up as recommended under videos about children in my extended family so I removed all big instances and only follow very small ones. Since last update there is a great feature that the Admin can follow specific channels instead to need to follow a whole instance. It's much easier to keep your list of channels clean.
I think you can also block servers but am not sure how it works. It is ok to have this power, but not ok to use it unless it is a MUST. And you should be fully transparent about it, else is a shit show with users unable to find certain videos/channels and subscribe to them if they use your instance.
That's the issue tho, you can get blocked (instance wise) and you won't be able to follow anyone and such. That's a bad practice. Imagine if you are banned by several major mastodon platforms, what do you do then? This is a mob-like approach that I do not support.
Email is a federated service just like the fediverse, and now Gmail & Yahoo mail instance is so big that they have more power over the network. And they're blocking other email servers left & right, without much thought. The same thing can happen on fediverse, even now we have big instances like mastodon.social with most of the users on the network. This is a limitation of the federation approach, we'd have to move to p2p networks like scuttlebutt.nz in the future. @tio
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!
For all kinds of reasons. Instead of users blocking your own personal instance, other instances may block you and thus block you for hundreds/thousands of users who may have not wanted that. Admins deciding these for so many users is very wrong.
Yah p2p is the way, but scuttlebutt was also talking about some reputation points to kick out "bad" people from connecting with anyone, since you need PUBS to connect with others. We need real p2p connections with no middle man. Or a middleman that just connects the peers and has no say in to who it connects with who.
From what I understand, scuttlebutt can be used to connect directly with peers. Pubs are just optional, and they have the same power as a user on scuttlebutt, the only difference is that it'll be online most of the time. I hope they don't fuck things up with this reputation system of theirs, but if its a decentralized kinda system that can be used by you & your friends without much global impact, that seems OK to me. @tio @selea
I like moderation to be like how adblockers work today, we make a list of users that could be blocked, and we categorise them into topics like nudity, violence, etc. so we can choose what to block. This kinda system should be opt in and shouldn't block anyone by default. Ublock origin allows us to use different blocklists, so we can change from one to other easily, the same should be true here. If a blocklist has problems, we can criticize it and/or fork it if necessary.
While I was working on TROM II I see an email alert from one of my websites, that 4 or so suspicious files called ".bt" are located in directories they should not belong to. This was tromsite.com so I was worried. After looking a bit more into it, it was clear...this was a virus. One that injects code into the website and redirects parts of the website to some bullshit pharmaceutical sites, to sell nonsense. Fuck...
After digging into it I finally managed to trace it. They infect php files. I got a hold of what the code looks like, logged into the server via SSH, did a "sudo su" to have root privileges, and did a find . -name '*.bt' -print inside that wordpress folder, to see where all of the ".bt" files are located. Then deleted them on by one with "rm ". Of course I the realized the virus creates these files all the time, so that's not a solution, and they are not the "virus" but an outcome of it.
Finally I searched all .php files that contained get_data_ya with find . -name '*.py' -print0 | xargs -0 grep 'get_data_ya' > output.txt
... Show more...
While I was working on TROM II I see an email alert from one of my websites, that 4 or so suspicious files called ".bt" are located in directories they should not belong to. This was tromsite.com so I was worried. After looking a bit more into it, it was clear...this was a virus. One that injects code into the website and redirects parts of the website to some bullshit pharmaceutical sites, to sell nonsense. Fuck...
After digging into it I finally managed to trace it. They infect php files. I got a hold of what the code looks like, logged into the server via SSH, did a "sudo su" to have root privileges, and did a find . -name '*.bt' -print inside that wordpress folder, to see where all of the ".bt" files are located. Then deleted them on by one with "rm ". Of course I the realized the virus creates these files all the time, so that's not a solution, and they are not the "virus" but an outcome of it.
Finally I searched all .php files that contained get_data_ya with find . -name '*.py' -print0 | xargs -0 grep 'get_data_ya' > output.txt . Checked the output.txt file and I FOUND it! It was the ./wp-includes/pomo/mo.phpthat was infected. I downloaded a fresh copy of Wordpress and since this is a core file I replaced it with the main Wordpress file. Done.
For now all seems good.
It appears that they were able to infect our website because of some outdated plugins. The main suspect is a premium one that I bought from codecanyon and since they do not provide auto-updates (and thus I have to manually keep an eye on the releases + update it on the website), I failed to update it in months. See!? The Bullshit trade game. "If you want this, give me that!" and because of this humans have to put barriers that are fucking atrocious. If this plugin was open source it would be easy peasy. Push updates to all who have it installed. But this other mother fuckers who trade software for money, have to restrict it and then they can't provide updates easily...
Anyways...seems to be ok now but I will keep on monitoring the website closely. #tromlive
I almost toasted our trom.tf server while trying to fix invidious....that's it am giving up for now. Removed invidious and nitter form torm.tf temporarily. Alexio may install them on his own server so we test with that, while keeping the same domain names. I do not need this stress in my life haha. Damn I dodged the bullet there. Lesson learned. See status.trom.tf #tromlive
I saw a brief 502 error with friendica today....but was very brief....maybe a hiccup I hope. Our invidious didnt work for like 12h last night. I think it still works hella better than before but I need to force it restart every couple of hours as it is officially recommended. So the trains still work well. I worked a bit on TROM II today. Will make it a priority from now on. @Future is FOSS created a wonderful script to fix a nasty thing with XFCE and the .desktop files. You see basically if you install an app on TROMjaro (flatpak, repos, or snaps) then edit it via right click from the XFCE menu or via MenuLibre, and change the name of this app or add it to a new category, then what XFCE does is to create a new .desktop file in the home .local/share/applications.
Problem is, if you uninstall this tweaked app then the app is still present in XFCE's menu like a zombie. You click it and nothing happens. So you have to know to delete the .desktop file for that app fr
... Show more...
I saw a brief 502 error with friendica today....but was very brief....maybe a hiccup I hope. Our invidious didnt work for like 12h last night. I think it still works hella better than before but I need to force it restart every couple of hours as it is officially recommended. So the trains still work well. I worked a bit on TROM II today. Will make it a priority from now on. @Future is FOSS created a wonderful script to fix a nasty thing with XFCE and the .desktop files. You see basically if you install an app on TROMjaro (flatpak, repos, or snaps) then edit it via right click from the XFCE menu or via MenuLibre, and change the name of this app or add it to a new category, then what XFCE does is to create a new .desktop file in the home .local/share/applications.
Problem is, if you uninstall this tweaked app then the app is still present in XFCE's menu like a zombie. You click it and nothing happens. So you have to know to delete the .desktop file for that app from that folder.... NOT good!
There is no other way...
So we made a script that basically fixes this automagically, thanks to @Future is FOSS . I love it and this is how it should actually be. #tromlive
Seems like our trains work well :) and that makes me happy. Except our Nitter instance that's restarting every other minute, all works great is seems. It is relaxing when all works well... #tromlive
This page shows in almost real time the status of all of our websites. And it is hosted and managed by Alexio so that if our servers are down, this page won't be affected.
Big thanks to Alexio for this!
Such a page is important especially for trom.tf services, so that you can see what services are more reliable. And for us to keep track of what websites may not work properly, so that we can fix them. #tromimg
I am going live in an unusual way. Talking about FAcebook Meta videos.trom.tf/w/81mQvysgPGp9G… - actually I will watch their presentation and see what thoughts I have about it.
A big thank you to those that keep on supporting us monthly/weekly! We have enough money to make it till (maybe) March. See https://www.tromsite.com/donate/
You support 39 trade-free books, hundreds of videos, a documentary + one in the making; You support a curated news/videos website that is updated daily; another website full of trade-free documentaries and courses; a trade-free Operating System + hundreds of hand curated trade-freee apps; 24 trade-free services that are alternatives to big online services from google services to facebook and so forth; you support our Trade Free Directory and more.
We do a ton of these and we push this trade-freee idea!
If you can, please help us so that we keep on doing these. Being low on money will put a pressure on us and the project. #tromlive
These also seemed to have fixed @Aaron 's instance. I would be so happy if that's the case. But lets give it a week or so and then I can say for sure.
I've also done the same change to our Invidious and so far works great. No more 502 nginx errors. But, I also don't want to celebrate this too early.
So let's see....
Tomorrow I want to do some stuff from my to-do list, like add a new documentary to VN, do some tromjaro stuff to prepare for the new ISO, and such. To then be free again for TROM II, who waits for me :) .
Everything else is fine. ofc except money :D. haha #tromlive
Tio
Unknown parent • •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
Unknown parent • • •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.
Rokosun
Unknown parent • • •@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
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.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
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....
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •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.
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 • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
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
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@tychosoft
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
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 Rokosun • • •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.
Tio
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 • • •Rokosun
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.
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.
Rokosun
Unknown parent • • •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 • •At least thats what they theorize ;)
Same for a black hole, it extends far more than that dark disk (ball).
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.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •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 :)
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 • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
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 • • •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 • • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •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 • •Rokosun likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Maybe it does....
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.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •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 • • •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 Tio • • •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 🙂
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.
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 😀
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 🙂
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 • •Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
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.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •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.
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 likes this.
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 • • •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 • • •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.
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 • •Rokosun likes this.
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.