Black Hole Lecture at Stanford, April 2nd

[IndyIan]

Yes, I meant astronomy.

I’m pretty sure the number of astronomers that have access to the latest telescopes, especially the ones that belong to NASA is quite limited. Therefore I don’t think it’s quite as open for peer review as people think.

Just look at archeology, we are still teaching people that the pyramids were built about 5000 years ago, by a bunch of slaves with bronze or rock chisels, where there is plenty of evidence machine cutting tools being used.

So if the “science” cannot even acknowledge these marks with plenty of physical evidence, how can they even come close to claiming they “know” what is out there in the universe thousands of light years away?

Archeologists and Astronomers/Astrophysicists aren't the same people, and they don't get together and plot how to fool the "common man" with their "fake science" claims.
They spend their working lives doing their studies and research in their field and publish their best efforts on what they can "prove" to other experts in their field. Articles for peer reviewed publications need to make sense and be backed up by existing provable facts.

 

[KrisZ]

Archeologists and Astronomers/Astrophysicists aren't the same people, and they don't get together and plot how to fool the "common man" with their "fake science" claims.
They spend their working lives doing their studies and research in their field and publish their best efforts on what they can "prove" to other experts in their field. Articles for peer reviewed publications need to make sense and be backed up by existing provable facts.

Never said they collude, just gave an example of something that we can physically examine and the “experts” seem to be bent to push the established archeological theories and ignore physical evidence that could potentially question them.

With astronomy it’s so much easier to maintain “status quo” since it is all based on observation and not physical evidence.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Never said they collude, just gave an example of something that we can physically examine and the “experts” seem to be bent to push the established archeological theories and ignore physical evidence that could potentially question them.

With astronomy it’s so much easier to maintain “status quo” since it is all based on observation and not physical evidence.

That's not true.

 

[KrisZ]

That's not true.

What physical evidence do you have in mind then?

 

[Hermann]

Maybe the same way the toilet gets backed up....

Keefer with FOS. An actual product.

FOS Inhibits the Differentiation of Intramuscular Adipocytes in Goats

Goat intramuscular fat (IMF) deposition is precisely regulated by many key genes as well as transcription factors. Nevertheless, the potential of the regulators of goat IMF deposition remains undefined. In this work, we reported that the transcription factor FOS is expressed at a low level at...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Astro14]

I always wandered if there was a way to plug or disrupt a black hole?

No. Matter crossing the event horizon is gone, and there is no matter than will not be affected by the extreme gravity. The event horizon has a radius (Schwartzchild radius, based on the mass of the singularity) but the event horizon exists as a sphere. It won’t “suck” you in any more than a star of the same mass will “suck you in” at the same distance, because gravity is gravity, but that event horizon is very, very close to the center of the mass from the singularity, so, accretion happens in binary pairs as depicted in the artists conception.

Throw matter, any matter, of any kind, of any quantity, at a black hole, and it will be added to the mass. That’s it.

That said, black holes may evaporate over time via Hawking radiation, a quantum effect.

 

[thastinger]

never seen a black hole.

Although the comet will be something I will see. Today starts the better viewing . Were clear tonight.

Is that the one that spun out from Uranus?

 

[IndyIan]

What physical evidence do you have in mind then?

Independently repeatable measurable observations are physical evidence. That is a neat thing about science, is that to claim a new discovery, you have to share how you made the discovery, so others can repeat it.

 

[Hermann]

Is that the one that spun out from Uranus?

Not sure, there has been two comets recently. Going to give it a whirl tonight to catch a glimpse. I have a nice pair of binoculars. I think this one has been tracked for quite awhile. The previous comet which was a surprise I believe, a bust for people without a telescope. The binoculars I am using did great during the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. They have great depth of field.

 

[JeffKeryk]

What physical evidence do you have in mind then?

From Webb.

 

[JeffKeryk]

No. Matter crossing the event horizon is gone, and there is no matter than will not be affected by the extreme gravity. The event horizon has a radius (Schwartzchild radius, based on the mass of the singularity) but the event horizon exists as a sphere. It won’t “suck” you in any more than a star of the same mass will “suck you in” at the same distance, because gravity is gravity, but that event horizon is very, very close to the center of the mass from the singularity, so, accretion happens in binary pairs as depicted in the artists conception.

Throw matter, any matter, of any kind, of any quantity, at a black hole, and it will be added to the mass. That’s it.

That said, black holes may evaporate over time via Hawking radiation, a quantum effect.

Astro, quick clarification question for you. Is the matter gone or cannot escape? Do we know?
By the way, far more eloquent explanation than mine. I think you would love these lectures.

Professor Katherine Blundell was so inspiring; she nearly had us in tears. The video is good, but the good Professor painted such a vivid picture with her Cockney accent and enthusiasm, and out of this world knowledge. It was almost like she led us by the hand through this adventure.

 

[MolaKule]

View attachment 212112

This quote leaves questions such as:

If you don't have faith in science or the scientific field in which you're working, then why are you engaged in it?

 

[Pablo]

No. Matter crossing the event horizon is gone, and there is no matter than will not be affected by the extreme gravity. The event horizon has a radius (Schwartzchild radius, based on the mass of the singularity) but the event horizon exists as a sphere. It won’t “suck” you in any more than a star of the same mass will “suck you in” at the same distance, because gravity is gravity, but that event horizon is very, very close to the center of the mass from the singularity, so, accretion happens in binary pairs as depicted in the artists conception.

Throw matter, any matter, of any kind, of any quantity, at a black hole, and it will be added to the mass. That’s it.

That said, black holes may evaporate over time via Hawking radiation, a quantum effect.

Say we somehow create an antimatter bomb or antimatter generator - and send that baby in. What happens? Crushed before activation or ???

This quote leaves questions such as:

If you don't have faith in science or the scientific field in which you're working, then why are you engaged in it?

I see what you did there

I don't have a shred of faith our leaders will act exactly as the science demonstrates - without twisting to their will. Because it happens with frightening regularity.

 

[JeffKeryk]

This quote leaves questions such as:

If you don't have faith in science or the scientific field in which you're working, then why are you engaged in it?

Well, faith is a very broad term. You might define faith as something you believe in but cannot prove...
In my case, I may not have faith in something, especially if I cannot understand it. So it is curiosity that keeps me engaged.
These lectures give me perspective. There are bigger things than Tesla vs ICE, thick vs thin, and so on.

Science is man's endless search for truth in nature.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Say we somehow create an antimatter bomb or antimatter generator - and send that baby in. What happens? Crushed before activation or ???

My (perhaps poor) understanding is simply that the gravitational pull of the black hole is so great that the object would need to travel faster than the speed of light to escape the event horizon.

 

[thastinger]

Just look at archeology, we are still teaching people that the pyramids were built about 5000 years ago, by a bunch of slaves with bronze or rock chisels, where there is plenty of evidence machine cutting tools being used.

Concur. That same society still exists today, yet can't make a toaster, but we're supposed to believe they were able to cut/transport/lay one 2.5 ton block every 4 minutes, 24/7, for 30 years.

 

[Pablo]

Science is man's endless search for truth in nature.

No one really has a problem with [that].

It's the application

No one has a problem with material science and the strength of materials, being used to build better structures and bridges etc............no one has a huge problem even with space or ocean exploration or better sources and uses of energy or better lubricants

People do have a problem with experimenting on humans (and lower animals to some extent) with shots and shutting down all enterprise to "flatten the curve" (term not at all used properly BTW) or mandating one type of car or another. We have moved from search to dictating via fake or twisted science. And yet even if scientists try to speak against this type of thing, they are ostracized by the very foundation they put their faith in.

And don't get me started on whole funding circle jerk, rewarded by findings to keep the project going........ugg the worst!

 

[MolaKule]

...But you are right; these theories came from thought processes.

Just a reminder from earlier posts, if we follow the scientific method then it goes something like this:

Supposition or conjecture about how a topic or phenomenon might be explained,

A hypothesis is formed which contains the above suppositions and or conjectures and is/may be further explained with a set of mathematics, a mathematical model,

The mathematics may then be placed into a dynamic simulation package to predict how the phenomena may change over time,

Any future experiment or further discovery may result in falsification of the original Hypothesis, "Nulling" this Hypothesis,

A dynamic simulation does not constitute any "proof" of a hypothesis.

Too summarize: By ‘science’ we refer to the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation is the key core of science. So, we must ask of any claims or any model, have they been observationally or experimentally demonstrated?

 

[KrisZ]

Independently repeatable measurable observations are physical evidence. That is a neat thing about science, is that to claim a new discovery, you have to share how you made the discovery, so others can repeat it.

So when we sent a man to the moon to collect measurements and bring back a bunch of rocks and other material, we did that why exactly?

 

[Astro14]

Say we somehow create an antimatter bomb or antimatter generator - and send that baby in. What happens? Crushed before activation or ???

Like a drop of water added to the ocean - it won't make any difference.

Look, black holes can range from microscopic (primordial black holes, which may be tiny) to enormous (the center of a galaxy) Most of these things are the remnant of an exploding star - and so have masses roughly analogous to that of our sun. So, let's look at a "run of the mill" type black hole, like the one depicted by @JeffKeryk - call it one solar mass.

So, you make a bomb with a million tons of matter, or anti-matter, whatever. A million tons added, or subtracted to something that is roughly 2 x 10 to 27 tons.

Or, you have made a difference of about 0.00000000000000000001% - it won't matter.

Energy of the bomb? Again, doesn't matter. In the accretion disc depicted, millions of tons of matter are crossing the event horizon every second. So, your bomb? Your million ton bomb? Let's say you get it to the black hole, and blow it up right before gravitational forces* destroy it.

Meh, it's adding a fraction of the energy that that black hole is already adding every second. Won't even register on an instrument watching this.

*Gravity, at the event horizon (determined by the Schwarzschild radius), can range from relatively normal (in a supermassive black hole) to several thousand times that we experience. For our hypothetical one solar mass black hole, it's going to be on the order of thousands, to millions, of G. There are some considerations we haven't gone into, like spin, but close enough, the tidal forces would destroy anything we could build.