Ok, I got a lot to say but Im just gonna ask you this right now:

What mathematical theory is that?



Nobody knows whats inside a blackhole and/or what happens exactly, who are those thousand and thousands of people you speak of?

People can only guess exactly like me.
Only now they are coming up with technology linking telescopes around the globe to further study whats inside a blackhole like.
My theory is beyond that particular study, Im already bringing out the next revelation.. which as it seems someone thought about something similar too before..

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Jan 15 2013 03:12pm

general relativity for the most part

Don't need to know these things to show what you said is wrong and here is why:


The process where a star implodes and ends up ejecting a large amount of mass happens even when a black hole is not formed. When a black hole is formed, the ejection of the mass takes place before creation of the black hole. Basically if there is enough mass in a small enough region after the ejection, a black hole will eventually form. You see you are saying the black hole is the cause, and the ejection is an effect, but the black hole forms (if one even forms at all) after the ejection.... you have the cart before the horse.

Black holes don't really collapse. Any region of space that contain more than a certain amount of mass becomes a black hole. A black hole has a fixed size for its mass, and to change this size, mass has to be either added (throwing stuff into the black hole), or removed (much more complicated process, but it seems like this is also possible). This is one of the very unusual features of a black hole, that it's size is fixed by just its mass. If you know the mass of a black hole, then you know its size. If you know its size, then you know its mass. This is very weird compared to our regular lives where you might have a very small 10 pound weight, or a very large box that weighs less than 1 pound.



This post was edited by Azrad on Jan 15 2013 03:46pm

lol

Did you know that the only place until today where general relativity dies is in a blackhole and further? And youre calling it to aid you ^^

Besides how can you relate general relativity with any of what I said?

Again, you have said ANYTHING within the context of this thread. Please try to.

All you guys doing is:

- oh youre wrong because youre not a physicist
- oh thats not science
- oh thousands of educated people know about this and have it all documented (when the truth is no one knows)
- oh general relativity (this one is my favorite as everyone refers to it when they got nothing else to say)

Comon guys, are you a fan of science or not?

Get down to the facts please.

Do you agree with this theory? Yes or not and why?
Do you know something about it (maybe you read or heard)? yes or no and what?

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Jan 15 2013 03:37pm

I want someone to make a real Jurassic Park

get this through your head. you "theory" does not match observation..... therefore it is wrong..... it is just that simple.

I went to the trouble to try to explain some of those problems and well it seems you don't care. Which is the calling card of a crackpot.

This post was edited by Azrad on Jan 15 2013 03:48pm

You are talking about before a blackhole is formed, I am talking about AFTER the blackhole is formed.
I never said stars, I said singularity which is the center of a blackhole.



Blackholes DO collapse, whatever you heard is nothing but guesses, no one knows for sure what happens beyond the existence of a blackhole.
Theres actually a couple of explanations out there (again guesses) about why they CAN collapse.
Also by "collapse" I mean that field stops existing by the explosion of its singularity, which is what we call the "bigbang"

When I refer to dark matter Im talking about the space in between galaxies AND outside big groups of galaxies which is where you "find" most of the dark matter.


See, heres what:

One star
It implodes
Creates blackhole
Sucks up tons of matter
Singularity explodes
Expands and the matter it releases bumps away the other existent matter surrounding it
Because it comes out strong off the explosion, so it bumps.. but some will be attracted back to it because of the gravity off its mass, thats why different shapes and sizes of galaxies
Also galaxies have a spiral effect out of these bigbangs and bumps.
This matter is transformed into stars and planets.
A galaxy is born.

Mass as gravity
Matter as glue
Matter doesnt "glue" to dark matter (besides interacting with it)
See dark matter as water and matter as oil.. the oil will move through the water but never get attached to it, however it gets attached to more oil.

math or gtfo
honestly your statements are so bad they aren't even wrong.... they are just looney toons.

but I'll give you one last try....

Please describe an observation that would invalidate your theory:

This post was edited by Azrad on Jan 15 2013 06:37pm

No from a hypothesis comes testing. From testing comes a theory.

The other guy came up with a different idea. He postulated the idea. He supposed it with mathematics, and he didn't claim all scientists are wrong. That's the difference.

Science isn't daydreaming and thinking, "oh that'd be cool, and it'd explain a lot of stuff."

You can't just pretend a black hole is suddenly going to explode. What's causing a repulsive force capable of overwhelming that much density?

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Jan 15 2013 08:32pm

One immediate problem with this idea is that in our universe we observe conservation of mass-energy but the best theory (with a bit of experimental evidence) of relativity has Hawking radiation, which causes black holes to lose mass-energy. In other words, in the universes you describe, you would observe a failure of the most basic conservation law. There is probably a similar argument for a failure of the other laws of thermodynamics but I don't see it immediately.

A bigger issue is where the 'space' that these universes would live in comes from. Each new collapse would require its own set of dimensions that are independent of (at least) our three dimensions, or else we could observe the gravitational effects of the universe within the black hole expanding inside our three plus one dimensions. My guess is you can make a similar argument to show that each new collapse would require its own set of new dimensions entirely. I have the impression that people typically avoid physical theories with unbounded numbers of dimensions.

Not to say that this disproves anything, but it's pretty inconsistent with my understanding of physics. That said, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist so maybe this would make sense to someone who 'thinks physically'.

This post was edited by darkfire on Jan 15 2013 10:06pm