Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths

We call that science fiction.

We call that science fiction.

originally posted by: dragonridr
We call that science fiction.

You may call it science fiction...but I call ---black hole starships and the methods described thereof --- are quite possibly the only viable and safe way for mankind too travel to the stars.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: dragonridr
We call that science fiction.

You may call it science fiction...but I call ---black hole starships and the methods described thereof --- are quite possibly the only viable and safe way for mankind too travel to the stars.

Really and how would you make one not to mention contain it. This is funny because the energy requirements to make a blackhole would far exceed the energy we coyld harness. If you had the energy required you dont need the blackhole. So saying something is posible and it being practical are two very different things.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: dragonridr
We call that science fiction.

You may call it science fiction...but I call ---black hole starships and the methods described thereof --- are quite possibly the only viable and safe way for mankind too travel to the stars.

Really and how would you make one not to mention contain it. This is funny because the energy requirements to make a blackhole would far exceed the energy we coyld harness. If you had the energy required you dont need the blackhole. So saying something is posible and it being practical are two very different things.

It might be possible to make one in outer space with energy beams, or maybe in a collider --- but our best bet is to find a rogue mini-black hole in outer space somewhere...blow it to smithereens, grab a piece, refine it and put it in a saucer. It should be easy to contain in a sphere of some kind that is gamma ray shielded --- with the size of the micro-mini black hole being less that the size of an atom --- yet weighing about six million tons. Such a micro-mini black hole, should have the ways an means too propel a starship for about 17 years.

Blow up a bkack hole???? Hmmmm didn't put much thought into this did you ? Look you just cant blow one up or find one just the fact of trying to contain one would require a huge em field and well again if you could go into space capture a black hole no need to do it since it would require a huge energy source. Back to reality we could make one but again same problem would require huge amount of energy not to mentipn mass the size of a planet. Suppose we could use mars but i think the planet is more useful.

Remeber in sci fi they dont have to work out the details but as they say the devil is in the details. In reality a blackhole isnt a viable energy source there are some other possibilities including fusion or antimatter that could supply all the energy we would need.

Blow up a bkack hole???? Hmmmm didn't put much thought into this did you ? Look you just cant blow one up or find one just the fact of trying to contain one would require a huge em field and well again if you could go into space capture a black hole no need to do it since it would require a huge energy source. Back to reality we could make one but again same problem would require huge amount of energy not to mentipn mass the size of a planet. Suppose we could use mars but i think the planet is more useful.

Remeber in sci fi they dont have to work out the details but as they say the devil is in the details. In reality a blackhole isnt a viable energy source there are some other possibilities including fusion or antimatter that could supply all the energy we would need.

Blow up a bkack hole???? Hmmmm didn't put much thought into this did you ? Look you just cant blow one up or find one just the fact of trying to contain one would require a huge em field and well again if you could go into space capture a black hole no need to do it since it would require a huge energy source. Back to reality we could make one but again same problem would require huge amount of energy not to mentipn mass the size of a planet. Suppose we could use mars but i think the planet is more useful.

Remeber in sci fi they dont have to work out the details but as they say the devil is in the details. In reality a blackhole isnt a viable energy source there are some other possibilities including fusion or antimatter that could supply all the energy we would need.

a reply to: Erno86

Um... No.

Gamma shielded or not, if you try and place a black hole inside an object, that object will be consumed by it. If you had the scientific and engineering capacity to safely capture a black hole, then you would not need one in the first place!

Also, black holes do not have component parts. They are systemic, they are whole things. They are not like some gigantic, all consuming pie that you can fractionalise into smaller pieces.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Erno86

Um... No.

Gamma shielded or not, if you try and place a black hole inside an object, that object will be consumed by it.

Well theoretically that's not strictly true.

It would be possible to contain a small black hole using sufficient strong magnetic fields. But as I stated and you just highlighted, it would take more energy to produce such a field than the black hole could produce.

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Erno86

Um... No.

Gamma shielded or not, if you try and place a black hole inside an object, that object will be consumed by it. If you had the scientific and engineering capacity to safely capture a black hole, then you would not need one in the first place!

Also, black holes do not have component parts. They are systemic, they are whole things. They are not like some gigantic, all consuming pie that you can fractionalise into smaller pieces.

Most spiral galaxys in our universe are claimed to have a giant black hole located in the center of each galaxy. Yet a well fed black hole [fed with plasma photons] may not have the capability to absorb solid objects such as planets or say...a confined containment vessel. So why don't these center of galaxy BH's suck-up every bit of matter in the galaxy that it is confined in? Have we any visual evidence of a BH performing such a process, in where whole galaxys are swallowed up by a BH? So far as I know...we have no such evidence --- yet that observation --- may open up the possibility that black holes can be confined in a solid containment vessel of some sort; though BH's should have the ability to cannibalize other BH's.



"As to confinement, a BH confines itself."

originally posted by: dragonridr
Blow up a bkack hole???? Hmmmm didn't put much thought into this did you ? Look you just cant blow one up or find one just the fact of trying to contain one would require a huge em field and well again if you could go into space capture a black hole no need to do it since it would require a huge energy source. Back to reality we could make one but again same problem would require huge amount of energy not to mentipn mass the size of a planet. Suppose we could use mars but i think the planet is more useful.

Remeber in sci fi they dont have to work out the details but as they say the devil is in the details. In reality a blackhole isnt a viable energy source there are some other possibilities including fusion or antimatter that could supply all the energy we would need.

Here are some quotes from Wikipedia: Black Hole Starships

Text "Although beyond current technological capabilities, a black hole starship offers some advantages compared to other possible methods. For example, in nuclear fusion or fission, only a small proportion of the mass is converted into energy, so enormous quantities of material would be needed.

Thus a nuclear starship would greatly deplete Earth of fissile and fusile material. One possibility is antimatter, but the manufacturing of antimatter is hugely inefficient and antimatter is difficult to contain.

On the other hand, the process of generating a BH from collapse is naturally efficient, so it would require millions of times less energy than a comparable amount of antimatter or at least tens of thousands of times given some optimistic future antimatter generator.
As to confinement, a BH confines itself.
Also, if a BH, once created, absorbs new matter, it will radiate it, thus acting as a new energy source."

a reply to: Erno86

Well, given that planets are smaller and less dense than stars, for example, the fact that a black hole has been observed consuming a star which came to close to it, suggests that your assertion is incorrect.

www.space.com...

Now, black holes do not eat entire galaxies in one massive gulp, but the reasons for that are pretty obvious. Galaxies spin around black holes, dragged by the forces at the center into the familiar shapes that we expect. However, planets also spin around stars. Spin creates opposing forces to the drag, even though it is an effect of the drag, and so just as our planets spin around our star allows it to remain at a relatively stable distance from our star, so does the spin of a galaxy slow down the process of its being consumed by the black hole at its centre.

So it is not that strange that we should only relatively recently have actually seen evidence for the consumption of stars by black holes. Galaxies are consumed by black holes, but it is a process which occurs over MASSIVE scales of time.

a reply to: Erno86

This was from a paper done by wheeler in the 50s i want to say 55 but anyway he talked about using a blackhole as an energy source. Basic idea pump a huge amount of energy into a very small point he called it a Schwarzschild Kugelblitz. Bottom line is you would take a laser about a billion times more powerful than anything we have. You shorten its pulse duration again about a billion times more than we can. The total energy of a single laser pulse would need to be equivalent to the energy the sun puts out in 1/10 of a second focused on a location smaller than a proton. Problem is two fold one producing that much energy in the first place and two being even if you did it would evaporate to quickly to be useful. As i said in science fiction when you dont have to worry about details yeah of course we can do it. In fact Romulan war birds in the star trek series used a singularity drive. But in a show they dont have to make them only claim that they did.

a reply to: dragonridr

Let me put it in a nutshell for you.

Based on my own personal observation of a real [not science fiction] E.T. alien starship back in 1976 --- I've made a hypothesis on how foofighters tick --- thus being, that these alien starships depend on photon propulsion, because it's probably the only way to get from point "A" to point "B", on interstellar journeys that are many parsecs away from each other.

In conclusion: At the heart of these E.T. alien [interstellar capable] starship propulsion unit's --- is a micro-mini black hole --- that sucks in photons and expels them with tremendous thrust --- increasing speed exponentially squared --- easily up to the speed of light barrier and beyond into the superluminal realm.

Korg; I have no intentions of trying to hijack this thread, but I have a compelling need to figure out the complexities of black holes and this thread helps me do that.

Thanks,

Erno

a reply to: Erno86

Well your first problem is blackholes dont suck up photons and spit them out as you say. Second this would still limit the craft to below light speed because if you were to eject photons they will only travel at the speed of light meaning you couldnt provide enough force to exceed that. But all that aside do you believe UFOs have crashed if you do and they used singularities the results would be devasting when they lost containment the earth could easily be destroyed.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Erno86

Well your first problem is blackholes dont suck up photons and spit them out as you say. Second this would still limit the craft to below light speed because if you were to eject photons they will only travel at the speed of light meaning you couldnt provide enough force to exceed that. But all that aside do you believe UFOs have crashed if you do and they used singularities the results would be devasting when they lost containment the earth could easily be destroyed.

Some BH's do eject lighted plasma at there magnetic poles at close to the speed of light. Now...photons can travel at the speed of light in a vacuum --- but a starship that ejects photons as thrust from a micro-mini black hole propulsion unit in a vacuum such as outer space --- should be able to accelerate past the speed of light barrier; while encased in a magnetic field created by the propulsion unit.

If a UFO crashed here on Earth with a micro-mini BH installed onboard?

I speculate that micro-mini BH's are benign enough, so as not to be a threat to any planetary body; because it's not big enough to cause such havoc --- yet I could be wrong.

originally posted by: luciddream
i dont mind The Big Bang Theory revised, scrapped or replaced, it was a theory, which seemes to make sense yet felt it had holes.

Yeah, but the TV show is hilarious.

Black holes have been observed.
As far as we know, they do exist.
Concentrated areas of gravity that prevent visible light from escaping.

The origins of black holes are definitely a real question.
We've never observed the creation of a black hole.
It's a guess.

What if collapsing stars don't create black holes?

What if the gravity that makes a black hole doesn't actually originate in this dimension?

Multiple dimensions with large coinciding bodies occupying the same space in different dimensions could add gravitation at one point to the extent that it creates gravity in excess of the escape velocity of light.

The evidence suggests that 90% of matter in the universe is dark matter.
What if that dark matter is actually distributed throughout multiple dimensions and gravity affects all of these dimensions simultaneously?

This would explain dark matter, black holes and multiple dimensions in one fell swoop.

I don't know much about this stuff but it occurred to me that the one factor that directly interacts between parallel dimensions could be gravity.

Anyhoo....

a reply to: badgerprints


Your not alone in this thought process people have speculated gravity is indeed not part of our dimension but originates elsewhere. Gravity is an incredibly weak force think the entire planet earth is tugging on you yet you can still move. If it were like the other forces we would be a puddle of goo.