It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why would "Black Holes" not be "Black Spheres"

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:45 PM
I look at the universe and I see spheres everywere. If there is anything prevalent in our universe it is the spherical nature of all matter. All matter seems to gather into a sphere. Even galaxies tend to be circular and the dust and stars around the centers seem to form a sphere around the black holes so why wouldnt the most powerfull known gravity wells be spheres like suns, moons, planets and to some extent even the galaxies.

Most black holes are depicted a flat circular objects and I just do not understand why an implosion of matter would not form a ball but instead form a flat disk type object?

From what ive seen they have never directly seend the shape of a black hole so could it instead be a black sphere like a dark sun?

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:53 PM
If space was a plane black holes would make enormous holes because of their huge amount of gravity, and they also suck up light, which makes them black holes.

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:59 PM
Einstein's general relativity describes gravity as a curvature of the space-time continuum. The more concentrated the mass, the more curvature you obtain. If we draw the framework of space-time as a plane (actually there are 4 dimensions : 3 for the space, and one for time), we can visualize this curvature, in an illustrative way. So the black hole warps or tears a hole in space time because of its immense gravity hence black hole.

In the case of a black hole, the curvature may have no end : there would be a tear in the fabric of space-time .

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 10:05 PM
Theoretically, "black holes" do not require measurable depth. The material sucked into the maelstrom is compressed to microscopic size.

The Big Bang started with all the material in the known universe compressed to microscopic size, so small in fact that a grain of sand would seem enormous by comparison.

This theory is explained in The Elegant Universe, a physics book written by one of the world's noted scientists, Brian Greene, and explained simply in a few words on the website, by webmaster Robert Walker O'Neal, MS-M.

That website also covers many areas other than what we normally consider science - The End of Days, The Bible Code and more.

Presumably, the intial Big Bang was from compressed matter just like that compressed matter sucked into a black hole. The Creator began the universe by releasing that incomprehensible energy, according to Mr. O'Neal's theory, with the intention of life being born on at least one world, if not many.

One of the most interesting webpages is I have never seen the theory of relativity so simply explained in so few words.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:33 AM
To get back to the original question: the black hole self is, according to current theories, a point. The event horizon, the line of no return, is a sphere.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:44 AM
I don't know if it's a point (never heard about such theory), but black holes are NOT holes. they are holes only in a relativistic point of you - a hole in space-time, with infinite curvature. but we, of course, cannot see spacetime.

a black hole is supposed to be a small sphere, and matter rotates around it, making a disk form.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 05:14 AM
There are some various versions of Black Holes actually. amantine is correct in his example, which is an example of a 'Schwarzchild Black Hole'. The 'Point' at the center, where the pull is the strongest, is thought to be a 'Singularity'.

Picture representing this type of Black Hole in 2-D. Showing the 'Singularity of which there is no measureable Size or Shape.

Picture representing a Kerr Black Hole, which is a Black Hole which is in motion, causing the singularity to spin in a ring type of motion. I'm not sure if this is what Transc3ndent was talking about or not.

Whether or not anything could actually be considered a Sphere is kinda pointless in most respects anyway. After all, the theorectical understanding of the mechanics of a Black Hole is sort of inherently void of such physical measurements. It is a HOLE for lack of a better term, and if you think about it, nobody exactly Measures the Hole exactly since a Hole is Nothing. What you're really measuring when talking about a Hole, is the difference between what was there before and what is left now, or what was extracted (say for an example like digging a hole, you measure the dirt taken out, or the difference between the Ground before and after.).

Anyway, I'm not sure it could be considered a sphere anyway since everything in the Universe is in Motion of some kind anyway. Because of that fact as Matter approaches a black hole you get that 'Spiral, whirlpool motion happening'. That motion would mean that at the very least it would be more of a flattened sphere of sorts. Kinda like the shape of classic flying saucer or something. At least that is how it would seem. Otherwise their whirlpool shape would look different since it could Pull Matter in equally from all points of the Event Horizon.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:08 AM
how can all the atoms of one star be shrinked to fit in an area smaller than 1 atom itself?does the space between the neutrons/protons and the electrons get smaller?

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:19 AM
a hole is 2D and a sphere is 3D and black holes are 2D

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 07:57 AM

(actually there are 4 dimensions : 3 for the space, and one for time),

That has NEVER been proven, and is a baseless theory. The fact is, if a dimension exists, it cannot exist in other-dimensional worlds. For example, as DEPTH is the third dimension, it can NEVER exist in a two dimensional world. Time is NOT a dimension as it exists in ALL dimensions. Calling time a dimension would be like calling gravity a dimension. Also, time has no spacial bearing on anything. It is NOT a dimension.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:28 AM
At a distance, any featureless spherical object looks like a disc from our viewpoint. I suspect that a blackhole would like a full disc from whichever viewpoint it was observed (i.e, it wouldn't get thinner and thinner and thinner until it appeared to be a vertical line as the observer moved to a sideways view) This indicates that the area of a blackhole is spherical, although I'm not sure how this can be proved until we send a spacecraft to circle one.

Blackholes maintain the orbit of the stars they once were, again indicating that they are spherical.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Yazman
That has NEVER been proven, and is a baseless theory. The fact is, if a dimension exists, it cannot exist in other-dimensional worlds.Calling time a dimension would be like calling gravity a dimension. Also, time has no spacial bearing on anything. It is NOT a dimension.

I understand it sounds weird that time is a dimension but it is a function of space. The following is a quote from NASA. I suggest you look at the links I have provided.

Einstein showed us that all matter curves space, right? Well, because it's so hard to visualize this curvature (because space-time occupies the accursed 4th dimension with width, height, length, and time) scientists have come up with as easy way to think about it.

We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.

Let us relate this to light traveling near a star. The strong gravitational field of the star changes the paths of light rays in space-time from what they would have been had the star not been present. Specifically, the path of the light is bent slightly inward toward the surface of the star.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:23 AM
If you see time as just another dimension, you can write the otherwise pretty complex Lorentz transformations as simple rotations in four dimensions. Time behaves like just another dimension in relativity and relativity only works well when time is a dimension.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 05:37 PM
Check this out:

There is a picture on the right hand side that simulates the 2-D and 3-D aspects of a black hole. It is not exact, of course, but does show the general idea of applying a grid to a 3-D object (a star or spherical object).

I know there was a post that stated how time is not the fourth dimension. Actually, it is part of the fourth dimension and has been proven. It is simple mathematics to add another axis. If you do add this axis (after the first 3 (x,y,z) axes), you'll find that you can move a 3 dimensional object, as well as change its size. There are quite a few properties of the fourth dimension that are hard to explain, but you should be aware that time (being motion) is part of the fourth dimension.

I will make a note here: What we see as time might be more of a fractal version of the fourth dimension. Why? ..because we are not seeing nor experiencing every aspect of the fourth dimension. A fractal dimension only holds potential for reaching into the next dimension (like dimension 3.3). It would take a few visuals to explain myself better, but if you research the topic, you should be able to follow me without too much trouble.

Getting back to the topic, black holes are black stars. However, they do not appear to be black suns. This is because the do not emit anything. Essentially, they have become stars in reverse because their gravity is so powerful, as you can see from the other visuals provided in this thread. Black holes are 3 dimensional (at least), but only represented in 2 dimensions because it is hard to know what a 3 dimensional object looks like as it approaches a singularity barrier (i.e. 1/x as x approaches infinity). A former professor of mine was involved in a project to create computer simulations and models of 3 dimensional singularities (and I'm told the results can vary quite a bit due to possible dynamic fluxuations (think chaos theory)).

Here are some small computer simulations of singularity knots:

This might lend support to the Kerr theory of a black hole (and its singularity).

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 06:10 PM

Most black holes are depicted a flat circular objects

What science book is this - 2d astrophysics for beginners?

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Vanguard
What science book is this - 2d astrophysics for beginners?

I doubt that true 2D Disk Flatness was meant by Disk Shaped Black Holes. I think it was more of a point that the Spin of Planetary objects and even the 'Unknown Spacial Area' of a Physical Hole(:puz
tends to show more Discus or Pancaked shape than an actual balanced Sphere. For example, even the actual records of when a Black Hole is devouring a nearby planet/star/etc. it looks like a whirpool similar to water going down a drain. Plus at right angles to the whirlpool action going on there is an actual focused exhaust type of energy benig shot from the Hole. Which is actually pretty interesting for reasons I won't bother with right now.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 07:13 PM
G-a-l-a-x-y! Why, in the name of Mars, would they be called spheres? It's more like they are wholes in the space-time conitinuum. Give a call to Venus and straighten up your cometail!

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:10 PM

by Protector:
I will make a note here: What we see as time might be more of a fractal version of the fourth dimension.

That is actually something I've thought about as well, but perhaps a bit differnetly than what you're saying. Not that Time=4D is wrong exactly, just more as if Dimensional Theories and the wording and examples sometimes come across clearly and sometimes cloudy or worse. So I've been trying to find a way of explaining the theory in a way that it works, and is logical to understand, but allows for some freedom from the Shackles of UNIVERSAL LAWS.

Anyway, see what you think of this explanation:

First the normal way usually goes step by step adding One more D-Level for each Variable being measured. So 1D=Line, 2D=Plane, 3D=Any Spacial object even down to Quantum Particles or whatever, allowing for some flexability at the real small stuff, but definately held to be fact at molecular on up through Macro. sized stuff. Then the 4D comes in as time.

Usually examples like 1D, 2D, 3D (Spacial) is x+y+z measurements that can be made from a predefined 'Starting Point'. You just measure the directional opposites like, (lets say you are at the Start Point in your house which is an Area of Space) x=distance you walk Forward or Backward, plus y=distance you walk left or right, then add z=distance walking Up or Down the stairs ariving at the End Point and now have a Resulting Distance from Start Point to End Point. Then usually 4D is something like the Time between Start & End in reference to Velocity. So you get a 'Distance' along with the coresponding 'Time' it took to Travel the Distance. This is of course made possible because of a 'Relative' comparative value of Spacial Start Point for 3D and Max. Speed of Light in Vacuum Space or 'C' for the comparitive Time Value.

However, 'Relative' Comparison Values makes meaurements somewhat questionable as to their Unified Precision among other things. I think the problem is more of a poor choice in Language or Scientific methods of Data Recording though. One thing is that 3D and 4D don't simply click together sequencially like lego blocks where you just add the next Dimension. They can be used in a way that we have 'Space/Time' and this is where I agree that a Fractalization of Value is found.

For example:
Using our other example, lets say you Walked x(forward)=+5 uints, y(Right)=+5 units, z(Down Stairs)=+5 units. That is one way to do it, but at the same time you can say using Only 4D Terms of Time/per your Velocity that it was (50 tclicks) of 4D Relative Curved Time Travel that equals the same as x,y,z Space Travel. So the individual Values of Spacial are Factalized into a Singular Value which dynamic levels of information are better encrypted. Only as of yet, we haven't made a method of communicating in those terms yet. I see it as being similar to how 60 seconds=1 min. and 60 min.= hours, etc. You could say it's been 360 seconds or 6 sets of 60 seconds, or just say 6 minutes. Minutes Fractalize the smaller units of 60's to 1 (or 1's w/fractional Units), that is the easiest way I can say it, and I think you get the idea from here. We just lack a better understanding of how 4D represents the lesser D's within itsef, or how to use multi-level Encryption of Time-Speak.

Everybody get that??? Cause I'm not trying again. Carpultunnel is setting in from all that. I'll be helpless in a few tclick--|

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by DarkSide
how can all the atoms of one star be shrinked to fit in an area smaller than 1 atom itself?does the space between the neutrons/protons and the electrons get smaller?

The "empty space" of an atom is comparatively enormous to it's I hear

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by xxKrisxx]

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by xxKrisxx
The "empty space" of an atom is comparatively enormous to it's I hear

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by xxKrisxx]

Yes that is true. I don't know the exact values off hand or anything, but in dealing with Atoms, and their Density, they are more 'Nothing' than 'Something'. Nothing isn't exactly the best term, nor is 'Empty Space' either since Space as we are talking about it exists as Space because of it's determined value of Area/Time within SPace/Time. Therefore if that Space was truely Empty or equal to 0, then it wouldn't be there. It's similar to earlier when I was talking about measuring a Hole. The Value of 'Empty Area or Hole' is the value in reference to something other than it which is actually making measurement possible.

I'm not sure if they've come to an agreement upon the details of defining the Emptyness of Space yet or not. I know one theory is that from our perspecive, what we consider Matter, Physical Reality in all it's forms of being real stuff, is in comparison, very very very very very tiny to 'dark matter, negative matter, or whatever' which is what devides all of the stuff we know as stuff. What we consider 'Space' is actually just a type of Stuff that is on the Flipside of our reality of stuff. Things like viewing all our stuff in the universe shooting around space all distanced from other stuff and expanding away from each other, then becomes theory of Us and our Stuff is compacted between a huge amount of Dark or Anit-Stuff which is Pushing us around, so to speak. Instead of Gravity Pulling us, it is really the opposite, and it is really the Anti-Stuff which is pushing us as it's energy is rushing into the center of the planet. Make sense??

Regardless of that however, imagine an Atom. In the very center is an amount of Protons and Neutrons packed into the nucleus. The Electron(s) making up the shell, is where the Size, so to speak, is really at. Yet between the Nuclieus and the shell of where the electon is at is HUGE Empty/Anti-Stuff space!! It's something like the nucleus being the size of a cherry and the Electron shell being the size in the neighborhood of a Huge Professional Football Staduim or something.

One experiment was flattening out a sheet of Gold to where it was just a couple molecules of gold thick and shooting particles at it. Some would smake other Electrons dead on. But more amazing to the people doing the test was the large amount of particles that just passed right through without hitting anything at all.

According to a quick search the Atomic Empty Space is:
"A flea in Yankee Stadium".
So even a cherry is close but way too big.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by mOjOm]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in