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.


Where Do Black Holes Lead?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:41 PM
We have no actual proof that black holes lead anywhere but it sure looks like it. Just look at it. A giant hole in space. I must lead somewhere.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by GeniusLogan15
We have no actual proof that black holes lead anywhere but it sure looks like it. Just look at it. A giant hole in space. I must lead somewhere.

Black holes lead to a singularity but not another location. I believe black holes can warp space time but in order to lead somewhere it was have to break space time which i don't believe is possible. You can bend it you can slow it but you cant remove space time it is the fabric of the universe.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by KrisFromGenk

Stephen J. Crothers first is a mathematician not a physicist. His argue is Einstein theory is mathematically unsound. This is why he attacks physicists for there theories his belief is space time is linear and not curved In a linear model space time cannot be warped and there fore black holes cannot exist. He also claims that the mathematics leading to curved space time does not exist this is the basis for his theory.His problem with the math?Eventually it Gets to the point in math you cant divide by 0 and this must happen in a singularity.If space time is not curved this cannot happen at all.

This does not accurately describe me: I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time. Also, I have no theory - my work pertains to what is and what is not consistgent with General Relativity. Black holes are fallacious, and so is Big Bang and Einstein gravitational waves. Also, the claim that I hold that "the mathematics leading to curved space time does not exist" is totally false (see below).

Now i know at least one point hes wrong he claims the math doesnt exist to even deal with curved space time.Tools like the Lie derivative, metric connection and pullback functions are all used to do calculus on curved space-time. Even if you don't think space-time itself is curved, the maths of dealing with the notion of curved space-time (or more obvious curved surfaces like that of a sphere) is very well developed, so you can't deny that the tools aren't there. As for the rest not done with my degree and right now im not willing to argue which model is correct but currently observations support relativity. So untill we have a better idea black holes still need to exist.

This is incorrect. I have NEVER claimed that the mathematics for dealing with curved spaces does not exist. In fact, I calculate in my papers the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of Schwarzschild spacetime. I also calculate the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant of Schwarzschild spacetime and also refer to the Ricci curvature (it is zero in Schwarzschild spacetime). I also demonstrate that the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant is not an independent curvature invariant, contrary to the claims made by the relativists, since it is a function of the aforementioned Gaussian curvature. So the charge here against me is entirely false, as can be verified by my papers, here:

It is rather astonishing how things I have never claimed are so often conjured up and attributed to me, despite what actually appears in my papers.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by S.J.Crothers

Cool its always great to get information straight from the horses mouth so to speak. So why do you conclude black holes cannot exist since apparently alot of people have mis quoted and apparently lied. Why would black holes contradict relativity when Einstein himself postulated there existence?Is the problem have to do with the behavior of the singularity or is it the curvature of space time?

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by dragonridr

Black holes are nonsense. Here are some of the reasons why.

1) On the one hand it is claimed by the astrophysical scientists that black holes have an escape velocity >= c (speed of light in vacuo). On the other hand they also claim that nothing, including light, can even leave a black hole. If the escape velocity of a black hole is c, then light can escape and all observers could see it; and massive bodies could leave it, but not escape. If the escape velocity is > c then light and massive bodies could both leave the black hole, but not escape, and so there is always a class of observers that could see it. The claims of the astrophysical scientists are contradictory.
2) All black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only one mass. But escape velocity involves two masses by definition – one mass escapes from another mass. Furthermore, the black holers use Newton’s expression for the escape velocity and ‘Schwarzschild’ radius of their black hole. But one cannot use a Newtonian two-body relation in what is alleged to be a non-Newtonian one-body configuration, and one cannot use a Euclidean geometry (Newton’s) to determine radii in a non-Euclidean geometry. The black holers have erroneously blended Newtonian theory into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory, and therefore their arguments are nonsense.
3) The black hole is alleged to contain an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now Special Relativity and General Relativity must be consistent, and according to Einstein and his followers, the laws of Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field, and these regions can be anywhere in his gravitational field. But Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that material bodies can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (which would require an input of infinite energy), which is impossible according to SR. So for GR to be consistent with SR, GR must also forbid infinite density, and therefore the Theory of Relativity forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole and so forbids black holes.
4) According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to confirm the presence of an event horizon. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. And so black holes can never be confirmed (making them metaphysics, not physics).

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by dragonridr

5) Since all black hole ‘solutions’ relate to a universe that contains only ONE mass, the notion of black hole interactions is nonsense. By way of example; a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole is alleged from a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains NO MATTER, but which is alleged by the astrophysical scientists to nevertheless contain one mass (causing the alleged gravitational field). Since the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity, one cannot therefore arbitrarily insert into the spacetime of a ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole another ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole (independently from Ric = 0) so that the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! Furthermore, there are NO KNOWN SOLUTIONS to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. Upon what solution to Einstein’s field equations do the black holers rely for black holes in multitudes or for a single black hole interacting with other matter generally? The simple answer is, none! They have no such solution. Once again they merely invoke Newton’s theory and blend it into Einstein’s non-Newtonian theory in order to justify the notion of black hole interactions and multiple bodies. Their arguments are complete and utter nonsense.
6) The black hole was originally conjured from “Schwarzschild’s solution”. However, ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’ is NOT even Schwarzschild’s solution, and Schwarzschild’s actual solution FORBIDS black holes. These facts are easily confirmed by Schwarzschild’s original paper, here:
7) Non-technical discussion of the foregoing, in more detail, is here:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:16 PM
Actually to all. A black hole is the end of a star. Black holes lead to nowhere because at the center is the singularity point, the point where is zero volume and infinite mass, to all who understand, that is basicly nothing. Of course black holes are just a theory and Even if they do exist we probably couldnt get close enough to study them.

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:47 PM
Stars Live in a constant battle between powerful outward forces and gravity. Eventually one side has to win and it's mainly outward gravity wo is the victor causing a red giant and then gravity calmly wins and turns it into a white dwarf. Judging by most of the people discussing here most of you know this. For those thst don't when gravity wins right off the bat its a violent victory. the star is condensed and massive amounts of energy are burned off but what is left, if any, is infinitly condensed into a very hot, powerful, and destructive sphere we know as a black hole. In short they are not paths but destinations. When a star collapses it doesn't create negative matter or a doorway it does what all things do when the lose to gravity, they condense.

This is my first post on this site don't burn me to bad about the post.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:51 AM
I don't think it matters at all what speed light is moving or if it has mass or doesn't it is my opinion nothing can ever escape simply because space-time itself is twisted up and compressed together.

A black hole could possibly be the brightest thing in the universe but only from inside the event horizon.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:58 AM
No one can truly understand what time is until they realize the watches on there wrist and calanders on there walls are all just human concepts and they mean nothing in the way of the big scope.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:22 AM
I may be wrong here but i was always of the belief that black holes would crush any matter into nothingness.

Except socks. I have a theory that in the deepest darkes depths of any blackhole you will find out where all your odd socks have 'vanished' to.

As i say, I may be wrong.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:51 AM
I wish one can venture off to the deep regions of space to explore a black hole but will that person return..I doubt it..
But who knows no one ever has done it of course people are thinking you'll die but death isn't the end. what if you go into a black hole and all of your particles get sucked in and you enter a new dimension or a different universe..who can only dream. The cosmos are an amazing place

[edit on 3-9-2009 by G8tor]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:41 PM
There is not such a thing as a black hole. They never have been proven, and till proven, should be dismissed as pseudoscience bull*

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:50 PM
Black Holes are proven, but not in orthodox way. You can't see or measure black hole because light does not escape, thus you can only see where light bends around it or gets captured then you know there is singularity. Every galaxy has a black hole. It holds galaxy like the sun holds solar system.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by The_Truth_Seeker

I think to another black hole.....but you enter one way and exit another is a totally different part of the galaxy / universe / dimension.......

They aren't " just there for the hell of it" .........they serve a purpose , as does everything in this universe....

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:02 AM
I do not understand why it has to be infinite mass at the center. It only has to be enough mass to sufficiently warp space to cause light protons to travel in only one direction to the center.

I do not think black holes are a hole they are just a very dense form of matter that has a sufficient amount of gravity to control light.

My idea of a singularity is a dense ball of nucleus's where the electrons are all pushed outward forming an unknown high density element.

If you could survive the speeds you reach heading to the singularity you would just smash into it and become part of it.

All the energy releases we see coming from black holes are simply interactions of known elements crashing into each other at high speed before they enter the even horizon.

Neutron stars are failed black holes. The ones that pulsate are so close to being a black hole that they have moments were parts of them actually warp space enough to create a short lived event horizon not a spin.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:23 PM

There is no other end. A black 'hole' isn't a hole, its a point of incredibly intense and powerful gravity. People like to speculate that it could be so instence that it fold space up in some whacky way that actually leads to another dimension or whatever, but thats all very speculative.

It's not speculative. It's just that nobody here can do the maths involved. Einstein could and did. So did Stephen Hawking, which is the reason anybody has heard of him. He isn't famous because he wrote "A brief history of time", he got that book publoished because he was a well known physicist due to his work on black holes. The mathematics describing black holes are understood and it is now accepted that our own galaxy has a super-massive black hole at it's core. Some of the consequences of the existence of black holes, such as the implied existence of worm-holes and white holes are less well understood.

The reason a black hole is described as such is that there is a region surrounding the singularity known as the event horizon, the point at which the gravitational field created by the singularity is too strong for even light to escape, so this area would be black. Ironically, if you could look directly at a black hole it would appear very bright indeed, as the light emitting matter just beyond the event horizon would be extremely concentrated in space and yet light would still be able to escape in your direction.

As for travelling through a black hole, it is speculated about by phsicists, because of the Einstein-Rosen bridge, which connects a black hole and a white hole that may be seperated by vast distances in 'normal' space. Wheeler later worked out that the wormhole would be so short-lived that in reality nothing would have time to make it through. There is speculation that it could be held open, allowing specially shielded craft to travel through, but the energy required is truly staggering.

The answer to your question "Where would you go if you went through a black hole" is: "Somewhere else".

Edited to put in the quote tags. Forgot who I was quoting, but you know who you are.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Karilla]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:01 AM
the funny thing is, black holes are not actually 'holes' so to speak.

They don't lead anywhere as far as I know, they just suck in matter and compact it.

They are just extremely dense balls of matter from a collapsed star, with an insane gravitational pull.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:39 AM
Essentially it's all speculation, because we aren't informed enough to know (yet). Assuming black holes simply squash matter down to near singular points, where obviously not even light can escape, they need not lead anywhere. As more matter piles on, the "hole" simply gets bigger. Hence the reason we're finding heavy variance in the mass of each new black hole we find!


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in