Black holes don't exist, instead dark-energy stars?
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
So basically a dark energy star is nothing more than a gravity well that acts as a cosmic trampoline?
So if the panet earth was being sucked in by a dark energy star, it would reach the center and bounce back?
What speed would it bounce back at?
Why doesn't anyone create a model of how this would work?
So if the panet earth was being sucked in by a dark energy star, it would reach the center and bounce back?
What speed would it bounce back at?
Why doesn't anyone create a model of how this would work?
cleardayout
Newcomer
K.I.L.E.R said:
That's right, you are a dark energy star.
I wasn't responding to your questions (which I guess are indeed valid). I just have problems taking negative/dark energy/mass theories too seriously. There may well be a grain of truth to them I guess, but their advocates seem only keen to go off down some garden path of fantasy. Much of what they produce seems to me like little more than intellectual masturbation, so it's hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
The application of some common sense and a bit of Occam's Razor would help their field enormously IMO.
The application of some common sense and a bit of Occam's Razor would help their field enormously IMO.
nutball said:
It makes more sense than the theory about black holes.
The dark energy star theory says that black holes are impossible in relativity and quantum mechanics, and it explains what happens to the electrons scientists were loooking at and saying, "Yep, that's a black hole".
Sometimes inplausible theories turn out to be correct. More than one person reasoned like you regarding Einstein's works on relativity, and a while ago at least one of those theories were confirmed by way of a practical experiment... So just because it sounds crazy doesn't mean it is.nutball said:
In what way is black hole theory "daft"? It seems to me it's pretty universally
p) accepted as truth in the world of physics... Or what is it I don't know?No, due to the exponentially (hugely) increasing gravity field strength of any large and dense stellar object, the earth would get torn up into tiny pieces as it approaches and probably spat out as even smaller ones...K.I.L.E.R said:
Guden Oden said:Sometimes inplausible theories turn out to be correct. More than one person reasoned like you regarding Einstein's works on relativity, and a while ago at least one of those theories were confirmed by way of a practical experiment... So just because it sounds crazy doesn't mean it is.nutball said:
Yes, I know that Einstein was regarded as something of a crank, I'm actually not coming at it from that perspective, rather trying to learn from the turn of the 20th century.
Thing is that the "daft" theories like relativity and quantum mechanics came about because the old theories were starting to fall apart, with more and more la-la bits of stuff added to them to make them fit the new observational evidence at the time. Scientific sticking plaster. Eventually people turned round and said to themselves "whoa, hold on here, something deep-down must be fundamentally broke, we gotta rethink this".
So depending on your point-of-view, dark/negative mass/energy are either the sticking plaster, or the new paradigm. My personal gut feeling is that they are the former rather than the latter. Something deep-down in relativity and/or QM is broken, and no amount of fiddling with the signs on fundamental constants is going to fix it. But that's just my gut feeling, I have no real deeper insight into it than the next mortal.
Only time will tell I suppose.
In what way is black hole theory "daft"? It seems to me it's pretty universally
I was being kinda facetious.
Given relativity, black-holes are not an unreasonable extrapolation of reasonably well understood physics (star -> white dwarf -> neutron star -> what next?). I wouldn't say BH's are regarded as truth, they haven't been directly observed as of yet, but there are a number of examples (notably in binary star systems) where... if it isn't a black-hole we don't know what the hell it is.I'd be interested to know if this new theory makes any useful predictions of observables that would allow us to distinguish between black-holes and these new wonder-stars in the black-hole candidate systems we already know about.
I counter Occam's Razor with Murphey's Law.... One states that the simplest answer is the most likely while the other states that whatever can happen, will happen (in all eventuality)... It's an old universe, approaching fourteen billion years.
There's also no reason why both objects cannot coexist in tandem. It's a big universe after all, roughly 43+ billion lightyears edge to edge.
Here's one for ya... what if all stars are not "stars". Invariably, somewhere there is a gravitational dent of the magnitude of a black hole, and it is caused by a huge mass of energy and matter focussed at a tiny, nearly one dimensional point in reality... what happens though when it loses that energy and matter? What happens when it loses matter and energy with such force that it can no longer re-appropriate more energy and matter? Think of it as what happens when the energy of the things escaping it becomes massively greater than the power of the gravity field pulling everything in? It glows... just like a star.
Later
There's also no reason why both objects cannot coexist in tandem. It's a big universe after all, roughly 43+ billion lightyears edge to edge.
Here's one for ya... what if all stars are not "stars". Invariably, somewhere there is a gravitational dent of the magnitude of a black hole, and it is caused by a huge mass of energy and matter focussed at a tiny, nearly one dimensional point in reality... what happens though when it loses that energy and matter? What happens when it loses matter and energy with such force that it can no longer re-appropriate more energy and matter? Think of it as what happens when the energy of the things escaping it becomes massively greater than the power of the gravity field pulling everything in? It glows... just like a star.
Later
How can the universe be 43 billion Light years wide if it's only been expanding at the speed of light (or slightly less) for 14 billion years? At most, it should be 26 billion light years.
At most, it should be 26 billion light years.It's called drifting. Also, that the universe ceases to accelerate prior to reaching the value of 1.0x the value of C is a misnomer. So the universe would be capable of expanding without limit to speed. Objects within that rapidly receding region of space also move away faster than the speed of light, and can do so because they are not being moved through space (their position in space never moves), only their portion of space moves with them in it. In time you could see deep space engines using the same principle through the use of heavy mass to generate very small controlled versions of the big bang. Interresting, eh?
Anyway, one nifty bit that arises out of that is that there are regions of space that we will never "see". The light leaving them will never make it here because it's litterally in a "one step forward two steps back" scenario.
Also, to clarify before I forget... that 43 billion lightyears is just one conservative estimate, it may be a little bigger (but not smaller).
Later
Anyway, one nifty bit that arises out of that is that there are regions of space that we will never "see". The light leaving them will never make it here because it's litterally in a "one step forward two steps back" scenario.
Also, to clarify before I forget... that 43 billion lightyears is just one conservative estimate, it may be a little bigger (but not smaller).
Later
sunscar said:
Space warping? I know how that works (or how it would work in theory), but i don't think i've ever read anything about it happening naturally in the universe. Colour me impressed, cause i do read a lot about cosmology, and astrophysics.