My theory on black holes

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is based on my own conjecturing...

We are here because of black holes. Planets, stars, globular clusters, and galaxies could NOT exist without the presence of black holes. I believe that black holes are what drives the formation of planetary and stellar bodies in the universe. Look at it this way: It seems that most if not all galaxies have a black hole at their centres. Recently scientists have discovered that globular clusters have black holes at their centres. I remember reading somewhere that our sun has a micrscopic black hole ticking away at it's centre. What causes planets to form? Is it perturbations in the gravity field, (gravity waves)? Gravity holds things together. What if planets had miniscule black holes at their centres? Have black holes always existed, (from time 0)? Maybe black holes are a result of the big bang?

Now; feel free to chew me up and spit me out...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Banquo's Ghost on 2002-12-19 09:26 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Banquo's Ghost on 2002-12-19 09:38 ]</font>

[Celestial Mechanic]

The fact that we are here on Earth and can look up and see the Sun is a good argument against there being black holes at the centers of these objects.

Imagine that we could teleport a black hole into the center of the Earth. (Beam it down Scotty!) Let's say that it has only 1/10,000th the mass of the Earth (so that we don't notice too much of a gravitational effect at the surface). This black hole would have an event horizon of 1 micrometer in radius. As matter falls in and is added to the black hole, the pressure from the matter on top will continue to push more and more of the Earth into the black hole until finally everything is sucked in.

For those of us unfortunate enough to be on the surface of the doomed Earth, we would observe earthquakes of steadily increasing frequency and severity as the plates crack, tilt, and break up into ever smaller pieces. As the radius of the Earth decreases we will find ourselves weighing more and more until we can no longer move without injuring ourselves.

I don't know how long it would take, however. If it took hours or days it would make a cool sci-fi flick ("The Day the World Imploded"). On the other hand, maybe it would only take seconds for this to happen!

To recap, black holes are hungry and will eat anything near enough to fall in. Most stars in galaxies and globular clusters orbit safely away from the black holes at their centers, which is why galaxies and globular clusters can contain them, but stars and planets cannot.

[traztx]

On 2002-12-19 09:07, Banquo's Ghost wrote:
What if planets had miniscule black holes at their centres?

Not exactly the same, but reminds me of the hollow earth discussion.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Hmmm, a little more thought and I came up with a different scenario. Maybe there could be a black hole at the center after all.

Suppose we "beam" the black hole into the center of the Earth just as in my earlier post. It starts to eat, but as it does, the matter being sucked in gives off energy and heats the material around it. The pressure from this superheated matter supports the weight of the Earth above it and keeps it from falling in too fast. An equilibrium is reached where only enough matter to feed the black hole and heat the matter above it falls in. Now the question is, "What is the time scale for this? Could the Earth last for billions of years before its black hole consumes it?"

I will also mention that there is a theory that there may be a natural nuclear reactor at the center of the Earth in a uranium core inside the iron one. The same arguments apply. If the reactor overheats, the expansion is kept in check by the weight of the Earth above, if the reactor shuts down, the weight of the Earth will push the reactor back towards criticality.

Seismic measurements have given us some idea of what the density distribution inside the Earth is, so there cannot be too much of the Earth's mass tied up in a black hole, if there is one.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On 2002-12-20 01:17, Celestial Mechanic wrote:
Hmmm, a little more thought and I came up with a different scenario. Maybe there could be a black hole at the center after all.

Suppose we "beam" the black hole into the center of the Earth just as in my earlier post. It starts to eat, but as it does, the matter being sucked in gives off energy and heats the material around it. The pressure from this superheated matter supports the weight of the Earth above it and keeps it from falling in too fast. An equilibrium is reached where only enough matter to feed the black hole and heat the matter above it falls in. Now the question is, "What is the time scale for this? Could the Earth last for billions of years before its black hole consumes it?"

I will also mention that there is a theory that there may be a natural nuclear reactor at the center of the Earth in a uranium core inside the iron one. The same arguments apply. If the reactor overheats, the expansion is kept in check by the weight of the Earth above, if the reactor shuts down, the weight of the Earth will push the reactor back towards criticality.

Seismic measurements have given us some idea of what the density distribution inside the Earth is, so there cannot be too much of the Earth's mass tied up in a black hole, if there is one.

Remember that matter is being added to the Earth all the time, (infall from outer space); so maybe this would counter-act the black hole consuming the planet. Maybe there is an equilibrium due to this fact???

[David Hall]

Can I just say here that I have a new theory
about Black Holes?

Yes, well, you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine. Well, this theory, that I have, that is to say, which is mine...
is mine.

My theory, that I have, follows in the lines that I am about to relate.

Ahhemmm

Ahh-hhe-mmm-hemm.

Ahh-heeen-heehemm huugg-heem


The theory, by D. Hall.
(That's "D" for "David", it's not "by the hall".)

This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows...

hheennnmmm-aheem

This is how it goes...

Heem-hech-haag

The next thing that I am about to say is my theory.

hhumm-hemm-haagh

Ready?

All Black Holes are big around on the outside, much smaller in the middle, and then very, very, very tiny at the center.

That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too.











I have another theory.....

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[Donnie B.]

Ah yes, but are they crunchy?

[Bozola]

Now; feel free to chew me up and spit me out...

As you wish...

I believe that black holes are what drives the formation of planetary and stellar bodies in the universe

Technically, you have, by you own admission, a belief, not a theory.

I remember reading somewhere that our sun has a micrscopic black hole ticking away at it's centre.

Furthermore, you don't even have a hypothesis, but a vague opinion based on conjecture and ill-remembered articles of a speculative nature.

Now then, it is my hypothesis that the moons of Jupiter are in fact the droppings of giant space bunnies.

[Celestial Mechanic]

On 2002-12-19 09:07, Banquo's Ghost wrote:
This is based on my own conjecturing...
[Snip!]
Now; feel free to chew me up and spit me out...

BG did warn that it was a conjecture, so we should not be harsh just because it is not a full-blown theory with worked out details. Unfortunately he did leave himself open to a Monty Python attack by giving his thread the title "My theory on black holes", but I think that his conjecture should be given a bit more serious thought than we have given it, even if it is ultimately rejected.

As you have seen from my posts above, my first argument was negative, my second a bit supportive. This third post will be a little bit negative, however.

The reason is this: as we are discovering, there are lots of small objects in the Solar System, about 50,000 numbered asteroids and counting. It is doubtful that there are black holes in any of them, nor are there likely to be black holes in comets. These objects were able to form without the use of a black hole as a "seed", and it is very likely that the planets and satellites that we observe now also accumulated from planetesimals without the intervention of black hole seeds.

The biggest problem with Banquo's Ghost's conjecture is that no black hole has ever been observed inside a star or planet, although I will concede at this time that I am not sure how to search for such a thing. So I will throw out this question to any geophysicists that might be lurking: How do we know that there is no black hole at the center of the Earth? In other words, what upper limit is there to any anomalous distribution of mass at the center of the Earth?

[cable]

To recap, black holes are hungry and will eat anything near enough to fall in. Most stars in galaxies and globular clusters orbit safely away from the black holes at their centers, which is why galaxies and globular clusters can contain them, but stars and planets cannot.

1. how can we talk about BH, knowing that our laws of physics won't work in a BH ??
( a hypercondensed space/time )

2. How stars and planets are formed ?
we say its gravity.
yet how a few atoms in a gaz can attract others , and others ... I understand it works when it aquires a certain size. there must be something other than gravity that compressed the gaz at the start, then gravity finished the job.

[traztx]

On 2002-12-26 12:34, cable wrote:
2. How stars and planets are formed ?
we say its gravity.
yet how a few atoms in a gaz can attract others , and others ... I understand it works when it aquires a certain size. there must be something other than gravity that compressed the gaz at the start, then gravity finished the job.

Gas freezes. Frozen pieces eventually are collected by heavier elements in the interstellar chunks of ice and rock.

The intergalactic medium is much poorer in heavier element, so the frozen gas can collect upon itself. It takes a lot longer though.

[David Hall]

Well Cable, as far as I can gather, we may not be able to use physics to describe what goes on inside the singularity, but we can use it to define the existence and boundaries of it, as well as what effects it would have on the universe around it. Physics describes the way gravity works, and we can follow the mathematical formulae down to a point, but beyond that point is anybody's guess. Hawking seems to be doing a pretty good job of it at least. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I want to make it clear that my little Python sketch was not meant as an attack or sarcasm of any kind. It was just an attempt to throw out a little humor based on the title of this thread. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]