Black hole- god of science

Singularity seems to hold properties quite often required word “infinity” to be described. This word usually is reserved for God. Infinite density, escape velocity requiring an infinite source of energy, an infinite curvature of spacetime and much more. Features like that raise paradoxes. Below I have listed things that in my understanding of science are controversial and even stupid. And jeopardize the whole idea of the black hole.

black hole turd.jpg

  1. Matter is a state of energy able to exist between two energy barriers: 0 degrees K temperature (that is zero energy) and speed of light (which is infinite energy). According to special relativity, any known kind of matter can not reach the speed of light, regardless if this speed is generated by internal energy of a particle or gravity of a second body. The event horizon is a boundary in spacetime, the point at which the gravitational pull becomes as strong as the speed of light. According to the Theory of Relativity, time will extend to infinity before reaching this speed and event horizon. Also, to create the event horizon, the black hole would have to be a source of infinite energy.
  2. TOV mass is trying to convince us that after reaching this  limit fabric of a space-time, matter and laws of physics are going to go to hell and singularity is going to be created. Do we have any reason to believe that this is going to happened? Over the years TOV mass has grown approximately 300%, (from original 0.7 mass of the sun to over 2 masses of the sun) because of discoveries of more and more massive objects.
  3. The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 10^11 to 10^12 kelvin. However, the huge number of neutrinos it emits carry away so much energy that the temperature falls within a few years to around 10^6 kelvin. Even at 1 million kelvin, most of the light generated by a neutron star is in X-rays. It is interesting how long would it take to lose enough energy to become undetectable?
  4. Matter in a core of the largest known neutron stars is approx. 10 times denser that nuclear matter. It is thought that these objects are on the edge of transition to become black holes. First generation quarks have mass approx. equal to 2.3 and 4.8 MeV/C2. Quarks are considered to be a point particles so it is safe to assume that their mass represents also their density. The most massive quark, Top quark, has mass approx. 173 GeV/c2. This means that top quark is 5 orders of magnitude denser than nuclear matter and 4 orders of magnitude denser than a core of a largest known neutron star. If top quark does not collapse on itself creating a quantum black hole, why would neutron star?
  5. Supernova type 1a is a manifestation of an electromagnetic force being overtaken by gravity in a white dwarf. Mechanism of that event can be simplified as follows: Implosion of a core causes an explosion of outer layers. Since the transition of a neutron star to a black hole has to depend on of the same mechanism why we are not observing explosions similar to supernovas during that process? Hypernova type 1a (representing the transition between a neutron star and a colapsar) has not been observed so far.
  6. It is hard to realize that object that travels nearly the speed of light will never reach event horizon that is the only fraction of a millimeter away. After all special theory of relativity tells us that we should observe it. In practice, however, Doppler Effect will prevent that event from being observable. The redshift of observed object will become so great that we will never be able to see object crossing event horizon. therefore I believe Doppler Effect is a solid part of relativity and should be taken into consideration when a massive object or high velocities are being studied.
  7. What if in the middle of Milky Way there was a dark and cold object that diameter is one centimeter wider that diameter of an event horizon of a hypothetical black hole with the corresponding mass? how could we distinguish between these two objects?


Recently Stephen Hawking is jeopardizing his own hypothesis making up weird theses about saving the information inside the black holes and possible entering the other universe on the other side of a black hole. My only question for this is: REALLY?

This is what happens when instead of on legit laws of the universe, models are being based on other hypotheses which in turn are based on mathematical prediction which are based on mathematical proofs. Guess what. Mathematics see absolutely no obstacles to lower the temperature below 0K and speed up the material particle to 1c. But if that is possible, then proof it. Quoting Samuel L. Jackson: “I dare you, I double-dare you motherf****r!” Because teaching that black holes are real in schools you are implying nothing else than this. You are spreading lies based on faith, not on actual science. Which makes you an orthodox scientist and turns science into faith.

If you are basing your work on mathematical proofs (which are not real proofs) than in the end you are receiving a freaking cirque where we have a clowns juggling paradoxes.

My comment for this is: Black Holes to Blackboards!


Because of aforementioned reasons, I propose new, alternative look for a black hole (if this name is still applicable). The event horizon is unreachable. Instead of the sphere, it is a point in the middle of the object, a nonmaterial point that all surrounding particles travel to with almost the speed of light, but will never reach, frozen in time and traveling to a place that is relatively infinitely far away. From this point all possible (and only possible) states of a matter are arranged in layers from the densest to lightest. Maybe even third generations of quarks do exist here in natural conditions. Their appearance, however, is going to be selected by conditions not forced by pressure. The transition between generations occurs spontaneously due to weak interactions. Heavier particles are being selected as more stable in this conditions. This is why the mix of components will be a combination of time and conditions, not just a mass of an object. The presence of heavy particles would be therefore a clue for an age of an object.

The density of this kind of object would be much greater that neutron star but not enough to create a black hole and event horizon.

Speed with neutron stars lose heat and density generated Doppler effect would make this object dark and even almost black because on its surface redshift would be so great that it would take photons millions of years to escape from this object and reach an observer, And even in this case light from cold surface of this “black star” reaching us would be extremely week.

In the end, I would like to stress that I’m not writing this idea to disproof black holes theory, but I would like it to be considered as an alternative look for supermassive objects. I understand that black holes are cool. Science, however, is not for providing us cool stuff, it should describe things the way they are. This is why I do not know why to shift known laws of the universe in order to support science-fiction.

One thought on “Black hole- god of science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s