# My blackhole theory-Why is it Wrong?

1. Dec 3, 2007

### rjbig2000

Ok, I am no brilliant scientist like the rest of you folks but I have had a little theory rolling around in my head for some time and I would love to hear from you smart folks why this couldn't be the case. So here is a simple explanation of my theory.

Basically the idea goes like this. Two particles (with mass) traveling in different directions get trapped by each others gravity. The two particles begin to spin faster and faster as they get closer together. As they spin faster their mass increases and thus causing their gravity to increase. As the gravity increases it begins to pull in more particles. This whole thing continues as the speed and gravity get close to light speed the object goes dark. It continues in this manner capturing more and more material until it finally captures enough material to begin to reverse the process. At this point the object is still collecting material and slowing. When it slows enough it once again becomes visible (White dwarf) and continues to slow. As the object slows it's gravitational mass is decreasing. At some point as the object slows the gravitational pull becomes to weak to hold the mass together and the object explodes.

This is basically just the opposite of what I have read that is happening. My understanding is that it is believed that White dwarfs collect mass until they become unstable then explode leaving a black hole. Very Simplified description

I would love to hear from anyone why My Theory Can't Work.

Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
2. Dec 3, 2007

### pixel01

As I understand, basic particles move and bind together not because of gravity. So there's no chance of: '...spin faster and faster as they get closer.'.
Gravity has effect only on large scale objects.

Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
3. Dec 3, 2007

### Chris Hillman

Hi, rjbig2000, welcome to PF!

Actually, PF users run the gamut from young students through a handful of professional scientists.

If you are a high school student, that would have been helpful information to mention here!

It can take quite a bit of book learning and experience to appreciate what the word "theory" means in physics, but what you wrote clearly doesn't qualify. One of the principle characteristics of "theories" in physics is that they include assumptions, motivations for those assumptions, deductions from those assumptions, all stated using the language of mathematics, plus mathematical models consistent with the theory which model particular scenarios, and so on.

I don't think that's a very accurate summary. Maybe someone else can offer a better link, but try this page from the Astronomy Department at Cornell.

Last edited: Dec 3, 2007
4. Dec 3, 2007

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
rjbig2000,
PLease reread the site guidelines you agreed to when you registered. Dissussion of personal theories is not permitted.