My blackhole theory-Why is it Wrong?

  • Thread starter rjbig2000
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Blackhole
In summary, My blackhole theory proposes that blackholes are not singularities, but rather highly dense objects with an event horizon. This contradicts the current scientific understanding of blackholes. While there is no direct evidence to support my theory, there are observations and mathematical models that can explain certain phenomena related to blackholes. My theory differs from the current scientific understanding in that it rejects the idea of blackholes as singularities. There are other alternative theories that support similar ideas, but they differ in their approach. To critics who question the scientific evidence behind my theory, I believe it is important to continue exploring and questioning our understanding of blackholes. As we gather more data and evidence, we may be able to better understand the true nature of these mysterious
  • #1
rjbig2000
2
0
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:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
rjbig2000 said:
Ok,
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.
I would love to hear from anyone why My Theory Can't Work.

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:
  • #3
Hi, rjbig2000, welcome to PF!

rjbig2000 said:
Ok, I am no brilliant scientist like the rest of you folks

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!

rjbig2000 said:
here is a simple explanation of my theory.

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.

rjbig2000 said:
My understanding is that it is believed that White dwarfs collect mass until they become unstable then explode leaving a black hole.

I don't think that's a very accurate summary. Maybe someone else can offer a better link, but try http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/blackholes.php from the Astronomy Department at Cornell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
rjbig2000,
PLease reread the site guidelines you agreed to when you registered. Dissussion of personal theories is not permitted.

Thread closed.
 

1. What is your blackhole theory and why do you think it is wrong?

My blackhole theory is based on the idea that blackholes are not actually singularities, but rather highly dense objects with an event horizon. I believe it is wrong because it contradicts the current understanding of blackholes as singularities with infinite density.

2. What evidence do you have to support your theory?

While there is no direct evidence to support my theory, there are several observations that can be explained by it. For example, the lack of gravitational lensing in the center of galaxies can be attributed to the absence of a singularity. Additionally, the presence of jets in some blackholes can be explained by the rotation of the dense object at the center.

3. How does your blackhole theory differ from the current scientific understanding?

The current scientific understanding of blackholes is that they are singularities, meaning they have infinite density and a point of no return called the event horizon. My theory proposes that blackholes are actually highly dense objects with an event horizon, rather than singularities.

4. Are there any other theories that support your ideas?

There are some alternative theories to the current understanding of blackholes, such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. These theories also propose that blackholes are not singularities, but they differ from my theory in their approach and explanations.

5. How do you respond to critics who believe your theory is not based on scientific evidence?

While my theory may not have direct evidence to support it, it is based on observations and mathematical models. It is important to consider alternative theories and continue to explore and question our understanding of blackholes. As we gather more data and evidence, we may be able to better understand the true nature of blackholes.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
972
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
335
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
3
Replies
77
Views
7K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
245
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top