The discussion revolves around the characteristics of black holes, specifically addressing the concepts of infinite density, mass, and gravity. Participants explore the implications of these characteristics, the interpretations of scientific statements, and the differences in understanding among scientists.
Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the interpretation of black holes and singularities, with multiple competing views on whether black holes possess infinite characteristics or if these are misinterpretations of scientific statements. The discussion remains unresolved.
There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of singularities and black holes, as well as the assumptions made about the implications of infinite density and gravity. The mathematical relationships discussed are not universally accepted and depend on specific interpretations.
As far as we can tell, black holes don't have any of those characteristics.science_rules said:...why does a black hole have infinite density, mass, and gravity...
There is some debate on PF as to what "the singularity" means, however Kaku was almost certainly referring to a finite mass in zero volume. In either case, since we can't ever go and check, that doesn't impact what a black hole looks like to us (a region of space with a finite volume, finite mass and finite gravitational field). There is no debate about that. So does that clear it up...?science_rules said:In a science documentary, Michio Kaku mentioned that the singularity of black holes have infinite density and infinite gravity.
Sorry, but the misunderstanding there is yours; You extrapolated something beyond what he said.How can laymen expect to learn anything or trust scientists if what some scientists say is not what other scientists believe and scientists never agree with each other about fundamental ideas about the Universe? If what he said is true, it seems then that scientists cannot agree with each other, either that or scientists just make stuff up even if it doesn't make any sense.
Why does an electron have infinite electric field at zero distance?science_rules said:infinite gravity
That makes no sense. If Kaku meant that, he should have said so instead of making it confusing and misleading for the laymen. Saying a black hole has infinite density is not the same as saying finite mass in zero volume.russ_watters said:There is some debate on PF as to what "the singularity" means, however Kaku was almost certainly referring to a finite mass in zero volume. In either case, since we can't ever go and check, that doesn't impact what a black hole looks like to us (a region of space with a finite volume, finite mass and finite gravitational field). There is no debate about that. So does that clear it up...?
Sorry, but the misunderstanding there is yours; You extrapolated something beyond what he said.
[also, a link would help...]
Yes, actually it is:science_rules said:That makes no sense. If Kaku meant that, he should have said so instead of making it confusing and misleading for the laymen. Saying a black hole has infinite density is not the same as saying finite mass in zero volume.
You beat me to it...russ_watters said:Yes, actually it is:
What happens to "d" in the following function as "v" approaches zero?
d=m/v
And please slow your roll.
You now understand why most physicists roll their eyes at the mention of Michio Kaku...science_rules said:How can laymen expect to learn anything or trust scientists if what some scientists say is not what other scientists believe