Could the Earth be inside a huge black hole?

[toobfreak]

Atoms, carbon, photons.. don't logically exist inside black holes or neutron stars.
Stars "collapse" or become neutron stars because neutrons are denser than protons in terms of both mass and energy per unit volume.
Neutron stars "collapse" or become black holes because black holes are denser than any neutron or neutron star.

Neutron stars are made of neutrons ... packed one against the other in what the egg-heads call "neutron degenerate matter" and this is given full "state-of-matter" status ... low volume, high gravity ...My question is whether these neutrons stars just keep getting bigger until it has enough mass to trap photons with its gravity ... creating an event horizon a.k.a. a black hole ... if so, then the Earth could exist, but she would collapse down to her neutron degenerate state ... and wouldn't be useful for biology ... looks like the Earth would experience a type 1a supernova event at some point, so life couldn't exist ... or maybe just sublime ...

Look, neutrons and protons weigh almost exactly the same within about 99.9%, they differ only in the arrangement of quarks inside, that 0.1% probably accounting for the positive charge of the proton (positive charges are typically due to a "hole" leaving a deficit, as well as the fact that these particles behave and exist differently in free space as opposed to when combined in an atom. To compound matters further, beta decay allows one to interchange to the other.

So, neutron stars degenerate as such simply because neutrons are the more degenerate and stable of the two particle states as a stable midpoint in stellar evolution from the main sequence to the degenerate core of a supermassive stellar explosion leaving behind the dead core of the star composited down to the most decayed state ordinary matter can withstand without collapsing into a black hole, not because one is slightly "heavier."

As to what "logically exists" inside a black hole, that is pure speculation since we cannot ever directly measure the crossing of an event horizon toward the singularity within, indeed, seen from our POV, such a crossing never happens, the event taking longer than the age of the universe!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Funny I've never seen or heard these statements from Tesla before despite owning several books on him as well as having watched hours and hours of documentaries on his life! Still, Tesla was an electrician, schooled in applied physics, not a quantum physicist, and I'm loathe to wonder why he even had an opinion on spacetime curvature! Assuming of course your quotes are even legitimate. But thanks for pointing out that something I only DOUBTED was "dead wrong." Proven by a meme. You are nothing if not hard up to be right about something apparently.

"dead wrong" was your phrase.. and quotes are quotes, drama queen.

Proof once again that great minds even like Einstein can often be dead wrong.

It's amazing how ignorant you've remained of Tesla's core differences with Einstein. Whatever. I'm just here to share facts and discuss what makes sense.

 

[toobfreak]

"dead wrong" was your phrase..

Wow, still trying to milk this for attention I see.

It's amazing how ignorant you've remained of Tesla's core differences with Einstein.

Yes, amazing. One more crackpot theory from Tesla, king of crackpot theories.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, neutrons and protons weigh almost exactly the same within about 99.9%, they differ only in the arrangement of quarks inside, that 0.1% probably accounting for the positive charge of the proton (positive charges are typically due to a "hole" leaving a deficit, as well as the fact that these particles behave and exist differently in free space as opposed to when combined in an atom. To compound matters further, beta decay allows one to interchange to the other.

Have you actually thought about that? The "positive charge of the proton" causes them to repel each other. Neutrons have no charge so repel each other little. With no negative "electron shell" or anything to hold lone protons together they're going to take up a shitload more volume than lone neutrons.

So, neutron stars degenerate as such simply because neutrons are the more degenerate and stable of the two particle states as a stable midpoint in stellar evolution from the main sequence to the degenerate core of a supermassive stellar explosion leaving behind the dead core of the star composited down to the most decayed state ordinary matter can withstand without collapsing into a black hole, not because one is slightly "heavier."

Actually, however minor and despite your incredible reluctance to agree with anything I may say, being slightly heavier clearly remains a cause. You're welcome.

As to what "logically exists" inside a black hole, that is pure speculation since we cannot ever directly measure the crossing of an event horizon toward the singularity within, indeed, seen from our POV, such a crossing never happens, the event taking longer than the age of the universe!

Nonsense. There are massive black holes where such an argument may fly (speculatively). Then there are all the relatively tiny black holes and neutron stars.. We're supposed to be imagining Earth fitting inside something 10 miles in diameter? Get the heck outta heeya!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stars "collapse" or become neutron stars because neutrons are denser than protons in terms of both mass and energy per unit volume.

Being obsessed with particles causes modern physicists to never think in terms of fields. Neutrons, having no charge (or repulsive field force) naturally pack together more tightly (densely) than protons. Their roughly same individual masses add up to much greater mass "per unit volume" when packed together. This produces a much greater gravitational field effect holding bunches of lone neutrons together all the more. Even so, neutron stars reportedly max out at around 10 miles in diameter.

Once the neutron star is over the mass limit, which is at a mass of about 3 solar masses, the collapse to a black hole occurs in less than a second.

 

[toobfreak]

Have you actually thought about that? The "positive charge of the proton" causes them to repel each other. Neutrons have no charge so repel each other little. With no negative "electron shell" or anything to hold lone protons together they're going to take up a shitload more volume than lone neutrons.

Have you actually thought about that? At the pressures that supermassive stellar cores see upon explosion, the bosonic forces or repulsion encountered between protons don't stand a chance, or do you think that somehow, protons "escape" the supernova? I mean, even a simple man-made collider can overcome the repulsive forces you mention to collide particles!

Actually, however minor and despite your incredible reluctance to agree with anything I may say,

I'll agree as soon as I hear you say anything scientifically right.

being slightly heavier clearly remains a cause. You're welcome.

Still waiting for the proof of that. Any?

Nonsense. There are massive black holes where such an argument may fly (speculatively). Then there are all the relatively tiny black holes and neutron stars..

Size is irrelevant to a black hole.

We're supposed to be imagining Earth fitting inside something 10 miles in diameter? Get the heck outta heeya!

Come again? Where do you get your science, on the back of a cereal box?

 

[ReinyDays]

It's amazing how ignorant you've remained of Tesla's core differences with Einstein.

This is profoundly uninformed ... apparently, there's absolute nothing in Telsa's writings to indicate he even understood James Maxwell ... or Marcel Grossmann ... the people Einstein relied on for the math ...

I think you mean Edison ... just the bulk of Telsa's credit went to Westinghouse ... as Telsa was not a well-liked individual ... and in his 60's when Einstein's GR was published ... if I may paraphrase Max Planck ... "Science advances one funeral at a time." ...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Black holes? I have enough on my plate in taking care of a three acre garden.

 

[ReinyDays]

Black holes? I have enough on my plate in taking care of a three acre garden.

3 acres is a row farm ... hey, do goats really eat tin cans? ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Black holes? I have enough on my plate in taking care of a three acre garden.

One acre is plenty. Plant fruit trees on the rest.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This is profoundly uninformed ... apparently, there's absolute nothing in Telsa's writings to indicate he even understood James Maxwell ... or Marcel Grossmann ... the people Einstein relied on for the math ...

I think you mean Edison ... just the bulk of Telsa's credit went to Westinghouse ... as Telsa was not a well-liked individual ... and in his 60's when Einstein's GR was published ... if I may paraphrase Max Planck ... "Science advances one funeral at a time." ...

Okay, unsurprising that you too know practically nothing about Tesla. Yes, Einstein busied himself balancing other's equations involving things Tesla had long studied and demonstrated experimentally. This excerpt from an expert:

Smashing Atoms​

Tesla also differed with Einstein and the quantum physicists in his view of the structure of the elementary particles and the possible consequences caused by the smashing of atoms. “I have disintegrated atoms in my experiments with a high potential vacuum tube...operat[ing] it with pressures ranging from 4,000,000 to 18,000,000 million volts...But as to atomic energy, my experimental observations have shown that the process of disintegration is not accompanied by a liberation of such energy as might be expected from present theories.”15

To Tesla, the Theory of Relativity was just “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” Writing a decade before the explosion of the atom bomb, and ignoring the space curvature data from the 1919 eclipse which supported Einstein’s idea that space was curved around large bodies such as stars, Tesla suggested that the existence of a force field would account for the same mathematical results. Thus, Tesla brazenly concluded, “Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”16


It would be shortsighted to simply judge Tesla wrong and Einstein and the quantum physicists right for at least two reasons: 1) Both relativity and quantum theory have been established as incomplete, and in some sense incompatible theories on the structure of the universe.17 2) Tesla was discussing these phenomena from a different perspective that was not completely analogous to the one espoused by the theoretical physicists. In Colorado Springs, for instance, Tesla was generating over 4,000,000 volts, whereas only about 1,000,000 volts is required for separating electrons from the nucleus of an atom. Thus, Tesla was able to disintegrate atoms, but in an entirely different way than that postulated by Einstein or the quantum physicists (for Tesla did not destroy the nucleus). No atomic explosion could ever occur with his type of apparatus. Tesla completely misunderstood the ramifications of Einstein’s equation E = mc2, and the corresponding suppositions of the equivalence of mass and energy. Unfortunately, he would never live to see the proof that tremendous amounts of power were locked inside the tiny space occupied by the nuclei of atoms.18

Gravity​

Concerning the curvature of space (Einstein) versus the idea of a force field (Tesla), I discussed this point with Edwin Gora, Professor Emeritus from Providence College. Gora, whose teachers include Werner Heisenberg and Arnold Sommerfeld, agreed that the two concepts might actually be different viable ways of describing the same thing. Both Tesla and Einstein were trying to describe the fundamental structure of space and its relationship to the constancy of lightspeed and gravity.

In an obscure paper I discovered on the web published by M. Shapkin but supposedly written by Tesla, Shapkin/Tesla states that the reason why light only travels at one speed, 186,000 mph, is because the ether, its medium of transfer, slows down photonic energy to that rate the same way air slows down sound to its constant speed.19 According to this view, the ether is a specific medium that restricts the speed of light to exactly the speed that it is.

You're welcome.

 

[Cougarbear]

Black holes aren't observed to be larger than our universe. The universe continues to grow while we don't know enough about the growth of black holes. I think the majority think black holes are growing, but it is still a hypothesis.

Basically, universes are getting smaller and smaller.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

One acre is plenty. Plant fruit trees on the rest.

The other two acres is for the community store house to assist those in need. We have plenty of fruit trees.

 

[ReinyDays]

Okay, unsurprising that you too know practically nothing about Tesla. Yes, Einstein busied himself balancing other's equations involving things Tesla had long studied and demonstrated experimentally. This excerpt from an expert:

You're welcome.

Einstein explained the orbit of Mercury ... treating time as a non-Euclid space ... or non-linear if you like ... Special Relativity ...

Tesla disagreed with James Maxwell ... and by extension anyone who followed Maxwell, like Einstein ...

Einstein studied gravity ... not electricity ... and Tesla was an old man when Einstein was in his prime ... "science progresses one funeral at a time" ...

 

[toobfreak]

This is profoundly uninformed ... apparently, there's absolute nothing in Telsa's writings to indicate he even understood James Maxwell ... or Marcel Grossmann ... the people Einstein relied on for the math ... I think you mean Edison ... just the bulk of Telsa's credit went to Westinghouse ... as Telsa was not a well-liked individual ... and in his 60's when Einstein's GR was published ... if I may paraphrase Max Planck ... "Science advances one funeral at a time." ...

The grumblenut has demonstrated the usual internet armchair expertise now trying to backpedal away from his own stupidity trying to deflect away from the topic of the thread now instead about Tesla's irrelevant and seldom considered views on a field unrelated to any of his work compared to another guy (Einstein) also eventually proven wrong on the matter as well.

As brilliant a guy as Tesla was, he was first and foremost known as an applied physicist working in the fields of high frequency AC, motors, and power distribution who might have gone on to other greater things had he not thrown away a veritable fortune giving back ALL of his contractual royalties to George Westinghouse to keep him in business! Probably what sent him off finally into the deep end circling the block three times before entering buildings, needing rooms based on the number 3 and finally, taking a pigeon in the park as his love interest. Shame.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The grumblenut has demonstrated the usual internet armchair expertise now trying to backpedal away from his own stupidity trying to deflect away from the topic of the thread now instead about Tesla's irrelevant and seldom considered views on a field unrelated to any of his work compared to another guy (Einstein) also eventually proven wrong on the matter as well.

As brilliant a guy as Tesla was, he was first and foremost known as an applied physicist working in the fields of high frequency AC, motors, and power distribution who might have gone on to other greater things had he not thrown away a veritable fortune giving back ALL of his contractual royalties to George Westinghouse to keep him in business! Probably what sent him off finally into the deep end circling the block three times before entering buildings, needing rooms based on the number 3 and finally, taking a pigeon in the park as his love interest. Shame.

'Tis a shame you're so lame
Setting your armchair projecting self all aflame
The wheelworks of the universe Tesla did study and explain
Equipped with more than twice the horsepower of Einstein's brain

 

[toobfreak]

'Tis a shame you're so lame
Setting your armchair projecting self all aflame
The wheelworks of the universe Tesla did study and explain
Equipped with more than twice the horsepower of Einstein's brain

Wow, that is pathetic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Einstein explained the orbit of Mercury ... treating time as a non-Euclid space ... or non-linear if you like ... Special Relativity ...

Yep. Because just using a spinning top analogy in plain old space space would never have dazzled so many to the point of completely shutting off their normally inquisitive brains. No, one simply must pointlessly confuse the issue by adding a fourth "spacetime" dimension/abortion.

In hindsight, relativity is common sense. Einstein: first to think really hard about how one's POV matters so much when near light speed motion is involved. Got his equations to balance and all. Good for him! Yay, nuclear Armageddon! Endless War! Mutually Assured Destruction!

Tesla disagreed with James Maxwell ... and by extension anyone who followed Maxwell, like Einstein ...

O'Reilly? Funny, I recall him having issues with Marconi and Hertz. He loved Maxwell. What TF are you smoking?

Einstein studied gravity ... not electricity ...

Einstein just called from rolling around in his grave to say, "Remember my photoelectric effect, dummkopf?"

 

[ReinyDays]

Einstein just called from rolling around in his grave to say, "Remember my photoelectric effect, dummkopf?"

Do you not know what the photoelectric effect is? ... "Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but a swarm of discrete energy packets, known as photons." -- Wikipedia ...

You're confusing this with the Photovoltaic Effect ... an easy mistake to make ... especially if you don't know the difference between Classical and Modern Physics ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you not know what the photoelectric effect is? ... "Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but a swarm of discrete energy packets, known as photons." -- Wikipedia ...

You're confusing this with the Photovoltaic Effect ... an easy mistake to make ... especially if you don't know the difference between Classical and Modern Physics ...

Wow. Like Einstein said, "Dummkopf!" {Hint: read my previously provided link! Hint2: "photoELECTRIC"}

Einstein studied gravity ... not electricity ...