• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Black Hole is hole that is black

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
THIS IS MY PERSONAL IDEA AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

My opinion might be wrong, it is almost definitely wrong; because it is not peer-reviewed.
But you should admit, that Black Holes are still mysterious ones. For example, it is unknown how very large Black Holes came to be.


One assumes that at the formation of Earth, the centrifugal force of rotation changed its sphericity. Earth's geoid is not a sphere but almost an ellipsoid. The shape of the Earth looks a little like a chicken egg when viewed from the side.

But according to current knowledge about Black Holes, they all look like absolutely perfect black spheres. And at the same time, they rapidly rotate around their axis. How could centrifugal forces fail to change the shape of such a cosmic body even by a tiny millimeter? But according to my idea, they changed; and the faster the rotation, the more extended the "ellipsoid of rotation" becomes. So it is shaped like a (black) egg. Inside the egg - there is a mysterious "blank" with no time nor space. On the surface of the egg ends the nature of our universe. The mathematics is pretty weird:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360608402_BLACK_HOLES_ARE_LITERALLY_THE_HOLES

Yes, two black holes are depictured recently, but their axes of rotation are arranged roughly in the direction of the Earth. Therefore, the black holes are visible in shape as spheres. It is like if you look at an egg from a certain point, then the egg will look like a perfect circle.
Suitable Illustration:


FROM DISCUSSION IN FES:

Bob: "There are no centrifugal forces because that radius isn't physical; it is not actually spinning."
But due to time dilation, any black hole becomes fully formed only in the infinitely distant future.
Hence, there are centrifugal forces expected while the infinite long star collapse is happening.

Luna: "A black hole is a faintly luminous star. It shines so faintly that its light is not visible. Therefore, it gives the impression of a completely black body."
Why isn't my jacket black? I see that it is neither pink nor blue, but black. Keep it simple!

Bob: "What are these centrifugal forces acting on? A black hole has no physical outer edge. Just like the area of light a light bulb produces is not a physical object that can be affected by spin or inertia."
I sense a scientist. Are you the physicist? I am one. I love the black hole topic. Forces are acting on star material. Black Hole is the collapsing star in slow-motion.

WITH BEST WISHES, STAY SAFE AND PROTECTED:

 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Black holes dont have colour, they absorb all wavelengths of light. However, i understand the surrounding space is blue (more towards the violet end of the spectrum)
It may smell like steak.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
THIS IS MY PERSONAL IDEA AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

My opinion might be wrong, it is almost definitely wrong; because it is not peer-reviewed.
But you should admit, that Black Holes are still mysterious ones. For example, it is unknown how very large Black Holes came to be.


One assumes that at the formation of Earth, the centrifugal force of rotation changed its sphericity. Earth's geoid is not a sphere but almost an ellipsoid. The shape of the Earth looks a little like a chicken egg when viewed from the side.

But according to current knowledge about Black Holes, they all look like absolutely perfect black spheres. And at the same time, they rapidly rotate around their axis. How could centrifugal forces fail to change the shape of such a cosmic body even by a tiny millimeter? But according to my idea, they changed; and the faster the rotation, the more extended the "ellipsoid of rotation" becomes. So it is shaped like a (black) egg. Inside the egg - there is a mysterious "blank" with no time nor space. On the surface of the egg ends the nature of our universe. The mathematics is pretty weird:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360608402_BLACK_HOLES_ARE_LITERALLY_THE_HOLES

Yes, two black holes are depictured recently, but their axes of rotation are arranged roughly in the direction of the Earth. Therefore, the black holes are visible in shape as spheres. It is like if you look at an egg from a certain point, then the egg will look like a perfect circle.
Suitable Illustration:


FROM DISCUSSION IN FES:

Bob: "There are no centrifugal forces because that radius isn't physical; it is not actually spinning."
But due to time dilation, any black hole becomes fully formed only in the infinitely distant future.
Hence, there are centrifugal forces expected while the infinite long star collapse is happening.

Luna: "A black hole is a faintly luminous star. It shines so faintly that its light is not visible. Therefore, it gives the impression of a completely black body."
Why isn't my jacket black? I see that it is neither pink nor blue, but black. Keep it simple!

Bob: "What are these centrifugal forces acting on? A black hole has no physical outer edge. Just like the area of light a light bulb produces is not a physical object that can be affected by spin or inertia."
I sense a scientist. Are you the physicist? I am one. I love the black hole topic. Forces are acting on star material. Black Hole is the collapsing star in slow-motion.

WITH BEST WISHES, STAY SAFE AND PROTECTED:

Click to expand...
:facepalm:

Just to begin with, the earth is not an ellipsoid, nor does it look even the tiniest bit like a chicken egg.

Because it spins on its North-South axis, centrifugal force tends to push matter at the equator outward, flattening it a little at the poles. It's shape is called an oblate spheroid as a result.

By the way, that means that you are very slightly heavier at the poles than on the equator, because you are closer to the centre of mass.

I knew that in Grade 6!
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
:facepalm:

Just to begin with, the earrh is not an ellipsoid, nor does it look even the tiniest bit like a chicken egg.

Because it spins on its North-South axis, centrifugal force tends to push matter at the equator outward, flattening it a little at the poles. It's shape is called an oblate spheroid as a result.

By the way, that means that you are very slightly heavier at the poles than on the equator, because you are closer to the centre of mass.

I knew that in Grade 6!
Click to expand...
It is the lack of centripetal force that makes one weigh more. And yes, ironically getting closer to the center does increase one's mass slightly, but that is only because the Earth is not of uniform density. If the Earth was of uniform density then being closer to the center would lower ones weight.

One's weight goes up as one goes down due to the high density of the core. When one hits the mantle/core boundary g is equal to about 10.8 m/s^2. Let me see if I can find a graph for you.

EDIT:

This graph has several models. The PREM line is what is thought to accurately show what the gravity would be with what we know about density increasing with depth:

1280px-EarthGravityPREM.svg.png


And the darker green line is if the density was constant..
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
It is the lack of centripetal force that makes one weigh more. And yes, ironically getting closer to the center does increase one's mass slightly, but that is only because the Earth is not of uniform density. If the Earth was of uniform density then being closer to the center would lower ones weight.

One's weight goes up as one goes down due to the high density of the core. When one hits the mantle/core boundary g is equal to about 10.8 m/s^2. Let me see if I can find a graph for you.

EDIT:

This graph has several models. The PREM line is what is thought to accurately show what the gravity would be with what we know about density increasing with depth:

1280px-EarthGravityPREM.svg.png


And the darker green line is if the density was constant..
Click to expand...
I think it may be some of both. The linked article below says: "There are three major complications to earth's gravitational field. First the earth is not a sphere. The earth is spinning, causing it to slightly flatten like a pizza crust thrown and spun in the air. As a result, the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere. If you stand at sea level on the equator, you are 6378 km from the center of the earth. In contrast, at each pole, you are only 6357 km from the center of the earth. Since the strength of gravity weakens as you get farther away from a gravitational body, the points on the equator are farther and have weaker gravity than the poles. The other two complications to earth's gravitational field; non-uniform internal density and local surface mass variations such as mountains; are small enough factors that we will neglect them here. Therefore, assuming the entire mass of the earth is located at its center, we can calculate the force of earth's gravity at the equator and at the poles. Using Newton's law of gravity, we find that the force of earth's gravity on your body at the equator is 9.798 m/s2 times the mass of your body, whereas at the poles it is 9.863 m/s2 times the mass of your body."

Do I weigh less on the equator than at the North Pole?.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
I think it may be some of both. The linked article below says: "There are three major complications to earth's gravitational field. First the earth is not a sphere. The earth is spinning, causing it to slightly flatten like a pizza crust thrown and spun in the air. As a result, the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere. If you stand at sea level on the equator, you are 6378 km from the center of the earth. In contrast, at each pole, you are only 6357 km from the center of the earth. Since the strength of gravity weakens as you get farther away from a gravitational body, the points on the equator are farther and have weaker gravity than the poles. The other two complications to earth's gravitational field; non-uniform internal density and local surface mass variations such as mountains; are small enough factors that we will neglect them here. Therefore, assuming the entire mass of the earth is located at its center, we can calculate the force of earth's gravity at the equator and at the poles. Using Newton's law of gravity, we find that the force of earth's gravity on your body at the equator is 9.798 m/s2 times the mass of your body, whereas at the poles it is 9.863 m/s2 times the mass of your body."

Do I weigh less on the equator than at the North Pole?.
Click to expand...
There are varying figures on this. We can directly calculate the centripetal force caused by rotation. But I have seen different figures for gravity at the North Pole. I found a peer reviewed paper on it and might have to cheat to read it since it is not public access. But for what its worth NASA attributes the difference only to the centripetal force, and that would agree somewhat with the graph that I posted. I might have to get back to this later:

NASA IMAGE satellite,Ask the Space Scientist Archive
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Altfish said:
In physics the term 'black' means an absence of colour; white is a combination of all the colours
Click to expand...
We are not geeks, we are normal people. Happy people. Simple people. I am sure, that the physicists in private life are thinking of black/white as two colors. Look, how cold and darkness are there, however, it is not a scientific term:

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top