Five-Dimensional Black Hole Could 'Break' General Relativity (sciencealert.com) 146
The researchers, from the University of Cambridge and Queen Mary University of London, have successfully simulated a black hole shaped like a very thin ring, which gives rise to a series of 'bulges' connected by strings that become thinner over time. Ring-shaped black holes were 'discovered' by theoretical physicists in 2002, but this is the first time that their dynamics have been successfully simulated using supercomputers. Should this type of black hole form, it would lead to the appearance of a 'naked singularity', which would cause the equations behind general relativity to break down. "If naked singularities exist, general relativity breaks down," said co-author Saran Tunyasuvunakool, also a PhD student from DAMTP. "And if general relativity breaks down, it would throw everything upside down, because it would no longer have any predictive power -- it could no longer be considered as a standalone theory to explain the universe."
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's an easy mistake to make, but actually we're all going to get goatse'd, not get goatees.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, your black hole is right here [goatse.ru].
Predictive power (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder where the rubbish claims about predictive power came from. General Relativity has already made many predictions, subsequently verified. Those won't suddenly vanish.
Re:Predictive power (Score:5, Insightful)
Newtonian mechanics made lots of preditions too, and applied to a small enough frame newtonian mechanics hold as well. Probably its similar for general relativity. Otherwise we'd have found the "theory that explains it all". And that'd be quite cool on one hand, but quite un-cool at the other hand, because now there is nothing anymore we can discover.
Re: (Score:1)
No, no one is saying that anything may be predicted. For one thing, we can't know the initial conditions of "everything", and there are certain pairs of conserved information, limiting our ability to subsequently know things. That said, a "theory of everything" which encompasses the known universe from the sub-sub-atomic to the large-scale structure of the universe would be sufficiently massively explanatory as to call it the "theory that explains it all" without too much hubris.
Besides, I thought scientific theories' merits were measured against their utility rather than their accurate predictive capacity.
What definition of "utility"
Re: (Score:2)
Without two much hubris
Of course that is too much hubris, first it requires us to assume that understand enough about the known universe and what is actually happening. We currently observer the universe though specs of electromagnetic radiation billion of light years away. To assume we know what is going on is even likely is hubris. We should make these assumptions because it is the best we have. But the fraction of the universe, (both distance and time) we can actually see in any real detail is minute. Even the detail we observ
Re: Predictive power of math? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of the very smallest objects seem to have no intrinsic properties that are non-mathmatical. Spin, colour, etc. It gets to a point where a mathematical abstraction is equivalent to the real thing. So is the real thing itself purely mathmatical? Interesting stuff, to be sure.
No, it's not purely mathmatical. But your eyes are not good enough to see the difference. Even with "enhancement"! 8-)
Re: (Score:2)
Mathematics proceeds from axioms to interesting results, independently of the physical world. Don't be fooled by the fact that the form of math used, and how interesting the results, often depend on applying it to the physical world. (For example, there are many possible geometries, but we're typically only interested in the ones that correspond in some way to the real world.)
We can construct mathematical models based on what we understand of physics, but they won't give us reliable information about t
Re: Predictive power (Score:5, Funny)
It won't be finished until we can extrapolate the entire universe from a piece of fairy cake.
Re: Predictive power (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally, it's just information arranged in a hologram perceived in three dimensions.
Re: Predictive power (Score:5, Funny)
I fail to see the significance of the cake's sexual orientation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not holding out for extrapolating the entire Universe. I'll be satisfied if it gets to rice pudding and the graduated income tax.
We invented a God (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
We invented a God who created the universe and pretended he looked like us. Yes, we have more than enough hubris.
Re: (Score:1)
You can never have too much hubris
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe humus.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
We invented a God who created the universe and pretended he looked like us. Yes, we have more than enough hubris.
You did?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be lying if I said I had a small nose, but I sure as fuck don't look like an elephant. I'm not blue either, and I have the standard three arms.
Re: (Score:2)
If that theory is being used to design systems used to transport human beings in places they aren't normally found, then it is important that it doesn't break down" under some conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Planes and boats (no need to know general relativity) use Newtonian physics to transport people to places they weren't normally found, that breaks down in some cases. It doesn't mean we can't use those principles.
Even if people die because the laws break down it isn't the end of the world, you just make some new people. Things don't need to be 100% safe do it, just reasonably safe.
Re: Predictive power (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. It's perfectly normal that our theories are built around the limits of our knowledge. A theory may work great until we start gathering new data in new ways which shows that there are problems in it... and then the theory needs to be expanded. That doesn't mean that the previous theory was wrong - just limited.
Honestly, there's enough problems with event horizons and singularities that I really think it's about time that we accept that they may well just not exist [cds.cern.ch]. We have a known force of the universe, inflation, that when the universe was packed into a very energy dense state led to the dilation of space until the universe reached a less energy-dense state. Why should we assume that this is something only applicable to the Big Bang, rather than a general rule of the universe? When you apply a dilation-driven inflation gravity to the environment of a black hole, suddenly singularities and event horizons disappear. A black hole is often described as a waterfall of spacetime rushing in; inflation is like a flood of spacetime rushing out. Infalling particles are shifted to a tangential path; all of the energy of the black hole exists at the event horizon in a quasi-2d state. In such a scenario, black holes are - from an infinite-observer's perspective - basically nothing more than a frozen store of spacetime, ever so slowly leaking out, until - unthinkably long in the future, when they sit all alone in an empty void - they catastrophically explode in an inflationary flood of energy from which new matter can ultimately condense. Miniature versions of the Big Bang itself.
No naked singularities. No information paradox. No firewall. Explanatory power for the Big Bang. Why isn't this a theoretical route worth pursuing more?
Re: (Score:2)
Singularities only rise from General Relativity, which is precisely why scientists are looking for a better theory to describe the inner workings of a black hole. I don't think any physicist specialized in BH's expects singularities to be the actual way nature works, there is simply just nothing to describe it though.
The whole rebirthing idea peopler try to create based around black holes (whether the new universe is either inside the black or like you state after evaporation of the black hole) has no evide
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I thought scientific theories' merits were measured against their utility rather than their accurate predictive capacity.
Arguably, a theory that has more accurate predictive capacity is more useful (unless the extra accuracy means a lot more complex math, in which case it is useful to keep a less accurate but simpler theory around)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
It's certainly possible we'll get there. Maybe with the help of computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really hubristic enough to think we will ever have a theory that predicts and explains everything with 100% accuracy at all levels?
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened." - D.A.
Re:Predictive power (Score:5, Informative)
I think the point Tough Love is making is that Newtonian mechanics still has exactly as much predictive power as it always had. Relativity would as well. But it would indicate we need to generate a theory that could predict what neither Newtonian nor Relativistic mechanics could predict.
A counterpoint, though, is that Newtonian mechanics could have predicted certain impossibilities. For instance, you might conclude based on Newtonian mechanics that a human, aged 20, with a lifespan of 100 years and no cryonics, starting from Earth, could not see the Andromeda galaxy without travelling at least ~3*10^20 meters per second (distance to Andromeda Galaxy / 80 years). General relativity tells us that you can't go more than ~3*10^8 meters per second, the speed of light, which is almost exactly one trillionth of the speed we need to get to Andromeda. Yet, famously, you can get to the Andromeda galaxy in a spaceship with a constant rate of acceleration g (itself an *incredible* feat), over the course of a "mere" 28 years. If you had travelled to the Andromeda Galaxy and back (you found a discarded Alien spacecraft), you might conclude that you had travelled at a speed well in excess of the speed of light. So Newtonian mechanics discarded a possibility that General Relativity allowed, and General Relativity discarded a possibility that Newtonian mechanics disallowed, and we know that GR wins over Newton when they conflict. Perhaps "Trans-Relativity" could introduce possibilities that we'd previously discarded, forcing us to re-evaluate some old data.
Re: (Score:3)
you might conclude that you had travelled at a speed well in excess of the speed of light. So Newtonian mechanics discarded a possibility that General Relativity allowed, and General Relativity discarded a possibility that Newtonian mechanics disallowed
You would not conclude that because of length contraction: you would conclude that Andromeda was a lot closer. Newtonian mechanics also predates relativity. Therefore when relativity was discovered it replaced Newtonian mechanics which essentially became the low energy approximation to relativity. So in no sense did Newtonian mechanics "discard" a possibility allowed by relativity: once relativity was confirmed Newtonian mechanics was relegated to a low energy approximation of relativity and was no longer
Re:Predictive power (Score:5, Interesting)
but remember the scary thing that happened when newtonian mechanics were found to be inaccurate and incomplete, all the buildings and bridges and engines we've designed that used them fell apart as the predictive power evaporated.
oh wait I'm full of shit
Re: (Score:1)
The average human's IQ is 100 per within the age bracket. Relatively speaking, you could have advanced AI with self awareness having an IQ of 1 billion. I would not be surprised if it too had limits in understanding the universe.
A little humility goes a long way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense, IQ tests are just some questions that some imperfect human came up with in order to judge the intelligence of people. They assign an arbitrary weighting to certain skills. Who is to say what is important and what is not. They may provide a measure of intelligence but they are certainly not a perfect one.
I am not even sure you can even assign a total ordering on intelligence, it is far more likely to be a partial ordering. We chose to give a simple number like IQ or a test score because of its simp
Re: (Score:2)
IQ tests are just some questions that some imperfect human came up with in order to judge the intelligence of people.
Actually, IQ measures something quite specific: the ability to detect patterns. There is some evidence that being able to notice a pattern in data that other people miss correlates well with out intuitive notion intelligent people, in the sense that all the people we think of as intelligent also have good pattern recognition. But that's about it.
On the other hand, one cannot denies that being able to detect patterns is very important. Since we're talking about Relativity, take Einstein for an example. He de
Re: (Score:2)
It's your intellectual age versus your chronological age.
You're confused. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as one with a high IQ, who is interested in the human mind....
There's all sorts of different aspects of intelligence, some of which I'm really good at and some of which I'm not all that good at. Last time I took an IQ test, I did extremely well in some areas and not all that good in others, and emerged with a pretty high number as a summary. It's possible to order people on their tested IQs, but if we stick to adults of halfway normal intelligence and up I'd be surprised to find two individual
Re: (Score:2)
IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence. Being of pretty high IQ, and also having skills I really don't remember being included in my last IQ test, I proved your point by phrasing the exact same idea in a more grammatically correct form.
true albeit not fully (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fundamental difference between empirically showing that a model is inaccurate (Newtonian physics) and being uneasy about the implications of a mathematical model. That's not to say that GR is right, just that Newtonian mechanics are not a good comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
And that'd be quite cool on one hand, but quite un-cool at the other hand, because now there is nothing anymore we can discover.
Given the history of knowledge so far, that strikes me as a pretty remote probability. So far every answer is popping up more questions, and I'd expect that to continue.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if whomever wrote that realized the double-edged nature of their comment or not.
"If naked singularities exist, general relativity breaks down," said co-author Saran Tunyasuvunakool, also a PhD student from DAMTP. "And if general relativity breaks down, it would throw everything upside down, because it would no longer have any predictive power -- it could no longer be considered as a standalone theory to explain the universe."
In other words:
"This research we are asking you for more grant money to continue studying, we have now demonstrated is completely and thoroughly proven physically impossible by all known laws of physics!"
Re: (Score:1)
You have not spent much time in with the quantum mechanics/string-theorists/quantum physics people, have you?
They would almost certainly tell you that not only has that exact thing happened but that it has happened at least a few times. There is no law that means things tend to disorder. There is just observations of that as a tendency on a macro scale. On a really, really small scale there is a chance that such a man could be created - or so they assure me. There is a chance that you'll open the box and fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I've bumped into them before! For whatever reason, the History Channel decided it was the Science Channel - at least that's what the evidence suggests. They did a bunch of science documentaries according to the credits, though some are from other channels and are just repackaged if the credits are to be believed. She was on a few of those.
I've been stupid enough to go look at the math. No, I still have no idea. Well, I have an understanding at some level. I can probably fake an understanding at some level -
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about predictive power it's about describing the system and providing insight into what is happening. Aristotelian mechanics still have limited predictive power as well but you wouldn't use them when thinking about extending physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Also wrong,
It's not a stand-alone theory anyway, it requires quantum theory...
Article can say it better:
Why can't Einstein and Quantum Mechanics get along? [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thoroughly enjoying this article too:
"The simulation has suggested that if our Universe is made up of five or more dimensions - something that scientists have struggled to confirm or disprove - Einstein's general theory of relativity, the foundation of modern physics, would be wrong."
So if a thing that we don't even know could potentially exist created using simulations of mathematical models in a computer does exist, then general relativity is turned on its head! Zany!
Re: (Score:2)
Yay for pop physics.
Re: (Score:3)
When your job is to sit around and make up things to magically make some silly idea you have 'fit' the real world, this is what happens.
You have a bunch of people who literally sit around and invent new ways of doing math that make absolutely no real sense, and have no really world evidence or proof to suggest they are even mildly accurate ... and they invented some new model that has no relationship to reality and in their made up universe, it breaks general relativity. Oh and its actually impossible to e
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so either you have no clue as to how science works or you don't like it.
Science progresses by people finding problems with current theories. These people found what might be a problem with a current theory, in that General Relativity predicts, under certain circumstances, that it breaks down. They were doing what they should be doing.
I didn't see any mention of testing in the article; do you know something I don't? If it can be tested under some conditions, it's physics.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope I'm not in an airplane relying on GPS when they discover such black hole. Imagine, so many planes with no navigation.
damn you, Planck (Score:4, Funny)
Re:damn you, Planck (Score:5, Funny)
did you have to break everything?
I dunno. Seems he's been pretty constant ...
Re: (Score:2)
did you have to break everything?
I dunno. Seems he's been pretty constant ...
Still, even Planck has his limit.
Bad interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if the facts are good and the theory is right, the analysis quoted is broken. A theory doesn't need to be able to explain the entire universe to have *some* predictive power. It's also weird to say that the equations "break down" in such an unqualified sense; what is meant (presumably) is that there are conditions where those equations can't be evaluated and likely don't apply.
Re:Bad interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition, since when is a 5-D simulation related to relativity? Einstein never went beyond 3+1. So this article/the simulation team's conclusion is insulting to Einstein's work but otherwise not related to it.
"it would no longer have ANY predictive power"? (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same token, Newton's law of gravitation has clearly lost ALL predictive power, since it breaks down in the relativistic realm. So feel free not to get out of the way next time there's an anvil falling toward your head.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet if you get out of the way when there's a moon falling towards your head, they call you loony. Ba-dump bump.
Thanks. I'll be here all night.
Re: (Score:2)
You insult my intelligence man, as if I wont have even enough to calculate the trajectory of anvil accounting for relativistic effects and get out of the way.
Ah, but now that general relativity has broken down, all of physics has failed, and we are left with only cartoon physics. So you don't have to get out of the way. The anvil will smash you flat, except for your feet, which will stick out of the bottom of the flattened pancake that was you. You may then, at your option, run around a little bit before popping back into shape, or just pop back into shape in the next scene.
"Break" is a stupid term (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is a situation General Relativity's rules can't work in, it doesn't mean GR is "broken" or that any of the predictions you can make with it magically stop working all of a sudden. GR doesn't work at extremely tiny scale where quantum mechanics applies; we don't say that it's broken, we just say that GR isn't applicable in that situation while we look for a theory that ties both together.
It's like, GR didn't "break" Newtonian physics either. You can still use Newtonian physics to do engineering calcu
Re: (Score:2)
Mathematical self abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
So, using a model that doesn't fit general relativity, they created a simulation that doesn't match the model of general relativity. My model to break general relativity says intermediate vector bosons have a mass of 5 megagrams, and the speed of light is 16 megameters per hour. Unless there are multiple real world observations that conclude a ring shaped black hole is existent, they are simulating a fantasy universe, and should expand their model to show it is consistent with other observed physical traits of the known universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell him about the twinkie...
Re: (Score:1)
'All models are false; some are useful.', George E P Box
This is how science works: One creates an answer or hypothesis, then looks for evidence that matches that answer. Have you looked for 5 tonne bosons?
What observations did Einstein use to claim that gravity travels in waves, the speed of light is constant, or that energy can create matter?
What observations did Faraday use to claim that light was electromagnetic radiation?
What observations did Newton use to claim that the force pulling the apocryphal a
Re: Mathematical self abuse (Score:2)
> Have you looked for 5 tonne bosons?
One of them evidently hit his head
Re: (Score:3)
It's not their fault, they are running their simulations on that same computer modeling software that says the Global Warning is real.
Spoken like a willfully and proudly ignorant troll.
How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools [arstechnica.com]
Steve Easterbrook, a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, has been studying climate models for several years. “I'd done a lot of research in the past studying the development of commercial and open source software systems, including four years with NASA studying the verification and validation processes used on their spacecraft flight control software,” he told Ars.
When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).”
“I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.”
But don't let reality get in the way of your anti-science jihad.
Re: (Score:2)
but yeah, dumbass, liquidate western civilization over it, you deserve it for being such sheep
You lack the self-awareness to see the irony in your post.
Question your sources. Think about who's spending millions to spread the narrative that you blindly align yourself with. Understand that just because our lifestyle is easy, that doesn't mean that it is beyond critique. Putting it beyond reproach like that is tantamount to idol worship. We should be looking out for future generations instead of just ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
idiot... it is not science if there was never any experimentation.
Liar [wikipedia.org].
moron... none of this has been tested at all... it is simply computational speculation
Liar [wikipedia.org].
where are their successful predictions? there are none, zero. they can't predict shit
Liar [theguardian.com]:
Time to confiscate chalk! (Score:4, Funny)
This sounds so incredibly dangerous.
Are the computer models even safe?
I wonder if these equations are even safe for chalkboards.
If we manage to glimpse a 'naked singularity' Mother Nature will start locking the bathroom door.
Obligatory Cyriak [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He would know.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
"physicists have successfully simulated what would happen to black holes in a five-dimensional world," That's all the further you have to read the article. The universe has either 4 or 10 dimensions if I remember the two theories correctly. It does not have 5 dimensions. This is science fiction/science fantasy.
The point of the five dimensional black hole is that it might represent an actual thing combining normal general relativity and electromagnetism. The idea is that the fifth dimension becomes when approximated by our near-Newtonian world, the symmetry of electromagnetism.
As I understand it, a key problem is that as a result of the model, one gets a scalar (number valued) field left over which we haven't observed yet (though at one time, it was thought that the Pioneer spacecraft anomalies might be an indication of the field).
hardly a shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
This is hardly a shocker, since general relativity and quantum mechanics have not been successfully unified, and since general relativity simply cannot work at the quantum level as it is.
Bot how do you get one (Score:2)
A 5d ring shaped black hole might be cool, but how does one get created?
An ordinary black hole is formed after the collapse of a big enough star, but we still don't know how the supermassive black holes came about.
Re: (Score:2)
You must Belieeeeeve! in the power of your math.
Re: (Score:3)
A 5d ring shaped black hole might be cool, but how does one get created?
It's actually a straightforward process: You start with a 6D cylindrical black hole, and then you cleave off an infinitesimally thin slice perpendicular to its axis of symmetry.
This is ridiculous (Score:1)
Isn't general relativity already broken? (Score:2)
Quantum physics and general relativity are both very successful theories and yet, they don't make the same predictions so one or both of them must be broken at some point.
And black holes are at that point. Small enough for quantum mechanics and heavy enough for general relativity.
Re: (Score:2)
Assumptions. (Score:2)
ALL of this is on paper or in simulations carefully crafted to create the intended result. It's all highly speculative for the most part to get more funding and help secure tenure.
new twist of the napkin, same difference (Score:2)
Ah, the flaws in GR that we've pretty much always known become incrementally harder to ignore.
I visited Fermilab once, a long time ago. Along with the tunnels, we walked beside the famous atrium cafeteria, with the unlimited napkin supply.
I'm pretty sure that these particular eggheads, when they scribbled a formula on a napkin for the 1000th time, didn't bother to give it the 180-degrees courtesy revolution so that the egghead across the table could read it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... it hardly changes anything t
VLSI Black Holes Aren't (Score:2)
See G4v Gravitational Wave vs General Relativity vs LIGO Observation [stackexchange.com] for a more likely revolution in the theory of extreme gravitation currently being tested by the Advanced LIGO system that recently detected gravity waves.
The single most exciting thing about Advanced LIGO is that it is designed not merely to confirm General Relativity, but to discriminate between competing theories, one of which is General Relativity. A theory competing with General Relativity is a spin-off of the engineering that went int
Models are not the same as reality (Score:2)
Much of what we understand about general relativity is based on mathematical models. As with any model, there are limits beyond which the model cannot go. Bohr's atomic model has long since shown to have flaws, but even today it is a useful model for many kinds of predictions. We're never going to have a perfect model, but that doesn't mean the model is no good, or that it can't be used to make good predictions. We should NEVER completely trust a model.
Five dimensions (Score:2)
Just because a mathematical model can easily go beyond 3 dimensions, doesn't mean that reality also goes beyond 3 dimensions.
Sure, you can think of time as the fourth dimension. But that's just a convenient way to make mathematical models handle reality. Time isn't a truly physical fourth dimension. To my knowledge, there isn't as yet any proof of the reality of dimensions beyond 3, only theories.
Re: (Score:1)
There is also no reason to believe that there are only three "dimensions", however you define them. The "second" dimension changes everything compared to the first. The third dimension changes everything again. the fourth dimension makes things totally different again.
Each is completely unrecognizable if you only know the first ones, just try teaching kids about dimensions. There is no reason to think we could even recognize higher dimensions, they might have been right in front of us all of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your idea is that there is no "first" or "second" dimension, per se. In other words, there is no observed one-dimensional universe that is somehow superseded by a two-dimensional universe that theoretical one-dimensional creatures can't comprehend. Nor is there an observed two-dimensional universe within our three-dimensional universe. There are no lines or planes of existence that we can observe, only our three-dimensional universe. Lines and planes are simply abstract mathematical con
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with your idea is that there is no "first" or "second" dimension, per se. ...
That is true (as far as we can see). Yet there may be no three dimensional universe, we may only see what we can understand. Just like a primitive tribe, living on the prarie, that has not conception of a third dimension even though we would say it was right there. We might be missing much of what is around us, in the same way!
I work every day with powers that no one can see, hear or feel. At least not directly. Yet they can and do kill people that are unbelievers, every day (just about).
Besides, there is s
wheat timberlands for cheap 2016 (Score:1)
Any Singularity violates General Relativity (Score:1)
Oh Dear. The only problem with this research is that any black hole model that includes a central singularity already completely violates general relativity.
For a black hole to have an external gravity field, energy has to escape beyond the edge of the black hole. At the outer event horizon the field has to cross an FTL barrier but this can be just about explained by gravitational red shifting. However inside the bulk of the black hole this barrier gets steeper and steeper until it reaches the centre. - To
Typing Error : 'applied' should have been 'applies (Score:1)
Typing Error : Last sentence, 'applied' should have been 'applies'.
Mass (Score:1)