Black Hole Information Paradox Comes To A End

[Vmedvil2]

It seems that scientists have now solved the black hole information paradox, read more at https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole-information-paradox-comes-to-an-end-20201029/

[Mutex]

Math alone does not prove anything at all, 'doing the math' is just a small part of the total scientific method, and just because some mathematical model looks right that does not mean it is an accurate description of reality. 

Also, we really have no idea what is going on at or in a black hole, all we know for sure about them is that they do not emit visible light (they are black), and they have a lot of mass (by observing how things move near them).

The same concept applies for 'information', what experiments or observations show that 'information' as an independent 'thing' is really 'a thing' ? 

What is the information they are talking about? 

IF something is the way it is, the 'information' about the way it is, is what it is. If it becomes something different then that information is different also, what something is and the information about what something is is the same thing. 

[Mutex]

12 hours ago, Jo818 said:

Let me give some useful information.

The black hole does not shrink from the outside in, but from the inside out. The event horizon will not shrink, it will vanish at a single instant when that yo-yo aka "singularity" in the middle becomes spatially static again. 

That happens exactly when all the ever-merging volumetric planck branes of the infalling material completely overlap and operate as one and therefore no longer generate GWs. 

It's more speculation that information!!! 🙂

we simply do not know at all what happens inside or on the surface of a black hole, and it is not something that is possible to observe, so we can only speculate.

Relativity (and even Newtonian gravity), do not consider mass DENSITY at all, and for good reason, it is not at all about the density of the mass, just the amount of mass and the distance from the center of mass. 

The reason why this is important is that it is assumed that when mass is compressed (such as in a black hole) that the gravity also compresses.

However, gravity does not change as a function of the density of matter.  IF the sun turned into a black hole, we would see no difference at all on the earth (gravitationally that is), the gravity at the distance of the earth would still be the same (from the sun), and we would continue to orbit the sun at the same distance. 

That means that regardless of the density of the object that gravity DOES NOT compress, you would weigh the same as you would on the surface of the sun now, as you would on the surface of the sun if it was 1km in diameter and was a black hole !!! (about 25g). 

We know this is the case, because we are able to detect black holes by the interaction of other objects in space near the black hole orbiting around something we cannot see. 

If all the gravity is compressed into a small volume, then objects beyond that compressed gravity would not feel that gravity (because it is compressed into that small volume).

It cannot be both ways, it cannot be compressed gravity that compresses with the density of the matter AND also be the same at a distance away from the BH. Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time, and as we observe gravity NOT being compressed, then you can't say that gravity is also compressed with the matter. 

We would not detect black holes at all if the gravity compressed as well, they would truly detach from our universe (gravitationally).

So no singularity, no event horizon and a fundamental misunderstanding of how gravity relates to mass. (it's about mass, not mass density). 

Also, due to their mass (not density) they are black as a function of Einstein shift (gravitational shift), that puts any light emitted from a BH well below the visible light spectrum, making them 'black', but that does not mean they do not radiate light (radio) at far lower frequencies, and thus lose energy and mass. (they are black because non-visible light, and not really holes and energy can escape from them). 

They should be called "Massive non-luminous objects" MNO's !! 

I am fully open to some model or observation/experiment that shows that the amount of gravity from an amount of mass varies as a function of the density of the mass, or that the gravity 'density' follows the matter density. All observations so far show that is not the case at all. 

[Mutex]

3 minutes ago, Jo818 said:

This is false!

Sure, you can say that, do you have any evidence that shows that it is false?  Or would you like to show your reasoning that you are using to come to that conclusion? 

I am just going with the available evidence and observations, that's what science does, it is what separates science debate and dogma, just saying it is false without providing your justification as to why it is false, for me is not what science does.

I justified the statements I made, they are accepted observations and valid, no Einstein's or Newtons equation regarding gravity involve mass density, and from observations mass density has no bearing to the strength of 'density' of gravity. 

Show me where it is said otherwise? and show me observations that confirm that gravity somehow changes with mass density?  As I have shown you that it does not. 

[Mutex]

DO better !!! (looking up the answers at the back of the book will get you a fail grade). 

Just now, Jo818 said:

I actually have done a lot of proofing

Then show your working, just saying that you did does not count. I gave my logic and reasoning, I think I made a good argument, I was very specific and referred to what we actually observe. 

Can you show me anywhere where there are equations that consider mass density as a function of gravity, or any observations that indicate that a black hole compresses gravity along with matter, but 'somehow' that gravity is still the same at r distance from that mass?

I'll wait, but seriously, 'I'm wrong' is not good enough.. 

[Mutex]

12 minutes ago, Jo818 said:

The information I've put here would be more useful if others picked it up where I left off. However, a reward for getting the ball rolling should be in order. 

How about you take each point I made and addressed each one, I gave you lots of meat to chew on, seems like you are not hungry 🙂

[OceanBreeze]

14 hours ago, Mutex said:

 

Relativity (and even Newtonian gravity), do not consider mass DENSITY at all, and for good reason, it is not at all about the density of the mass, just the amount of mass and the distance from the center of mass. 

 

This is correct

 

Quote

 you would weigh the same as you would on the surface of the sun now, as you would on the surface of the sun if it was 1km in diameter and was a black hole !!! (about 25g).

You probably want to think this one over. Just consider what you wrote earlier and the part that I put in bold.

I did a quick calculation: If the diameter of the sun was 1 km, with the same mass of 1.99E30 kg, the gravitational acceleration on the surface would be approximately 5.4E13 g

[Mutex]

18 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

This is correct

 

You probably want to think this one over. Just consider what you wrote earlier and the part that I put in bold.

I did a quick calculation: If the diameter of the sun was 1 km, with the same mass of 1.99E30 kg, the gravitational acceleration on the surface would be approximately 5.4E13 g

Why? are you reducing (increasing) the volume of gravity along with the volume  of mass? For these types of calculations you consider the mass a point anyway, and you calculate for a reasonable distance from the mass, but that is only because close to the mass (due to its volume) not all the mass can be consider from a single source directly below you. 

But regardless of that, your fundamental mistake is to consider that by compressing mass into a smaller volume you compress the gravity as well, no equations make that relationship, Either in Relativity, or in Newtonian gravity. 

Gravity does not change with the density of mass, a sphere (or shell) r distance from that mass will have the same G value regardless of the volume of said mass, G is independent of mass density, and is only dependent on mass and r distance. 

If that was not the case then we would not be able to determine the mass of black holes (such as the one in our galaxy) by measuring the orbits of objects near the BH. If gravity compressed with matter, then that gravity would not be available to influence the distant orbiting objects.

You can't have it both ways, you cannot compress the gravity AND have the same gravity at a distance, especially just from changing the mass density.

[Vmedvil2]

55 minutes ago, Mutex said:

Why? are you reducing (increasing) the volume of gravity along with the volume  of mass? For these types of calculations you consider the mass a point anyway, and you calculate for a reasonable distance from the mass, but that is only because close to the mass (due to its volume) not all the mass can be consider from a single source directly below you. 

But regardless of that, your fundamental mistake is to consider that by compressing mass into a smaller volume you compress the gravity as well, no equations make that relationship, Either in Relativity, or in Newtonian gravity. 

Gravity does not change with the density of mass, a sphere (or shell) r distance from that mass will have the same G value regardless of the volume of said mass, G is independent of mass density, and is only dependent on mass and r distance. 

If that was not the case then we would not be able to determine the mass of black holes (such as the one in our galaxy) by measuring the orbits of objects near the BH. If gravity compressed with matter, then that gravity would not be available to influence the distant orbiting objects.

You can't have it both ways, you cannot compress the gravity AND have the same gravity at a distance, especially just from changing the mass density.

Crank, Please. He is talking about small g not Big G, the universal gravitational constant never changes however the gravitational attraction magnitude changes by a inverse r^2 geometry.

Edited November 3, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Mutex]

6 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Crank, Please. He is talking about small g not Big G, the universal gravitational constant never changes however the gravitational attraction magnitude changes by a inverse r^2 geometry.

I'm talking about Gravity, you know the stuff that makes you fall down and that sticks you to the ground, the stuff that DOES NOT COMPRESS when you compress matter.

But please, prove me wrong, (instead of just insulting), go ahead and show me the equations and established science that says that gravity compresses with mass.

One thing I have notice is you provide NO evidence, no equation,  you just get grumpy, sorry if you can't quite grasp the concepts. But I expect more from you guys. Why does big G or little g make any difference, do you have ANY evidence that you can compress the volume of the gravity by compressing the volume of the mass? 

I can wait... 

[Mutex]

2 minutes ago, Jo818 said:

Funny you should bring it up, just today it seems they took some recognition of what I've been doing all this time; this image depicts how gravity will gravitate a mass >1lp per planck time inside the event horizon. Oceanbreeze already provided the calculation for a strong st curvature outside the eh than from it's parent star.

 

[url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/03/did-a-black-hole-give-birth-to-our-universe/?sh=46a5a21850da]-source[/img]

Where is the evidence, or equation where you can show that gravity (big or little) compresses or concentrates in any way as a result of density of the mass. 

It's just one question, but it seems you have nothing to show that it is the case, nice graphics is not that evidence. 

It's mass that determines gravity, and the amount of gravity is a function of the amount of mass and the distance from that mass, (assumed as a point source), again, show me where it makes any difference what the density of the matter makes any difference? Again, I can wait.

[Mutex]

1 minute ago, Jo818 said:

Look I showed you the ropes, step in the ring. Or don't, honestly I broke my motivation. 

I've been in the ring the entire time, so far you have not made a single punch, how about you just answer the question. Anyone?

[Mutex]

58 minutes ago, Flummoxed said:

 

 

 

Where does the notion of singularity come from inside a black hole. With infinite curvature of space inside a black hole and spaghettification, space gets infinitely longer/big doesnt it 🙂 ie you have a wormhole to the hole of space not a singularity, except space time ceasing to exist in any meaningful sense..  

Great just what we needed!! More infinities LOL.

So no curvature inside a black hole, and spaghettification works in every direction, as you get closer to the center of mass space gets longer/bigger so you get longer/bigger. (like we see in our own solar system, as mass gets larger density gets lower (gas giants, and a low density plasma sun 1/3 the density of earth).

But we get a relative space length that is simply a function of the amount of mass, and the distance from that mass (so longest at the center of mass).

It's the direct opposite to space or gravity being compressed along with gravity, but I can understand why there is no good argument refuting the model, and explaining how gravity (big or little G/g) is compressed along with matter. 

The reason they have a problem and it is confusing is that if you take a sphere of 'gravity' and compress it into a smaller sphere, then you no longer have the bigger sphere (the gravity has to come from somewhere). 

In that case you would not observe the gravity of the BH at that longer distance, and they cannot reconcile that problem, so silence. 😄

Generally speaking if your model produces infinities, your model has a problem. 

In order for something to reach an escape velocity (actually orbital velocity), you need to gain sufficient horizontal speed so the object continuously falls over the horizon, BEFORE it falls down and impacts the ground (surface), by reducing the gravity to a small ball, they effectively reduce the 'fall' height to zero, making the horizontal speed exceed c. (you have no time to get to the horizon because the sphere of compressed gravity is high.

It's making a small object (small BH, compressed gravity) feel like a big object with a far horizon. making the escape/orbit velocity exceed c. 

But of course none of this effects light anyway, light is not effected by gravity, but is effected by path length (longer/shorter flat space). 

The process of doing science is questioning science and testing alternatives, if your not doing that you're not doing science. We don't know all the answers so we should not pretend that we do. 

So I smile when someone pipes up and says "False, that is not how black holes work!" as if they know for sure... LOL.. Nice to see you still trying to keep this forum alive and interesting. 

Unlike some others here, that just like to play the power trip game... who defame and question military service.

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/3/2020 at 7:12 PM, Mutex said:

Why? are you reducing (increasing) the volume of gravity along with the volume  of mass? For these types of calculations you consider the mass a point anyway, and you calculate for a reasonable distance from the mass, but that is only because close to the mass (due to its volume) not all the mass can be consider from a single source directly below you. 

There is no such thing as a volume of gravity and if the body is spherical in shape, all of the mass is always considered to be located at the center of mass.

 

Quote

But regardless of that, your fundamental mistake is to consider that by compressing mass into a smaller volume you compress the gravity as well, no equations make that relationship, Either in Relativity, or in Newtonian gravity.

No, my fundamental mistake is to try and explain anything to you as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are either incapable or unwilling to learn anything. The operable equation here is not difficult at all, it is just: acceleration due to gravity = GM/r^2 in accordance with the inverse square law that Victor told you about.

 

Quote

Gravity does not change with the density of mass, a sphere (or shell) r distance from that mass will have the same G value regardless of the volume of said mass, G is independent of mass density, and is only dependent on mass and r distance.

Gravity does not change with the density of mass, I already told you that is correct. Where you are going wrong is not taking into account the changing distance if you are standing on the surface of different sized bodies with the same mass, as I explained to you and even provided you with the result of a calculation. Apparently you are too lazy or too dense to bother to check the accuracy of that calculation.

Quote

If that was not the case then we would not be able to determine the mass of black holes (such as the one in our galaxy) by measuring the orbits of objects near the BH. If gravity compressed with matter, then that gravity would not be available to influence the distant orbiting objects.

What the hell does it even mean to say “if gravity compressed with matter”? That makes no sense at all.

Quote

You can't have it both ways, you cannot compress the gravity AND have the same gravity at a distance, especially just from changing the mass density.

Nobody is trying to have anything both ways.

I am going to go through the math for you this one time and if you still refuse to learn and continue to argue I will be closing this thread.

Let’s start with the acceleration of gravity a close to the earth’s surface:

a = GMe/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (5.98E24) / (6.37E6)^2 = 9.83 m/s^2 = 1g

before I continue, do you understand the difference between G, the gravitational constant and g? If not, you should not be pontificating about gravity as you know nothing about the subject.

Next, the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the sun:

a = GMs/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (1.99E30) / (6.97E8)^2 = 273.2 m/s^2 = 27.8g

Finally, the gravitational acceleration on the surface of a body with the same mass as the sun, but only 1 km in diameter:

a = GMs/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (1.99E30) / (500)^2= 5.31E14 m/s^2 = 5.4E13g

This directly disproves your claim that “you would weigh the same as you would on the surface of the sun now, as you would on the surface of the sun if it was 1km in diameter and was a black hole !!! (about 25g)”

Now, these calculations are not debatable so it is up to you to choose to learn something or you can choose to remain wrong but you cannot argue with the physics or the math.

 

 

[Mutex]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

There is no such thing as a volume of gravity and if the body is spherical in shape, all of the mass is always considered to be located at the center of mass.

 

No, my fundamental mistake is to try and explain anything to you as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are either incapable or unwilling to learn anything. The operable equation here is not difficult at all, it is just: acceleration due to gravity = GM/r^2 in accordance with the inverse square law that Victor told you about.

 

Gravity does not change with the density of mass, I already told you that is correct. Where you are going wrong is not taking into account the changing distance if you are standing on the surface of different sized bodies with the same mass, as I explained to you and even provided you with the result of a calculation. Apparently you are too lazy or too dense to bother to check the accuracy of that calculation.

What the hell does it even mean to say “if gravity compressed with matter”? That makes no sense at all.

Nobody is trying to have anything both ways.

I am going to go through the math for you this one time and if you still refuse to learn and continue to argue I will be closing this thread.

Let’s start with the acceleration of gravity a close to the earth’s surface:

a = GMe/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (5.98E24) / (6.37E6)^2 = 9.83 m/s^2 = 1g

before I continue, do you understand the difference between G, the gravitational constant and g? If not, you should not be pontificating about gravity as you know nothing about the subject.

Next, the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the sun:

a = GMs/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (1.99E30) / (6.97E8)^2 = 273.2 m/s^2 = 27.8g

Finally, the gravitational acceleration on the surface of a body with the same mass as the sun, but only 1 km in diameter:

a = GMs/r^2 = (6.67E-11) (1.99E30) / (500)^2= 5.31E14 m/s^2 = 5.4E13g

This directly disproves your claim that “you would weigh the same as you would on the surface of the sun now, as you would on the surface of the sun if it was 1km in diameter and was a black hole !!! (about 25g)”

Now, these calculations are not debatable so it is up to you to choose to learn something or you can choose to remain wrong but you cannot argue with the physics or the math.

 

 

Great you said some stuff, was as usual insulting, then you give me some equations that you admit have not been confirmed to be true, and all you had to do was give me the equation from relativity that shows that gravity varies with mass density. But you didn't do that, because you cannot support the claims you are making.

This makes your claims DOGMA.

Why are these things not debatable ? Also, do you not understand that Newtonian gravity is wrong?  You've 'proven' me wrong with a wrong model.. 

We'll done.

So now, when are you going to justify your claims and show some actual understanding? Nice try though.

EDIT: I also know where you are fundamentally have this dissonance, I was hoping you would be able to possibly even identify that, at least you could give a decent argument to refute me. But nothing but what you looked up at the back of some book.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Mutex

[amateurastronomer]

The mystery of black hole has been solved.

To know more, visit the link given below 

Black holes virtual reality

[OceanBreeze]

4 hours ago, Mutex said:

Great you said some stuff, was as usual insulting, then you give me some equations that you admit have not been confirmed to be true, and all you had to do was give me the equation from relativity that shows that gravity varies with mass density. But you didn't do that, because you cannot support the claims you are making.

This makes your claims DOGMA.

Why are these things not debatable ? Also, do you not understand that Newtonian gravity is wrong?  You've 'proven' me wrong with a wrong model.. 

We'll done.

So now, when are you going to justify your claims and show some actual understanding? Nice try though.

EDIT: I also know where you are fundamentally have this dissonance, I was hoping you would be able to possibly even identify that, at least you could give a decent argument to refute me. But nothing but what you looked up at the back of some book.

Have it your way, M. This thread is locked and consider this a warning if you wish to continue to post here. We can tolerate people who are wrong but willing to learn but we have very low tolerance for people who are wrong but refuse to learn even when confronted with FACTS.