Black Hole Inhaling Space?

When rigid solid is spinning the outer surface is moving at the highest linear speed, so if the linear speed of the outer portion of a black hole is turning at close to the speed of light, everything more central would presumably have a lower linear speed.

There might be frame dragging effects that become significant for very large black holes.

If another large diameter object is spinning fast and collides with a black hole, even though it spins more rapidly at a smaller diameter there energy to reach the speed of light would be infinite....so it won't attain it.

.

"Could this be the source of dark energy". I doubt it. Dark energy seems to be sourced from not knowing exactly what is wrong with our understanding, but knowing just enough to understand we aren't correct.

.

Not sure about the rest.

Time dilation effect: Items at the periphery of the singularity (the black hole), experience time as "normal" within their frame of reference, however, just "below" them time is even further dilated to slow down to nothing, and just "above" them time appears to be "sped" up.

No way to measure the rotation of the mass that is part of the super-massive object of the singularity. All of the mass is statistically equivalent within a black hole, thus no marker of surface rotation. Even if you detect a rotation (which you cannot, other than manifested angular momentum effects), it would not appear to be rotating at the speed of light, but would appear "slow".

Even thought length would be contracted due to relative motion, it still takes more time to move from A to B.

"...No way to measure the rotation of the mass that is part of the super-massive object of the singularity. ..."

Frame dragging resulting from rapidly spinning super massive objects provides a way to measure the rotation....and even a way that energy is extracted.

Interesting article, but I never encountered the terms "frame dragging", please explain.

Do you mean gravitational waves due to the swirling of colliding super-massive black holes?

Are you saying the magnitude of jets of black holes relate to what quantity of matter and the subdivision thereof acquired? I.e. black holes that have effectively absorbed other black holes (or the merger of two equals), have bigger jets than one that just eat the near galactic core?

Assume an object is at rest,and it creates a stationary "dent" in space time.If the object is rotating,the elasticity of spacetime creates a dragging effect,a twisting, so to speak in spacetime.

This happens ever with the Earth and other massive objects, not just black holes.

I am not following. If the massive object with its gravity well can distort the gravity well by spinning on its CoM, then there must be friction between mass and space-time, and I think that is bullshine.

If a mass can "dent" space time,it must have some ability to "attach" to space time,or the mass would simply pass right through.

Consider spacetime has the ability to penetrate the core of all matter,even to the smallest element.It is a longer path through than around the object,so spacetime deflects,like light hitting water will deflect.

Spacetime is an energy field,and the slower,deflected parts of the field lag behind the main field,due to the longer path taken.

If you spin a glass sphere,and the sphere is filled with tiny glass spheres,the view through it is distorted,likewise with spacetime.

If you could spin it fast enough,and your eyes were quick enough, you might would see the images coming through as a spiral,twisted image.

Frame dragging has been confirmed to an accuracy of about 19 percent by the Gravity B satellite experiment, centered on the theoretical prediction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

So it's been confirmed that frame-dragging exists, we're just quibbling about the exact numbers in the equation.

That's good enough for me as an Engineer. I don't need to know the exact speed that a 1.25kg spherical object falls under a 1.01g acceleration, I just need to know whether to put the catch basket OVER or UNDER the apple tree.

Frame dragging is related to Mach's principal in that if the local indication of what is spinning or not comes from all the distant masses of stars surrounding, then it also would likely be related to a very massive spinning object in close proximity.

Essentially it appears that space time has significant viscosity.

My understanding of nature is that it always takes the path of least resistance.If an object expands,it is due to one of at least two forces:Internal pressure that exceeds the internal pressure,or inversly,outside pressure the decreases below the inside pressure.

So which is it that is causing cosmic expansion?Internal or external forces?

The density of spacetime seems to be decreasing,so that rules out internal forces.

Have external influences been considered?

Just because something is decreasing in pressure doesn't mean it has a pressure lower than something else already....but ignore that it is a distraction.

I don't think a model that proposes something physically external to our universe will be very helpful. Anything physically external that might communicate via a boundary would still be part of this universe. I don't think using a model that presumes the universe has an external boundary or some place it is expanding into will help get it properly sorted.

A fish thinks the universe is made of water,with no concept of anything else.

The tides and waves would be ascribed as an internal force in his universe.

Yet there are many outside influences in his world that are external.

Likewise,with our universe.

To refuse to consider that there are external spaces or forces beyond our detection is very small minded,IMHO.

Before Hubble,the Milky Way was was considered to be the entire universe.

It reminds me of old maps that had the warning, and I paraphrase here,"Terra Incognito.Beyond here there be monsters."

The monsters are guarding many treasures beyond the edge of the known universe,but we must think beyond the monsters.

That is a ridiculous cartoon, and totally obnoxious song.

Where do you go to find this stuff, and is there some sort of lock you can put on the door to that room?

He goes to a website where inferior- feeling people can pick a pseudo-character to make up for their insecurities.

That is: ad hominem,to be precise and pedantic.

I could say a lot of things if I wished to insult you,such as:

It is only offensive to those that fit the description I gave.

Do you go to such websites?

If not,you should not be offended.

Why are you curious to know more about them?

Do you feel inferior?

Have you checked your finger length to affirm your true nature?

I have always heard that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs,the one that gets hit will always yell.

But I will not say all of those things,because I strive to be civil on all things,and only get provoked out of my civility by stubborn ignorance.

I am not saying you are stubbornly ignorant, and I have not been provoked ,I am just saying what provokes me.

Feel better now?

Classy, truth, real classy.

When people come to this site, it's not to look at horse wieners.

There are other sites for that stuff, or so I've heard.

"Stop fixating on the weiner^(A) and just listen to the lyrics...the part the female sings^(B)."

A) It's in the bleeding THUMBNAIL, bigger than life. You can't even browse this thread without that very NSFW image showing up on your monitor.

B) I've heard the song before, I know the point she's making. I'm not arguing the point, just the appropriateness of the presentation for this forum.

"Jeeze, what do you do at the races? About half of all horses have a weiner...and it probably makes them feeo strange if you won't stop staring."

First off, I don't go to the horse track, I'm not a gambling type, secondly I am not offended by seeing animal genitalia, it's there, they don't have the level of culture to wear pants, so we deal with it as civilized people; by not talking about it or sharing images of it in public forums.

Finally, this isn't about my reaction to a horse wiener, it's about the fact that YOU dragged a horse wiener into the forum and dropped it on the carpet for everyone to see.

No he did not. He dragged an cartoon image of an erect horse penis into the forum.

I am dismayed. A stud horse, or a mare are both magnificent animals and should be degraded in such a way. Remember that Muhammed (Blessed is his name) flew to Allah on such an animal (with wings). Just be glad we only have to pray five times a day, and not 50 as was initially commanded by Allah. If you would not put an image of Jesus forth in such a manner, nor would Jesus do it, why would you put forth an image of Muhammed (Blessed is his name), or the horse he rode up on?

Some of you out there deserve to be rammed in the butt by the horns of a large male goat.

No more hummus for you, and you certainly cannot have my hummus recipe, or my chicken schnitzel recipe until you demonstrate you love all creatures great and small.

What I have been alluding to is that that video and its thumbnail could get truth in trouble with the admins:

As the CR4 Rules of conduct, rule #3 says:

"Please avoid using unsavory language, profanity and/or foul imagery. It is unnecessary to use profanity. Doing so may get your post pulled and even result in your removal from the site. Photos and images containing nudity or the suggestion thereof, foul language, or any other material that violates the CR4 Rules will be removed. Final judgment about what constitutes "foul, vulgar or unsavory" belongs to the moderation team. This site is used by people of all ages, and we seek to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere. Please keep this in mind when participating."

I never said the video or its thumbnail offended me personally. On another site, where such things are allowed and expected, I would likely praise the artistic merits of the production and possibly make a witty double entendre joke. But this site is not THAT site, and we are all responsible for keeping things 'family friendly' and 'safe for work.' There are examples of 'the Universe is, by definition all there is' that don't make people concerned about what would happen if the HR manager walked by while they were scrolling through this thread.

No argument there whatsoever.

I have been guilty of "colorful" language at times, but I agree we need to "keep the pool clean".

"Before Hubble,the Milky Way was was considered to be the entire universe."

Hubble, the man, or Hubble the Telescope? I am sure we knew about other galaxies before Hubble Telescope. (Otherwise what would Carl Sagan have been blathering on about billions and billions of galaxies for. Other than that,

I am certain there are not billions and billions of these, even in the latter model numbers.

My bad! I was referring to the man.I will be more specific in the future.

As for the "billions and billions of galaxies", the Hubble (TELESCOPE not the man), was aimed at a dark void where no light was detected.The lens was opened for a very long period of time.Slowly,the photons drifted in,one by one, and what emerged was billions of galaxies in a supposedly void part of space.

"Before Hubble, the Milkyway was considered to be the entire universe"

.

Perhaps by some, but almost 200 years prior, Wright left evidence of thoughts otherwise.

"...Internal pressure that exceeds the internal pressure..."

Now you are just being lazy. Please do elaborate. LOL

What if pressure has nothing to do with it. Wrong analogy.

What if the limiting factor is the rate of communication of gravitons with the center of mass of the Universe? Just throwing that out there for the buzzards to pick it down to the bones, then the mice will come and eschew the bones to dust.

According to current theory,there is no "center" of the universe and nothing external .

Jorrie's son posted a graphic that illustrated it very elegantly,but I cannot find it.

Basically,the universe looks the same when viewed for any point in the universe.

Yeah, we need an expert...Where's Jorrie?

"...eschew the bones to dust..."

.

Love it. Thank you, for that.

Humans used to think that the Earth was the entire universe.

Then, they thought, our Solar system was it.

Then, until Edwin Hubble, they though the Milky Way galaxy was the only galaxy.

Still sure our universe is the only one?...

Universe; Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward..

You used to think that the entire physical you was just a little kid.

Then, you thought the physical you was a teenager.

Then you thought you were all grown up as an adult.

But even after that you have been noticing a few extra pounds.

Are you still sure you know how much of the physical you exists? Come on, isn't it narrow minded to think that there is only one physical body of you which you consciously inhabit?

I fail to see the logic in that, but I can see where you would. You apparently see a complete human being as just the physical parts (as would Victor Frankenstein).

However, I have a shocking update for you: You have a human spirit (and I think you even exercise it from time to time), and a human soul (it is the part that makes you self-aware, contemplative, able to comprehend your own brain, able to look out at the universe with wonder, and makes you able to be inspired to create.

The human soul has apparently been weighed before, and I know you will call balderdash on that, but the feat was accomplished in France, if I am not mistaken. Yes, they were aware of the final expiration of the lungs also.

Put your outrage and condescension down for a moment, no one wants to steal those.

I am only saying that anything that might be interacting with this universe, as in something outside into which expansion would theoretically be occurring, wouldn't meet criteria for being distinct from this universe. That isn't an ascertion of physics or philosophy, it is a definition of the term 'universe'.

Lexical semantics,conceptual semantics,lexical semantics;I am sure you know what we are talking about,and you are being deliberately pedantic to extend the subject when you really have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

Exit 0

You know you still haven't rebutted the main problem with your assertion. There is nothing for this universe to expand into (or to contain its expansion). There is no border across which it might expand. Anything in physical communication would still be this universe and no arbitrary dilineation based on how far you can see is going to make a hill of beans of difference.

Your ad homenem attack do nothing to shore up your ideas.

Taking the word "universe" literally,you are correct.

My mistake was not stating"Observable Universe" to eliminate confusion.

Please reconsider my original post with the "Universe" substituted with "Observable Universe"

"Dimension" would also suit my meaning as well.

Dark matter could also be "scar tissue" in the spacetime fabric where the tear was made by the black hole.

Dark energy could be caused by the conversion of matter to energy by the black hole,and spewed out in a far distant,currently unobservable, area of our universe,parts of which are moving away faster than C.

Matter is simply a very condensed form of energy,and the appearance of excess energy from apparently nowhere could be from this conversion of matter to energy.

Has anyone compared the theoretical missing dark energy with the calculated quantity of all the matter consumed by black holes?

'Observable universe'?

Well, of course there is stuff where we can't see. What, have we been making sure at least one person is always awake so the universe as we know it doesn't disappear when we all have our eyes closed?

Regardless of the implications of the importance of an observer in quantum mechanics, you should have some belief in continuity beyond just what we can keep our eyes on.

You talk about pressure inside and outside. If you are thinking the universe that we can observe has been expanding nicely along the border defined by the limits of our possible observation into that portion which is beyond out observation, I have to say I find that likelihood very low. What would drive such a difference to be located just so?

I have read that the energy density of the universe remains constant,even though it is expanding.

A logical conclusion is that energy is being added to the universe to achieve this.

The matter in the universe is becoming less dense,less organized.

Matter is not being added.

The added energy is the source of the expansion;Dark Energy is the name for this energy that propels expansion.

Since matter and energy are manifestations of the same thing,matter being the concentrated,"solid" form(Although matter itself is not really solid,it is simply an interaction between forces on an atomic level).

Therefor I conclude that some matter is being converted into energy,possibly in black holes,and exits the black holes in a far distant unobservable(to us) part of our universe.

Our universe has a theoretical boundary,the shape of which is widely debated.

A rotating black hole shares some of the characteristics of a charged black hole,in the fact that they both have two event horizons.

The implications for other dimensions ,beyond our own, are many.

I recommend reading "Black Holes And Warped Spacetime" byWilliam J Kaufman,III.

This book is over 30 years old,and much has been learned and many new theories have emerged,but some of the core knowledge here has not changed.

By the way,truth is not a compromise--it is a relative point of view.

Thank you for a very civil, nondismissive and thoughful response.

A very provocative, conjectural and ''illuminating'' discussion.

Black holes are unique threshold features of time-space-matter-energy-gravity. For now, they are the only plausible ''worm-hole'' around, at the most alien extreme of all that we know from the detection and measurement tools available to us.

But being threshold time-space-matter-energy-gravity ''items'' can mean that once the threshold has been crossed (the capture of light) there may be unimaginable extremes of ''item'' features far beyond the threshold conditions, such extremes concluding with conditions that presume a Big Bang cycle of ''Universe'' formation.

But we still must for all time cope with the most profound of mathematical conundra - the connection of all real numbers with infinity - in the context of all Big Bang, etc. hypotheses. Meanwhile, we continue to flog the horse.

Mental or physical flogging?

I'm like you, I wish I understood more about this.

Maybe this will address some of your questions.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/20276/maximum-spin-rate-of-a-black-hole

Thanks for the link.Lots of interesting things there.