Black Holes Don't Exist

Assuming that the density is uniform the effect of increased gravitational force applies everywhere except the exact centre.

I may have missed some limitation on 'everywhere', but absent some limitation, your statement is wrong. It would violate Gauss' law.

For a shrinking spherical object, the gravitational field outside of the original surface remains unchanged during the shrinking.

Within the surface of a sphere, the gravitation field on an object within the surface is determined by the matter closer to the center than the object. The gravitation field exerted by the material outside of this radius cancels out exactly.

Results in zero gravity at the center exactly as you said. As the sphere shrinks, distances at a given radius within the surface does increase because more of the mass is inside that radius. Except at the center.

But if you move away from the centre the net force towards the centre would be stronger in the denser sphere, at any given distance from the centre.

No. Only for distances inside of the original surface of the sphere. I would further add, that most people would not be making a comparison to points inside of that original surface because those points are generally inaccessible.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Colbard writes: First of all I don't think that mass causes gravity.

The available evidence says that mass is responsible for gravity by bending space-time.

And secondly when you break the structure of the atom you lose its mass.

If by "break the structure of the atom" you mean separate it into its constituent particles, then this is incorrect. The mass of an atom is equal to the sum of the masses of its particles. There are some tiny differences that NoNukes mentions and that can be explained and accounted for, but the important point to understand is that breaking an atom up does not destroy any mass. The component particles still exist.

But if by "break the structure of the atom" you instead mean convert it in to energy, then you're still wrong. Mass and energy can be converted back and forth. Energy causes a bending of space-time just as mass does.

There is no such thing as collapsing matter down into a smaller unit than itself without disassembling its inner relations, and undoing matter altogether.

You are correct that the atoms in sufficiently compressed matter will break down into their constituent particles, but this doesn't destroy any mass. (Some mass will be converted into energy, of course.)

But even the core of the sun itself is not under sufficient pressure to break atoms down into their constituent particles. When people talk about "collapsing matter", it's all just a matter of the space between atoms becoming less and less (not of the space within atoms becoming less and less), until you get to the densest stages where the atoms do break down into their constituent particles, and if the density increases then the particles will eventually break down into their quark components.

--Percy

quote:

---

I may have missed some limitation on 'everywhere', but absent some limitation, your statement is wrong. It would violate Gauss' law.

---

Yes, you missed the context. We're only talking about the material that is collapsing and the forces operating it.

quote:

---

No. Only for distances inside of the original surface of the sphere. I would further add, that most people would not be making a comparison to points inside of that original surface because those points are generally inaccessible.

---

Since the denser sphere is entirely contained within the original surface I defy you to find a point that is in the denser sphere, but that is not inside the original surface. I would also point out that in the case where we are talking about a gravitational collapse if is entirely sensible to talk about the gravitational force acting on the collapsing material.

The available evidence says that mass is responsible for gravity by bending space-time.

Tsk, tsk...

You really think that's good enough?

Since you don't know for an absolute certainty, then you clearly don't know.

The available evidence says that mass is responsible for gravity by bending space-time.

Does it?

I didn't take much issue with Collard saying that he does not believe mass is responsible because it is not really necessary to believe that to accept the predictions of General Relativity. Einstein's equations allow us to predict motion in a gravitational field using those concepts, but one might reasonably ask if our interpretation of the equations actually matches reality.

As an analogy, Newton's gravity equation presents a completely different model that works extremely well. Yet we accept that that two masses do not actually attract each other as Newton predicted.

quote:

---

We have finally discovered the black holes, in between the left and right ears of science.

---

This is the fruit of pure materialistic science… It is no longer what we observe, it is only what we think we observe.

This is why Einstein disliked quantum physics, it is a mathematical construct without any realistic modeling. The math can lead you to the truth only when viewed from reality.

I'm afraid you are confusing mass and volume. Try to think of it this way. What weighs more, a ton of brick or a ton of feather?

Well, the answer is they both weigh the same. But a ton of brick would occupy a lot less volume than a ton of feather, uncompacted of course.

When we have lots and lots of matter clumped together, the overall gravity of this thing increases. This would cause the object to shrink in size due to gravity. But the overall mass remains the same.

What would keep such an object from collapsing further is the outward pressure by the mass itself. So, eventually such an object would settle on a certain size. If you add more matter to it, the gravity would increase and, depending on the outward pressure, the object would shrink in size again while its mass would increase.

In physics, there is a principle called the pauli exclusion principle. Look it up. This principle sets a certain limit to the collapse of matter due to the outward pressure of subatomic particles. We call these objects neutron stars.

But what if the object in question has more mass, thus more gravitational pull, to overcome the pauli exclusion principle?

And this is where my question comes in for you. Can you explain to us what force or principle would prevent such an object to collapse further?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

... He says he can pick out all of the home schooled and church schooled kids in the first week. ...

Because they have been taught lies, because they are worse off than being completely ignorant of the topic ... almost as if their education is a Faux Noise wet dream?

Edited by RAZD, : ..

frako writes: Ok um if there are no black holes what are these densely packed fast moving stars orbiting?

The same thing that electrons orbit, that hurricanes orbit. No black holes, but I guess the black holes are the thing imagined to do the job.
It is something like a black hole, in the sense that time and space are bent by this particular force.

Zaius137 writes: This is why Einstein disliked quantum physics,

I don't mind QM, but disagree with separate packages of energy.
I think of those packages as peaks in a continuous wave, where the troughs are the gaps between the packages. Energy in an opposite form not detectable by the former.

Taz writes: I'm afraid you are confusing mass and volume.... But what if the object in question has more mass, thus more gravitational pull, to overcome the pauli exclusion principle? And this is where my question comes in for you. Can you explain to us what force or principle would prevent such an object to collapse further?

I believe mass is a property not caused by matter, but by what causes matter to exist, and that mass can be altered. This was understood in ancient times by people who found ways of causing a large stone to lose its mass.

So to answer the Q about what might prevent a collapse of matter, is the forces which demand that matter occupies a certain space time criteria.
Those forces were anciently named the waters and the light. They are supernatural and have complex qualities. But that's just my opinion and will not go well with this thread.

Thanks for your responses everyone, I have read them and they do make sense with what you have studied and what is generally accepted in science.

We associate mass and gravity, and a space time bend, but I do not believe they are caused by each other

In modern physics they don't "cause" each other either. One could say mass causes spacetime to curve (although this is not definitive as it is possible to view relativity as just describing an "eternal" four-dimensional spacetime, so there isn't really "causes" as such) but spacetime curvature does not cause mass.

rather that all of these are caused by a difference in the state of the background force which also helps to make up and produce matter and all the other factors mentioned.

There is not experimental evidence of such a force. The end.

Not just matter, but anti matter and dark matter as well.

In modern physics, antimatter and dark matter interact with and cause spacetime curvature just as much as normal matter.

It is slowly dawning on some scientists that the universe has much more power behind it than revealed in matter, and that matter is only a small expression compared to that energy. So rather than seeing the universe as empty space with a few stars, it is actually full of energy or elements of some type, and the stars are the lower points of energy in that fabric.

This is the part that I was referring to when I said your post is closer to modern physics than you think.

There is something "behind" matter in modern physics and that is the quantum fields. A particle itself is nothing more than a localised excitation of these fields. The universe is indeed "full" of these fields and they do indeed span the space between stars, with the stars themselves being typically low energy excitations of these fields, like most conventional matter.

That said, quantum fields are extremely complicated objects, they are not "energy" or "elements". As I've said before on these forums, the everyday object they most closely resemble is a spring mattress.

So we can conclude that matter is a result of energy which has settled down. That settled down state causes a difference with its highly energized environment in the universe. If we accept that experimentally, then we can see stars not needing to derive their energy from wood, candles, electricity or atomic explosions, or whatever is used as an energy source for man in the future, but simply from the difference in the state of power between matter and the rest of the universe, which is what energy is, a difference which calls for an action to equalize. It's like putting a frozen potato chip into hot oil, there is a reaction.

Matter is a result of quantum fields being excited locally, but not generally. That is, if a small part of the field in one region is energetic, we get a particle. If the whole field were full of energy we'd get what are known as field states, which don't really resemble matter.

Stars derive their power from nuclear fusion, this is a demonstrated fact, just google it.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Those forces were anciently named the waters and the light.

What ancient society believed this?

Son Goku writes: ...This is the part that I was referring to when I said your post is closer to modern physics than you think....

Nice to hear from you.
I understand what has been proven about my points which you have outlined so well.
There is proof of the background forces which I mention from time to time, which I hope to bring to the table in another thread.

Rather than looking for proof for forces that cannot be measured by a material instrument, we should not be afraid of making postulations and predictions which fit the bill.
If a theory is correct in principle by itself, then observations will prove it true.

A theory can be proven to be true before it is applied by measuring it against revealed knowledge. That knowledge is contained in the authentic Bible - despite its misrepresentation by atheists and organized religions.

It describes the background forces by name, cause, relation, order and effects on nature. Including the cause of gravity.