Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

a bh isn’t a star.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

a bh isn’t a star.

it was a star so must still have layers in it.

packed even tighter

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

a bh isn’t a star.

it was a star so must still have layers in it.

packed even tighter

why? maybe you just can’t say that because A then B must be similar.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

a bh isn’t a star.

it was a star so must still have layers in it.

packed even tighter

why? maybe you just can’t say that because A then B must be similar.

The Layers of a Star
https://star-name-registry.com/blog/item/science-the-layers-of-a-star#

Stellar nucleosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

it was a star so must still have layers in it.

packed even tighter

why? maybe you just can’t say that because A then B must be similar.

The Layers of a Star
https://star-name-registry.com/blog/item/science-the-layers-of-a-star#

Stellar nucleosynthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

yep.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

Yes, rotating and charged black holes have layers.

These layers have nothing to do with the properties of the star that formed them, because of the “black holes have no hair” theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

Yes, rotating and charged black holes have layers.

These layers have nothing to do with the properties of the star that formed them, because of the “black holes have no hair” theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Stars have layers, so its reasonable to assume that when stars collapse into BH’s that BH’s also have layers with the EH being one of them.

Possible?

Yes, rotating and charged black holes have layers.

These layers have nothing to do with the properties of the star that formed them, because of the “black holes have no hair” theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yes, rotating and charged black holes have layers.

These layers have nothing to do with the properties of the star that formed them, because of the “black holes have no hair” theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

who cares?

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

who cares?

Lots of people I imagine.

Presumably everybody who has contributed to this thread thinks it of some interest.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

who cares?

Lots of people I imagine.

Presumably everybody who has contributed to this thread thinks it of some interest.

Well, if we believe Penrose diagrams, this could be how new universes are made.

And if so, it could explain how new universes evolve.

And if so, it could explain the fine tuning problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

PS, don’t you think it would be fun to send a spacecraft into the ergosphere? I think it would.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

who cares?

Lots of people I imagine.

Presumably everybody who has contributed to this thread thinks it of some interest.

Well, if we believe Penrose diagrams, this could be how new universes are made.

And if so, it could explain how new universes evolve.

And if so, it could explain the fine tuning problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

PS, don’t you think it would be fun to send a spacecraft into the ergosphere? I think it would.

I don’t see fine tuning as a problem. I don’t know why anybody does.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yes, rotating and charged black holes have layers.

These layers have nothing to do with the properties of the star that formed them, because of the “black holes have no hair” theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

No I’m not certain at all, I’m only suggesting it. Consider it speculative.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

who cares?

Lots of people I imagine.

Presumably everybody who has contributed to this thread thinks it of some interest.

Well, if we believe Penrose diagrams, this could be how new universes are made.

And if so, it could explain how new universes evolve.

And if so, it could explain the fine tuning problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

PS, don’t you think it would be fun to send a spacecraft into the ergosphere? I think it would.

As for visiting ergospheres, I don’t know. What is the fun element?

Also, how far away is the nearest black hole we know of?

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, stretching the meaning of layers. plus only two zones in a BH the cauchy horizon and the singularity. though defining them as layers is wrong.

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

who cares?

Wont anybody think of the Black Holes?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Lots of people I imagine.

Presumably everybody who has contributed to this thread thinks it of some interest.

Well, if we believe Penrose diagrams, this could be how new universes are made.

And if so, it could explain how new universes evolve.

And if so, it could explain the fine tuning problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

PS, don’t you think it would be fun to send a spacecraft into the ergosphere? I think it would.

I don’t see fine tuning as a problem. I don’t know why anybody does.

I don’t see a problem with fine tuning either. sounds like a creator type problem.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m glad you are all so certain about conditions inside a black hole.

Personally I have no idea, and I have never seen anything to suggest that anyone else does either.

who cares?

Wont anybody think of the Black Holes?

people say we don’t know what happens inside a BH and at the same time we say our theories breakdown at the singularity. soooooo maybe our theories are ok from the EH to just before the singularity. and if that is the case then surely we have a good idea of what happens inside a BH. don’t we?

sounds like layers to me
for semantics values of me

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

who cares?

Wont anybody think of the Black Holes?

people say we don’t know what happens inside a BH and at the same time we say our theories breakdown at the singularity. soooooo maybe our theories are ok from the EH to just before the singularity. and if that is the case then surely we have a good idea of what happens inside a BH. don’t we?

I don’t believe in singularities, but conditions approach a singularity at the event horizon, so that is the limit past which any hypothesis is just a guess.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wont anybody think of the Black Holes?

people say we don’t know what happens inside a BH and at the same time we say our theories breakdown at the singularity. soooooo maybe our theories are ok from the EH to just before the singularity. and if that is the case then surely we have a good idea of what happens inside a BH. don’t we?

I don’t believe in singularities, but conditions approach a singularity at the event horizon, so that is the limit past which any hypothesis is just a guess.

conditions don’t approach a singularity at the EH. explain your reasoning as to why you think that.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

people say we don’t know what happens inside a BH and at the same time we say our theories breakdown at the singularity. soooooo maybe our theories are ok from the EH to just before the singularity. and if that is the case then surely we have a good idea of what happens inside a BH. don’t we?

I don’t believe in singularities, but conditions approach a singularity at the event horizon, so that is the limit past which any hypothesis is just a guess.

conditions don’t approach a singularity at the EH. explain your reasoning as to why you think that.

TATE says:
“Any object approaching the horizon from the observer’s side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses”

That means it is hypothesised to approach a singularity.

But even if you think that is wrong, if you accept that light can’t pass this surface, in either direction, then we have no information about what conditions inside are.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t believe in singularities, but conditions approach a singularity at the event horizon, so that is the limit past which any hypothesis is just a guess.

conditions don’t approach a singularity at the EH. explain your reasoning as to why you think that.

TATE says:
“Any object approaching the horizon from the observer’s side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses”

That means it is hypothesised to approach a singularity.

But even if you think that is wrong, if you accept that light can’t pass this surface, in either direction, then we have no information about what conditions inside are.

I don’t see how you get B from A. B is just your unsupported opinion.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

conditions don’t approach a singularity at the EH. explain your reasoning as to why you think that.

TATE says:
“Any object approaching the horizon from the observer’s side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses”

That means it is hypothesised to approach a singularity.

But even if you think that is wrong, if you accept that light can’t pass this surface, in either direction, then we have no information about what conditions inside are.

I don’t see how you get B from A. B is just your unsupported opinion.

It comes straight from what I understand a singularity to be, but never mind, what about C?

All that rain in NSW looks like its heading down to VIC.

Tau.Neutrino said:

All that rain in NSW looks like its heading down to VIC.

Looking outside, I don’t think the event horizon is far away now.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t believe in singularities,

You should. They believe in you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

TATE says:
“Any object approaching the horizon from the observer’s side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses”

That means it is hypothesised to approach a singularity.

But even if you think that is wrong, if you accept that light can’t pass this surface, in either direction, then we have no information about what conditions inside are.

I don’t see how you get B from A. B is just your unsupported opinion.

It comes straight from what I understand a singularity to be, but never mind, what about C?

and what do you understand a singularity to be in the context of a BH?

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t see how you get B from A. B is just your unsupported opinion.

It comes straight from what I understand a singularity to be, but never mind, what about C?

and what do you understand a singularity to be in the context of a BH?

It doesn’t matter, you won’t agree.

What about C?