• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gravity vs Mass

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
That theoretical process is known as Hawking radiation - Wikipedia. It is a quantum mechanical process (or rather two processes) that contradict GR.
Hawking also hypothesized "white holes" in order to get the big picture of attractive and repulsive issues in galaxies in order.

Both scientific "black and white holes" in galaxies suggests an overall formative and circular motion of attraction and repulsion. The only fundamental force which can achieve these circular motions at the same time, is of course the qualities and laws of electromagnetism.

And of course it is the strong electromagnetism which creates the gamma radiation which is beaming out from the galactic center and out of the galactic poles.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Hawking also hypothesized "white holes" in order to get the big picture of attractive and repulsive issues in galaxies in order.

Both scientific "black and white holes" in galaxies suggests an overall formative and circular motion of attraction and repulsion. The only fundamental force which can achieve these circular motions at the same time, is of course the qualities and laws of electromagnetism.

And of course it is the strong electromagnetism which creates the gamma radiation which is beaming out from the galactic center and out of the galactic poles.
Black Holes are perfectly described by their mass and their rotation. They have no electromagnetic moment as the force carrying boson of electromagnetism is the photon - which can't leave the event horizon.
The gamma radiation we measure from Black Holes is created through Bremsstrahlung in the accretion disc. A "naked" Black Hole only radiates Hawking radiation.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
New
Native said:
Hawking also hypothesized "white holes" in order to get the big picture of attractive and repulsive issues in galaxies in order.

Both scientific "black and white holes" in galaxies suggests an overall formative and circular motion of attraction and repulsion. The only fundamental force which can achieve these circular motions at the same time, is of course the qualities and laws of electromagnetism.

And of course it is the strong electromagnetism which creates the gamma radiation which is beaming out from the galactic center and out of the galactic poles.
-------------------
New Black Holes are perfectly described by their mass and their rotation. They have no electromagnetic moment as the force carrying boson of electromagnetism is the photon - which can't leave the event horizon.
The gamma radiation we measure from Black Holes is created through Bremsstrahlung in the accretion disc. A "naked" Black Hole only radiates Hawking radiation.
At least you got the standard cosmology description correctly :) But I question this very much.

1. Of course the estimated mass of the Milky Way can be correct and also the observed rotational velocity around the galactic center.
2. It´s also a correct assumption to ascribe the orbital force to the center of the galaxy since all stars are moving around this center.
3. The big question is whether "gravity" from a "heavy black hole" can be the cause of it all.

4. If you take a thorough look at the barred galaxy shown below, you´ll have problems explaining how the galactic arms can take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the bars and further in to the galactic center, if we are talking of gravity only.
1920px-Hubble2005-01-barred-spiral-galaxy-NGC1300.jpg

Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

So the question is for you and others: Can a central black hole force of gravity create this galactic pattern? I don´t think it can at all.

5. This imagery can ONLY occur when the galactic formation and motion goes from WITHIN the galaxy and outwards via the barred structure and out in the galactic arms. This motion is very much like the pattern of a two arm rotating garden sprinkler where droplets i.e. stars are spread out from the sprinkler.
6. This description even confirms the observed galactic rotation curve and if the "garden sprinkler" pattern is correct, there cannot be a central attractive "heavy black hole" in the galactic center.

7. That is again: If so, science cannot ascribe the galactic mass/force to a "massive central hole/object".
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
and light cannot escape the draw of a black hole

is it that for the mass that light particles have?

No. There is something called the escape velocity: how fast something has to go to get out of the gravitational well. That velocity is the same no matter what the mass is.

For a black hole, the escape velocity is more than the speed of light, so light cannot get out either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
and do black holes emit energy?.....of any kind
I've heard that they do

but how can that happen if light cannot escape?

just asking


Two different aspects here. The matter falling into back holes will release a lot of energy. Often, that matter creates what is known as an accretion disk surrounding the black hole. The matter in this disk is still outside of the black hole and emits very high energy gamma rays, etc.

A second effect is Hawking radiation. This is a proposed quantum effect and has not been observed, but the theory behind the prediction is pretty solid. The problem is that for anything other than microscopic black holes, the amount of this radiation is very small and is smaller the larger the BH is).
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, science was, sort off, forced to accept dark matter when the ASSUMED universal laws of celestial motions around a gravity center was contradicted in galaxies. But instead of revising the laws, science ASSUMED dark matter "to hold the stars inside galaxies" because they otherwise would fly away from the galaxies because of the "abnormal motions".

Standard science failed to analyse the galactic formation and the motions of the stars, and they simply inserted an ASSUMED dark matter in order to fit the starry motions to their former and contradicted equations.

And, as this new ASSUMED dark invention again fits the old (contradicted) equations, they took dark matter to exist as a "conclusive evidence".
.
Of course cosmological science ASSUMES. This is the very basics in all science. They just call it "new theories".

There are still a lot to know that we don’t know about, outside of our Solar System.

Some we have learned through discoveries of evidence, and they have become “scientific theory”.

While others are just proposals, models that are still hypothetical (a hypothesis) or theoretical, yet to be tested, or currently undergoing testing.

Example: both are proposed explanation, or draft, that haven’t been accepted or rejected. For that reasons, neither hypotheses, nor theoretical models, have the status of “scientific theory”.

Scientific theory must meet the following requirements:
  1. being FALSIFIABLE,
  2. have been TESTED (and analyzed) in Scientific Method, eg observation through evidence or through experiments,
  3. and have been REVIEWED by PEERS (eg Peer Review)

A hypothesis should at least passed being “falsifiable”. If the hypothesis can come up with ways to possibly test the explanation, equations/formulas and predictions, then it is falsifiable, regardless if the evidence are positive or negative.

A theoretical model is explanation with some sorts of complex equations or formulas being solved, but haven’t been tested.

To put in another way, a theoretical model offer a proposed explanation that are mathematically possible, but not yet tested and accepted.

As to the dark matter and dark energy.

Well, it has been tested, if not directly observed. As others have pointed out to you, they have indirectly observed through the gravitational effect on the motion of galaxies and other objects.

And that it these effects can be MEASURED (from the WMAP & the Planck missions), make the dark energy and dark matter, at the very least falsifiable, and partially tested.

It is no longer just assumptions, Native.

Don’t get me wrong, Native. There are still more to be learned, more to investigate, more to test for both dark matter and dark energy. The works are done yet, but there are far more promising leads than the mythological creation from whatever scriptures you believe in.

The only person making assumptions is you, in your reply.

If you have better alternative explanation, like where those masses are coming from, if not from dark matter or if didn’t come from dark energy, then you are the one is assuming, without evidence.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
so there seems understanding of mass
and understanding of gravity

as long as you believe in numbers

but what is the actual source?
most substance having sufficient quantity
goes after other quantities
the draw ….just happens

got more than numbers?......anybody?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Thief said:
and light cannot escape the draw of a black hole

is it that for the mass that light particles have
----------
No. There is something called the escape velocity: how fast something has to go to get out of the gravitational well. That velocity is the same no matter what the mass is.
For a black hole, the escape velocity is more than the speed of light, so light cannot get out either.
Light is an electromagnetic frequency and is assumed to not can leave a black hole. Still, the another electromagnetic frequence of gamma rays have no troubles leaving the galactic "black hole" as observed here.

How then, does a black hole differ between holding ordinary light and repulsing gamma rays?
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
so there seems understanding of mass
and understanding of gravity

as long as you believe in numbers

but what is the actual source?
most substance having sufficient quantity
goes after other quantities
the draw ….just happens

got more than numbers?......anybody?


What else are you wanting? We are doing science, not metaphysics. We are looking at how things behave in the real world, and testing our ideas against that behavior, as opposed to arm-chair speculation about how things 'must' be.

Yes, the 'draw' just happens. That is what defines gravity. In electromagnetism, the 'draw' or 'push' just happens: that is what defines electromagnetism.

You seem to be looking for an underlying mechanism that conforms to your metaphysics. Maybe the issue is your metaphysics needs to be adjusted to deal with reality?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thief said:
and light cannot escape the draw of a black hole

is it that for the mass that light particles have
----------

Light is an electromagnetic frequency. Still, the another electromagnetic frequence of gamma rays have no troubles leaving the galactic "black hole" as observed here.

How then, does a black hole differ between holding ordinary light and repulsing gamma rays?

Again, what we are observing here is from the matter nearby the black hole, but not inside of it. The region close to black holes tends to be very energetic.

Gamma rays are a form of light. They would not be able to escape from the inside of a black hole either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
SO......you confess!

you don't need numbers to believe

Huh? the numbers are what justifies the belief. Gravity between things is a fundamental part of the universe (as far as we know). That means there *cannot* be an underlying mechanism (because then whatever justifies that mechanism is more fundamental).

The most fundamental aspects of the universe 'just are'. Because they are fundamental, there can be no deeper reason for them. the only issue is whether gravity, electromagnetism, etc are, in fact, fundamental.

On the other hand, our models of gravity match the observations (the numbers), which is all that is required in science.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
so there seems understanding of mass
and understanding of gravity

as long as you believe in numbers

but what is the actual source?
most substance having sufficient quantity
goes after other quantities
the draw ….just happens

got more than numbers?......anybody?

I really don’t see the point in asking, but I will ask anyway...

So if you disagree with science about gravity, then what do you think cause gravity? And what do you think the cause the effect of gravity on object?

Do you propose an alternative model that are falsifiable and testable...and tested?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I really don’t see the point in asking, but I will ask anyway...

So if you disagree with science about gravity, then what do you think cause gravity? And what do you think the cause the effect of gravity on object?

Do you propose an alternative model that are falsifiable and testable...and tested?
I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Huh? the numbers are what justifies the belief. Gravity between things is a fundamental part of the universe (as far as we know). That means there *cannot* be an underlying mechanism (because then whatever justifies that mechanism is more fundamental).

The most fundamental aspects of the universe 'just are'. Because they are fundamental, there can be no deeper reason for them. the only issue is whether gravity, electromagnetism, etc are, in fact, fundamental.

On the other hand, our models of gravity match the observations (the numbers), which is all that is required in science.
and now you recant your confession
and the tree in the forest makes a sound......ONLY
if you are there......with your numbers
 
Top