New Theory of Black Holes

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I loved physics, but hated math. There was only so far that romance was going to go.

Physics is math.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Physics is math.

You can understand physics even if the maths escapes your conscious mind. Look at catching a ball. Your brain does a mathematical calculation of trajectory, but you don't think of it in those terms (unless you are some kind of freak).

[pchang]

Originally posted by DrS


I haven't seen any evidence to support that. What makes you guess that?

Here are a few more leads:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

[pchang]

No

Physics is Applied Math

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dauphin
You can understand physics even if the maths escapes your conscious mind

Actually, you really can't, unless the Physics is of the middle school variety.

[Dauphin]

Interesting distinction. I think the ability to understand is more based on the ability to apply to more everyday experience phenomena. Being able to predict something based on maths is not the same as understanding it.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Interesting distinction. I think the ability to understand is more based on the ability to apply to more everyday experience phenomena. Being able to predict something based on maths is not the same as understanding it.

I think the extent to which one can understand "elementary" physics innately "without math" is pretty much the same as the amount of "elementary" math that one can understand innately.

[Dauphin]

From personal experience, I found that I understood the maths better if I could conceptualise the physical reality, not the other way around. I actually understand the Black-Scholes equation for derivatives better because I can relate it to the heat equation, which in turn is a concept that can be easily understood (if not so mathematically). Maybe I am just odd in that respect though.

[DrS]

Okay, I sort of briefly recall plasma cosmology. It's similar to steady-state, but without the need to 'create' more matter.

If I remember correctly, it's kind of interesting, and probably not altogether wrong. I'm kind of skeptical that the influences can be felt on large scales. Maybe slight perturbations of star clusters, but I doubt extra-galactic dynamics.

I think it needs to make a few successful predictions. Like steady-state, it seems to make collections of post-dictions which, while interesting, are not so useful.

I think it's an interesting field which deserves further study, but it shares nowhere near the complexity or predictive power of big bang cosmology.

And just because a theory (in this case plasma cosmology) may be wrong, doesn't mean its useless. Fred Hoyle (steady-state) has the distinction of being the 'most often wrong' astronomer in history. Still, he probably advanced the big-bang theory more than any other single person, by trying to poke holes in it.

[pchang]

Originally posted by DrS
Okay, I sort of briefly recall plasma cosmology. It's similar to steady-state, but without the need to 'create' more matter.

If I remember correctly, it's kind of interesting, and probably not altogether wrong. I'm kind of skeptical that the influences can be felt on large scales. Maybe slight perturbations of star clusters, but I doubt extra-galactic dynamics.

I think it needs to make a few successful predictions. Like steady-state, it seems to make collections of post-dictions which, while interesting, are not so useful.

I think it's an interesting field which deserves further study, but it shares nowhere near the complexity or predictive power of big bang cosmology.

And just because a theory (in this case plasma cosmology) may be wrong, doesn't mean its useless. Fred Hoyle (steady-state) has the distinction of being the 'most often wrong' astronomer in history. Still, he probably advanced the big-bang theory more than any other single person, by trying to poke holes in it.

Plasma cosmology predicts the existance of spiral galaxies without the requirement of dark matter or dark energy. Plasma cosmology predicts the structure of galactic clusters without the requirement of dark metter or dark energy. There are others. Naturally, I am biased. My thesis was in plasma physics (although my major was in aeronautics and astronautics).

[DrS]

Well, not really. It post-dicts them. We knew of spiral galaxies well before hand.

[pchang]

OK

It post dicts them far better than a gravity only model. So why the insistence on gravity only that requires lots of dark matter and dark energy that has to be distributed just so?

[Berzerker]

Kuci

He was suggesting that the black holes are all at the center. That wouldn't fix anything.

No I wasn't, I was making 2 suggestions - that a cluster of black holes are at the center of the milky way, and that black holes might account for the "missing" mass.

[DrS]

It post dicts them far better than a gravity only model.

I think you'd be really hard pressed to prove that.

So why the insistence on gravity only that requires lots of dark matter and dark energy that has to be distributed just so?

Simply put, because of the wealth of supporting evidence. Lots of things can cause a spiral structure. The physics of hurricanes is very different than that of galaxies, yet to the casual observer they appear to have lots in common.

I think you would find it difficult to show that gravity dynamics wouldn't result in a spiral structure. I honestly don't see how a perturbed elliptical galaxy wouldn't become a spiral, just via gravity alone.

As for dark-stuff, last I heard, the galactic halo objects were considered sufficiently massive/numerous to hold galaxies together. On the extra-galactic scale, neutrino-oscillation pretty much demands a non-zero mass. Regardless of what happens in plasma cosmology, that's not going away.

Plasma cosmology needs to make a startling, successful prediction. It's undeveloped and kind of far-fetched. Doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, just that it needs to start making useful, successful predictions before it gets taken more seriously.

[pchang]

Correct me please

In a spiral galaxy, we have stable arms.
This means that stars near the center spin around with the same angular velocity as stars near the edge.
How is this possible with gravity only?