Gravity

21
Aug

The Shadow of a Black Hole

The invisible manifests itself through the visible: so say many of the great works of philosophy, poetry, and religion. It’s also true in physics: we can’t see atoms or electrons directly and dark matter seems to be entirely transparent, yet this invisible stuff makes and shapes the universe as we know it.

Then there are black holes: though they are the most extreme gravitational powerhouses in the cosmos, they are invisible to our telescopes. Black holes are the unseen hand steering the evolution of galaxies, sometimes encouraging new star formation, sometimes throttling it. The material they send jetting away changes the chemistry of entire galaxies. When they take the form of quasars and blazars, black holes are some of the brightest single objects in the universe, visible billions of light-years away. The biggest supermassive black holes are billions of times as massive as the Sun. They are engines of creation and destruction that put the known laws of physics to their most extreme test. Yet, we can’t actually see them.

sgra_3d-hires_CROP_620
A simulation of superheated material circling the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Credit: Scott C. Noble, The University of Tulsa

Black holes are a concentration of mass so dense that anything that gets too close—stars, planets, atoms, light—becomes trapped by the force of gravity. The point of no return is called the event horizon, and it forms a sort of imaginary shell around the black hole itself. But event horizons are very small: the event horizon of a supermassive black hole could fit comfortably inside the solar system (comfortably for the black hole, that is, not for us). That might sound big, but on cosmic scales, it’s tiny: the black hole at the center of the Milky Way spans just 10 billionths of a degree on the sky. (For comparison, the full Moon is about half a degree across, and the Hubble Space Telescope can see objects as small as 13 millionths of a degree.)

Both the size and nature of the event horizon make it difficult to observe black holes directly, though indirect observations abound. In fact, though black holes themselves are strictly invisible, their surrounding regions can be extremely bright. Many luminous astronomical objects produce so much light from such a small region of space that they can’t be anything other than black holes, even though our telescopes aren’t powerful enough to pick out the details. In addition, the stars at the center of the Milky Way loop close enough to show they’re orbiting an object millions of times the mass of the Sun, yet smaller than the solar system. No single object, other than a black hole, can be so small and yet so massive. Even though we know black holes are common throughout the universe—nearly every galaxy has at least one supermassive black hole in it, and thousands more smaller specimens—we haven’t confirmed that these objects have event horizons. Since event horizons are a fundamental prediction of general relativity (and make black holes what they are), demonstrating their existence is more than just a formality.

However, confirming event horizons would take a telescope the size of the whole planet. The solution: the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which links observatories around the world to mimic the pinpoint resolution of an Earth-sized scope. The EHT currently includes six observatories, many of which consist of multiple telescopes themselves, and two more observatories will be joining soon, so that EHT will have components in far-flung places from California to Hawaii to Chile to the South Pole. With new instruments and new observations, EHT astronomers will soon be able to study the fundamental physics of black holes for the first time. Yet even with such a powerful team of telescopes, the EHT’s vision will only be sharp enough to make out two supermassive black holes: the one at the center of our own Milky Way, dubbed Sagittarius A*, and the one in the M87 galaxy, which weighs in at nearly seven billion times the mass of the sun.

The theory of general relativity predicts that the intense gravity at the event horizon should bend the paths of matter and light in distinct ways. If the light observed by the EHT matches those predictions, we’ll know there’s an event horizon there, and we’ll also be able to learn something new about the black hole itself.

The “gravitational topography” of spacetime near the event horizon depends on just two things: the mass of the black hole and how fast it is spinning. The event horizon diameter of a non-spinning black hole is roughly six kilometers for each solar mass. In other words, a black hole the mass of the sun (which is smaller than any we’ve yet found) would be six kilometers across, and one that’s a million times the mass of the Sun would be six million kilometers across.

If the black hole is spinning, its event horizon will be flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator and it will be surrounded by a region called the ergosphere, where gravity drags matter and light around in a whirlpool. Everything crossing the border into the ergosphere orbits the black hole, no matter how fast it tries to move, though it still conceivably can escape without crossing the event horizon. The ergosphere will measure six kilometers across the equator for each solar mass inside the black hole, and the event horizon will be smaller, depending on just how fast the black hole is rotating. If the black hole has maximum spin, dragging matter near the event horizon at close to light speed, the event horizon will be half the size of that of a non-spinning black hole. (Spinning black holes are smaller because they convert some of their mass into rotational energy.)

When the EHT astronomers point their telescopes toward the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, they will be looking for a faint ring of light around a region of darkness, called the black hole’s “shadow.” That light is produced by matter that is circling at the very edge of the event horizon, and its shape and size are determined by the black hole’s mass and spin. Light traveling to us from the black hole will also be distorted by the extreme gravitational landscape around the black hole. General relativity predicts how these effects should combine to create the image we see at Earth, so the observations will provide a strong test of the theory.

If observers can catch sight of a blob of gas caught in the black hole’s pull, that would be even more exciting. As the blob orbits the black hole at nearly the speed of light, we can watch its motion and disintegration in real time. As with the ring, the fast-moving matter emits light, but from a particular place near the black hole rather than from all around the event horizon. The emitted photons are also influenced by the black hole, so timing their arrival from various parts of the blob’s orbit would give us a measure of how both light and matter are affected by gravity. The emission would even vary in a regular way: “We’d be able to see it as kind of a heartbeat structure on a stripchart recorder,” says Shep Doeleman, one of the lead researchers on the EHT project.

Event Horizon Telescope astronomers have already achieved resolutions nearly good enough to see the event horizon of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. With the upgrades and addition of more telescopes in the near future, the EHT should be able to see if the event horizon size corresponds to what general relativity predicts. In addition, observations of supermassive black holes show that at least some may be spinning at close to the maximum rate, and the EHT should be able to tell that too.

Black holes were long considered a theorist’s toy, ripe for speculation but possibly not existing in nature. Even after discovering real black holes, many doubted we would ever be able to observe any of their details. The EHT will bring us as close as possible to seeing the invisible.

Go Deeper
Picks for further reading

Event Horizon Telescope
Learn more about the science and technology of the EHT at the experiment’s official website

Living Reviews in Relativity: The confrontation between general relativity and experiment
Clifford M. Will, a physicist at the University of Florida, on experimental tests of general relativity.

The New York Times: Black Hole Hunters
Dennis Overbye follows Sheperd Doeleman and the drama of the Event Horizon Telescope’s first observations from the summit of an extinct volcano in Southern Mexico.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

mfrancis_96x96

Matthew Francis

    Matthew R. Francis is a science writer, physicist, public speaker, educator, and frequent wearer of jaunty hats. He contributes a weekly column about astronomy and space to The Daily Beast. His writing has also appeared in Ars Technica, Slate, Nautilus, Aeon, and a variety of other publications. A former college professor and planetarium director, he holds a PhD in physics and astronomy from Rutgers University. Image courtesy of Tony Hitchcock.

    • Neal99

      Black holes are a fact. Now how far does the event horizon exist form a black hole that it lets say 90 billion times the size of the earth? And how long would It take an object caught up in the event horizon to reach the singularity?

      • Urielxme

        At least half of this question is incoherent.

      • oliver james

        Anything 90 billions times the size of the earth – should not be invisible – Fact!

        • captain psychedelic

          Everything is invisible in the absence of light

          • oliver james

            My bed may be unable to view at night but I can still determine if it’s there. Matter/mass is still detectable and even visible without light.

      • Sam LeFevre

        There is still a fair amount of uncertainty about the existence of black holes. It is naïve to unconditionally declare them a fact. See: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html for one example.
        Typically black holes are measured solar mass units – not earth mass units. A black hole only 90E9 earths in size would be comparatively small. For example (after some unit conversion), the averaged sized Sag A* black whole at the center of the Milky Way has the mass of about 1.4E12 (1.4 trillion) Earths. The one in the Andromeda Galaxy would be about 3.6E15 (3.6 quadrillion) Earths (on the light estimate).
        To answer your questions, since the event horizon radius is proportional to the mass: approximately 2.95 times the mass in Solar units, we just need to convert your example (90E9 earths) into the proper units. The answer, it turns out, would be 7.97E5 (797,000) km – or about twice as far as it is to the moon. Not very big in the cosmic scales. An object now traveling at the speed of light would travel that distance in 0.27 seconds
        All the factors are readily available on the internet. Actually Wikipedia is a reasonable source for these kinds of facts. Somebody ought to check my math.

        • captain psychedelic

          An excellent and informative post

    • Vic

      Reading the introduction, I couldn’t help but think of Hebrews 11:3. Amen.

      Mathematical equations and reality can diverge a great deal in Theoretical Physics, and there are situations where a theory cannot be tested realistically, at least directly, e.g. Multiverse Theory, String Theory, Quantum Gravity Theory, etc.

      That said, Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity’s gravitational and light mathematical equations showed the effect of what is referred to now as “Black Holes” but he didn’t want to believe it. Later theoretical physics work showed that Einstein’s GR math correctly predicts the existence of “Black Holes” and the loss of “everything,” including information/data, at their “Event Horizons,” and that, in turn, presented one of the major conflicts between the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Physics/Mechanics, to this day.

    • oliver james

      Confused here – there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy, including the milky way – we can see the entirety of the solar system we live in and have real camera images – beyond pluto now – yet no real pics of “our” black hole.???
      Some say there are score of them, black holes – yet they are always “billions of light years away…”
      Of course the best line of the article; – black holes are “strictly invisible” – how convenient! And so now, establishing that there is no way we can really see them – we can expound forever about whatever our imaginations desire on black holes existence.

      • KevinJM1280

        [Confused here]

        Allow me to try and help.

        [there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy]

        Strictly speaking…we’re not sure, but this is not a bad generalization.

        [including the milky way]

        Well, there’s a lot of dust in the way which makes it pretty hard to see. However from the observations we can make it seems fairly certain that there either is currently or will inevitably be a black hole there.

        [we can see the entirety of the solar system we live in and have real
        camera images – beyond pluto now – yet no real pics of “our” black
        hole.???]

        Well yes, but the black hole at the center of the Milky Way (it is called Sagittarius A* by the way) is very much farther away than Pluto. In fact it is 26,000 light-years away while Pluto is only about 4 light-hours away.

        [Some say there are score of them, black holes]

        There are many more than a score of them. Far more in fact than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.

        [yet they are always “billions of light years away…”]

        A great many of them are, but there are a great many right here in our own galaxy as well.

        [black holes are “strictly invisible”]

        Well, the black hole itself certainly is, but the effects it has on the Universe around it can certainly be observed.

        [how convenient!]

        I would say it is decidedly inconvenient, but I’m also starting to get the feeling that your post is less than genuine inquiry.

        [And so now, establishing that there is no way we can really see them –
        we can expound forever about whatever our imaginations desire on black
        holes existence.]

        Ah, so sadly it seems I was right. Oh well.

        • oliver james

          Well… you gave me a whole lot of nothing. it will always be theoretical physics –until we have proof as in pics or actual repeated data as to their existence – not conjecture and imaginations running wild.
          Real physics, applied physics dictates that something can’t suck everything around it yet at the same time spew out amazing forces of light and fire* – and why not add some brimstone… the bible folk could tell a better story than many theorists – ironically.
          And stop talking about a great many – identify ONE first, it’s exact location etc. – and then perhaps we can consider others. You guys are like the man who went fishing by himself – and caught the biggest fish ever but the fish jumped back out of the boat…
          Oh and when you say x light years away, which way, which direction would that be? or does that really matter cause it’s all hyperbole anyhoo
          * My hoover vacuum could…

          • KevinJM1280

            [Well… you gave me a whole lot of nothing.]

            I attempted to give you simplified explanations. I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you the education in mathematics, physics, and astronomy you would require for a detailed understanding of this topic. If that is what you want, well you have the entire collection of human knowledge at your fingertips as you read this, you can go educate yourself. We both know that’s not what you’re here for though. You’re only here to shout at the top of your lungs about how your ignorance is just as good as the education of professional physicists and astronomers. I’ve wasted too much of my time on you already. Have a nice life.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              A lot of people believe and repeat everything they were taught.
              Other people can see blatant mistakes and things that could not possibly be correct.

              Example: Do you believe in Color Charge?

              They say red, blue and green quarks are shooting anti-green, anti-blue and anti-red gluons at anti-quarks and changing the color charges so that the color charge is conserved. That stuff just has to be correct!

              Do you believe there are quarks and they are shooting gluons at other quarks and that is holding them together?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Neutron_QCD_Animation.gif/120px-Neutron_QCD_Animation.gif

            • oliver james

              Kev- professional physicists and astronomers get stuff wrong all the time – how did you miss that. Remember, it’s not chemistry where 2 parts, hydrogen and one part oxygen will always(?) bear out the non potent potable we love so much. In much of real science we do study after study, test after test – when the results keep coming up same then we can conclude one way or another – very little maybes in chemistry or math. Theoretical physics – not the same – even hawking took 3 decades to realize he was wrong.
              We have peer reviews for a reason – the reason being is that science gets stuff wrong all the time – and even peer reviewed is not the final say – in science.

            • KevinJM1280

              Yes, physicists and astronomers, chemists and biologists, botanists and zoologists all get things wrong all the time. That’s how science works – you put up a hypothesis, then you test it, then others test it.

              The only person who missed anything is you if you really think that there aren’t vast oceans of “maybes” in chemistry and math – and all other sciences.

              Now you’re trying to dress your ignorance up as honest skepticism? Sorry, but you’re not fooling anyone.

            • oliver james

              I’m not trying to dress anything – the onus is on you and other wanna-believers in black holes to really prove they exist – or back away from the discussion. You thought you could just stroll into the conversation and shut it down with your “explaining how things work” and you, like so many others, failed miserably – and impressed no one.
              There are not vast maybes in chemistry and math – only more things to explore and then make them as absolute as two plus two – and that happens every day! yeah you missed that too, just like they don’t call it theoretical chemistry for a reason – yet they call it theoretical physics for a reason.
              The big bang theory is still, after all is said and done and written about ad nausea, a theory – how’d you miss that?????
              I’m not skeptic about anything, what is confusing is how seemingly intelligent people still believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy.
              Kevin – you will never be the smartest one in the room.

            • Just call me Joe

              Oliver, I don’t know how to say this kindly, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.

              One thing is that you don’t know what a theory is or how it is used because you are misusing the word.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

              Let’s take chemistry. Chemistry is one application of the theory of quantum electrodynamics. There is a good, but still imperfect theoretical foundation. My university college professor developed one of the major theories for chemistry. These theories help understand how atoms work together and from that, the behavior of molecules can be understood and new molecules can be designed. When I was in high school, I worked in a university chemistry lab. The professor was tasked with developing a molecule with certain properties. He designed the molecule based on theory, and my job was to make it for the first time. From there, it would be tested to see if it did or did not have the desired properties. And yes, they do call it theoretical chemistry.

              To say there are “not vast maybes in chemistry and math” is to admit you have no idea what you are talking about. You are thinking at a mid-performing high school level. You even don’t know what you don’t know.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Hey Joe – Speaking of theories, Kev has also shown some interest in the…

              “You know that when the sun sets, it is still there by theory”

              …how about a link to that theory?

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              You know about atoms?
              Can you answer the quark question also…
              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/08/the-shadow-of-a-black-hole/#comment-2209664547

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • oliver james

              Joe – it doesn’t matter if I know what I’m talking about – it’s black holes – so neither does anyone else. Theory or no theory – black holes do not exist. Don’t worry about what I know or what is misused – proving me dumb and or exposing me as ignorant will not make black holes suddenly exist, appear and be real.
              It doesn’t matter for “scientific methods” – all methods combined still have not shown us a black hole nor proven that they exist.
              Stop with the trying to impress anyone here with babble – we are talking about black holes – and we might as well be talking about fairy godmothers and what types of gowns they are wearing.
              You smart people will never win over us dumb folk.

            • Just call me Joe

              I assure you, when gravity exceeds a certain strength, escape velocity will equal the speed of light. This is just math, and math that does not require random variables. The definition of a black hole is the Ve = c.

              (at the other end of the spectrum, subatomic sized black holes can form, but they are of no consequence)

              Astronomers can “see” black holes with gravity in a way. Pluto was predicted because of its gravitational influence on Neptune. Because of the predictions from the theory, a race was on to find it, and they found it right about where they expected. Pluto existed billions of years before anyone saw it in a telescope.

              I am not trying to win you over. I was under the wrong impression that you wanted to understand. One cannot teach someone who refuses to learn.

            • oliver james

              Wrong again joe – you can give me a ton of examples til the cows come home – or suggest that it is my inability to understand… or refusal to learn. ?? I don’t have to learn if a black hole exists or not – it does not exist therefore there is no learning needed.
              I don’t have to refuse to learn about pluto – it exists – we have, once again, wait for it…PICTURES!
              Why do you folks keep missing that big ol factor? Pictures are required – and stop comparing atoms to black holes – that’s dumb.
              Stop giving me/us so much crap about everything else – just pictures – it this bh is in the middle of this galaxy then we should have clear and concise images of it and all the things it does – and there should be (would be) no more debate about them.
              There are plenty of educated folks more qualified than you – who have differing opinions; about their locations,; their size, what they do and so on and so forth. Again, differing opinions from well studied folk. That tells me that it is so much speculation based on the FACT that no one has seen anything and everyone is coming up with their own ideas about them, including their existence.
              And spare me another of your scientific and mathematical explanations as to why this is. I’m not really dumb – I just pretend to be – but after a while I get annoyed with you smart arses who think they can convince folks – based on their supreme level of knowledge on a certain field, that something exists – when it so doesn’t. And the annoying part is when you dismiss the discussion by saying someone is too dumb to understand – like some dropping the mic type shit.
              You wanna drop the mic and end the debate? Show us an image of a black hole. Show me jesus walking on water. Show me santa making toys. Show me the tooth fairy on an island filled with babies teeth and a coin machine…
              Not math equations that differ among scientists! Idiot

            • Just call me Joe

              Even my five year old knows better.

              His favorite joke is, “Two men walk into a bar. First man says, I’d like H two O. Second man said, I’d like H two O too. Second man died.”

              If you take two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen, they may not react at all, and if they do in a certain way, one might get one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of hydrogen peroxide. The H2O and H2 may further react. What you don’t realize is that the simple chemical reactions you learned in 8th grade are simplifications. There is a lot more going on.

              Hawking folded on the bet with Preskill. But his co-better, Kip Thorne, has not conceded, last I heard.

              Hawking may have been correct in the first place after all. The key is whether Bell’s Theorem holds true or not. If the problem is solved in three dimensions, then one gets one answer, but of solves it in four dimensions, it appears (I have read, but have not personally verified yet) that you get a different answer. How many dimensions are significant near the event horizon?

              You might also want to learn about random variables sometimes. Answers in math are not always the same.

            • oliver james

              ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

            • David Eddy

              Even in science, language is a problem because of
              multiple meaning of words and different spelling of words indicating a
              different meaning of the word using the same sound.

              Your five year old must be very smart. It
              took me a couple of minutes to get the joke. I am of
              English decent and the English are famous for their slow to catch on and
              laughing at a joke a day after they heard it.

              Saying something and writing something can have different
              meanings without clarification of the meaning of the words. The “Big Bang
              Theory” was actually coined by a reporter. The Big Bang”
              changed the meaning of the theory because there is no bang to what would be
              happening. It would probably be a gradual change of structure that
              would be changing and expanding over a very long time within our universe.
              Space is very likely endless as it expands.

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

            Yes, that one gets me too. A black hole has gravity supposedly so strong that not even light can escape but the black hole is shooting off actual material in jets.

            I know they think they can explain it but that doesn’t matter. I could give 3 or 4 alternate explanations for anything (that doesn’t mean anything is correct though).
            http://cdn0.cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/blackhole_jet_RS.jpg

            • oliver james

              Exactly Frankenstein – that’s what happens when everyone just starts using their imaginations – independently! One scientist starts to go on a tangent and envisions this black hole as an all powerful fire starter – while another scientist on the other side of the world – or in the next lab down the hall, imagines a gimormous vacumm where NOTHING can escape. The two scientists should have met for lunch to get their stories on the same page.
              Religion worked that way as well where different peoples in different lands tell differing tales about the same or similar entities.
              Interesting how some science folk and religion peeps are similar as they try to explain the universe to us. And they both use computer generated images (or actors) and MUSIC as they attempt to tell us how things came to be and how things currently are…

            • Sam LeFevre

              This is correct. I am aware of at least two other very plausible theories.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!
          • Just call me Joe

            I don’t think you know what “applied physics” means, since you are misusing the term.

            The closest known black hole is at the center of the Milky Way, aside from that one, they are in every direction. If you are asking the question, then you are not comprehending the universe.

            Let me try to explain something, in a simplified way. The ‘hole” of a black hole is the event horizon. That is the distance from the center of the mass where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. That is not the ‘surface’ of the object inside. The size and shape of the event horizon ellipsoid is only dependent upon the gravity and spin rate.

            The mathematical and physics challenge is that both gravity and quantum effects are significant for black holes, and therefore, there is much to be learned.

            You know that when the sun sets, it is still there by theory, yet you cannot see it. We know there are black holes. Same thing.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              “You know that when the sun sets, it is still there by theory, yet you cannot see it. We know there are black holes. Same thing.”

              Can you give me a link to the theory of when the Sun sets it is still there?

            • KevinJM1280

              [Can you give me a link to the theory of when the Sun sets it is still there?]

              Wait, wait…are you seriously saying that you believe the Sun stops existing after it sets? Do you actually need a theory of “when the Sun sets it is still there”?

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              That came from “Just call me Joe” …he was trying to help you.
              I guess that didn’t work out as planned.

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              It was a way to show mainstream scientists (and guys like yourself or Joe) come up with ridiculous ideas and arguments… and you confirmed that one.
              Do you understand? Most of mainstream science is ridiculous.

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

              How about giving an answer for this…

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • KevinJM1280

              Nice try, but you know as well as I do that Joe was simply pointing out that the existence of a thing can be proven without being able to directly observe that thing. YOU are the one who twisted it into some nonsense about a theory of the sun still existing after it sets and then demanding that he source the theory YOU just made up. That is called a strawman argument.

              [It was a way to show how mainstream scientists]

              Uh-oh, looks like it might be time to bust out the tin-foil hat.

              [come up with ridiculous ideas and arguments]

              Just because you cannot understand an idea does not mean it is ridiculous. By all means though, let’s hear your takedown of General Relativity.

              [Do you understand? Most of mainstream science is ridiculous.]

              Yeah, those crazy mainstream scientists with their crazy ideas. Next thing you know they’ll be telling us that you can create a gigantic explosion by converting a bit of mass into energy, or that you can use electricity to process and store information, or that you can connect a bunch of these electrical information processing machines together into a worldwide network to share information with other people. How absurd. Obviously, anything that you can’t understand simply isn’t real.

              [How about giving an answer for this…

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.]

              The first thing I would do is avoid employing false dichotomies.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              No! He really wrote this…
              “You know that when the sun sets, it is still there by theory”

              Go back and read his comment then get your guts up and answer this…

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • KevinJM1280

              [No! He really wrote this…
              “You know that when the sun sets, it is still there by theory”]

              His use of “theory” there was quite clear to me. He was referring to abstract knowledge rather than observational knowledge. Yes, it’s unfortunate that the word “theory” comes with so many different meanings but if you try applying context the author’s intended use crystalizes.

              [get your guts up and answer this…]

              I already have answered it. You’ve presented a false dichotomy.

              [Sorry Kev – You cannot convert a bit of mass into energy…]

              Are you going to give the good news to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or shall I?

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Sorry Kev – Energy is just a word for vibrating mass.
              Idiots think mass can convert into pure energy… that is just ridiculous.

              Energy already has a mass involved…

              Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like…
              [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2]

              Here is a very simple analogy that even you should be able to understand…

              You could say that a ball is red.
              But you cannot convert the ball into red.
              And you cannot convert red into a ball.

            • KevinJM1280

              [Sorry Kev – Energy is just a word for vibrating mass (particles).
              Idiots think mass can convert into pure energy… that is just ridiculous.]

              Right, that’s why adding 25 kilowatt-hours of energy (of any kind) to a system totally doesn’t increase that system’s mass by 1 microgram. (Oh wait, yes it does.)

              That’s why a spent nuclear fuel rod has identical mass to a new rod. (Oh wait, that’s not true either.)

              That’s why nuclear bombs totally don’t explode. (Oh wait, they DO explode.)

              Seriously, it was bad enough when you were insisting that black holes don’t exist – they’re at least really far away and hard to observe – but now you’re arguing against one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in history. A theory which has a multitude of practical applications to boot. You’re just making yourself look stupid.

              [Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like…
              [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2]]

              No. “Einstein’s famous equation” has taken numerous forms since he first wrote: “if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V^2″ but none of them look even remotely similar to the absurd truism you’ve written here.

              [if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V2]

              Actually, your analogy did teach me one thing: you have no understanding whatsoever of the topic you’re attempting to speak so authoritatively on.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Wow… that is correct…
              “if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V^2″
              The reason is what I already schooled you on.
              Energy is a vibrating mass.
              So if something loses energy it is actually losing some mass.

              Kev – you do not read things correctly and you don’t think things out. Then you just write stuff that is wrong.
              The funny thing is most of the stuff you wrote in that last comment confirmed what I schooled you on.
              Here… I will write it again…

              Energy is a vibrating mass.

              Sorry Kev – I’m going to have to give up on you

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Last thing… I’ll put it into the simpleton analogy for you.

              Can a ball give-off red?
              No, the ball would have to give-off pieces of itself that are red.

            • KevinJM1280

              You’re so close. So VERY close. You’ve actually got the answer in your hand! But you’re still blind to it.

              Oh well. Have fun trying to dredge up a long and rightfully discredited theory. Bye.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • KevinJM1280

              Oh! I get it now! You’re not actually a person, you’re an algorithm. Why else would you keep asking the same old, already answered question?

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!
            • oliver james

              Hey Kevin – quit while you’re way behind

            • oliver james

              Kevin is missing a lot of things

            • Just call me Joe

              Is your great grandfather Michelson or Morley or something? I don’t get your fetish.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              You and Kev are a lot alike… you don’t read things correctly, you make incorrect assumptions and you write stuff that is completely wrong.

              QUESTION: If I were related to MM why would I point out that their experiment is ridiculous?

              (just think about it… I DO NOT want an answer ok?)

              Go here for MM info…

              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/08/the-shadow-of-a-black-hole/#comment-2211319674

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Do you pick a or b?

              If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

              a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
              b) Test if there is a medium.

            • oliver james

              Hey joe – that was brutally bad – you simplified squat, just additional rambling about equations and blah blah blah – SIMPLY show me a picture – we can see the milky way – show me the freakin black hole – or cease and desist with such bunkery.

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

          Do you pick a or b?

          If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you…

          a) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
          b) Test if there is a medium…

      • Sam LeFevre

        KevinJM1280 did a good job in response. I would just add that in fact some features of blacks are quite visible – specifically the extreme energy jets that are emitted perpendicular to the accretion field.
        I have to admit I am not a physicist. I used to be a microbiologist with enough training in physics to keep equipment running properly. In the field of microbiology (which is in the opposite size scales as cosmic things) there were many things that were strictly invisible (without the right equipment), but easily detected and very dangerously real. Not being able to physically see something with a very limited (both in magnification and spectrum) human eye, does not negate their existence. Care should be made with these analogies.

        • oliver james

          Hey sam – another thing science got wrong was thinking (assuming) we need essential amino acids because we can’t make them.

          • Sam LeFevre

            I am no longer a practicing microbiologist – instead I’ve moved to environmental epidemiology (more toxicology less germs). I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any evidence that debunks essential amino acids. In PubMed there are current year (2015) papers that report on research around essential amino acids (i.e., diseases caused by the lack of acquisition, food sources, etc.). Not sure where you got that from idea from. But again, I am not current in this field.
            To support your overall premise that science does get things wrong: A few years ago I taught a basic biology class for the local community college where I live. One of the focuses of this class was evolutionary biology (about 1/3 of the course). I am personally very religious (defined as I go to church weekly and attend to other religious activities several times a week)s, and had on my hand a ring indicative of my religious belief. One of my students recognized the ring, and challenged me about how I could teach evolutionary biology. I reminded the class that much of science is hypothetical, and we are very regularly gaining new knowledge that challenges old theories. I told that class that I’d give them an extra point for each article they could find in the media that reported a discovery – had to be derived from a legitimate journal report – that challenged a theory specific to evolutionary biology. The class earned (collectively) over 30 extra points.
            Finally (because I know there will be those that challenge me), my particular religious beliefs are NOT threatened by science. I have no conflict being both religious and a scientist.

            • oliver james

              I too have zero problems with peoples beliefs – although pictures would go along way to convincing someone as skeptic as myself.

              Anyhoo, you mentioned that you were not aware of any evidence that debunks essential amino acids – well, in turn, there is no real hard evidence that supports why amino acids are essential. Health issues from food and diet are all over the place and can never be really traced to lack of any amino acids. Yes, if one is sick or stricken with disease, and part of the diagnosis shows low levels of this or that amino acid or protein, we should not assume it was because we didn’t eat enuf steak that day or week.
              There are thousands of criteria that affect our natural biology – everything from toxins in deodorants and car fumes etc. Our understanding of Protein deficiency and amino acid deficiencies is backwards – it works the other way around. We do things to our body that cause depletions – it is not the case of not eating eggs etc. that cause a low level of protein.
              But again, Dr Rose’s original study on AA’s bore nothing to the real effect that they were essential – other than we can’t synthesize them on our own. We can’t synthesize a lot of elements – but we don’t deem them essential. There is zero health related data that links bad health with not consuming these so called essential amino acids.
              The point being, for me (and black holes etc.), science, grabs onto something, and whether or not it is fully examined or proven to be true or false, many times they just run with it anyway – or, like the game of telephone, through time and many translations we derive at conclusions that have no base in any facts.
              String theory could sound cool and impress the dumb ones but it is just a theory – one that, along with black holes and the cool idea and name that is event horizons, should be sent to the dumpster like so many prom night babies – gigidy!

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              I actually think everything is made from the finest filament strings. NOT the string theory type. The basic particle construct cannot be tiny spheres or anything other strings (not the string theory type)

              Basic explanation here…
              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/08/the-shadow-of-a-black-hole/#comment-2211424393

      • partyboss

        The existence of blacks holes can be seen by the effects of their gravity on stars around them and from their bending of light from sources behind them. If multiple massive stars are quickly orbiting “nothing” visible…..

        • oliver james

          Party boss – u said we can SEE the effects of gravity on the SURROUNDING STARS. Well if we can see the surrounding stars, which would imply, those stars in front of, in back of and to the sides of this black holes – then we should be able to see the black hole and can no longer use the “distance” excuse.

          • partyboss

            Light cannot escape black holes. However, as matter is being drawn in, it condences, heats up and gives off light. But the excited matter is not in the BH. So the light from the excited matter around the BH escapes and can be seen. REPEAT: Light cannot be radiated from a BH, therefore the BH cannot be seen. You can see the effects of the BH, but not the BH. There’s a reason they’re called BHs.

            • oliver james

              Hey party boss – where is the video to this effect? No not the computer generated one based on assumptions and math equations… although if the CG vid has good music I might watch…

            • partyboss

              Listen, if you don’t want to believe the BH theory, then don’t. I’ll be honest with you, I’ve never seen an atom. Sure I’ve seen “pictures” but maybe they’re frauds for mass consumption.

            • oliver james

              Wait, I have your permission, your blessings, not to believe in Black holes – or black hole theories (believing in a theory…? Hmmm) – how nice of you. We have worked with atoms for almost a century now if not more, if not millennia – yeah real up close and personal – we have combined them, split them, enclosed them, u name it – we have done zilch with black holes except wax poetic and falsely scientific.

            • partyboss

              You’re losing sleep over these things aren’t you Oliver?

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              That implies that you are NOT losing sleep over this. It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. Don’t lose any sleep over it. Just accept it Mainstream physicist are the same and that is why everything is a mess. They do not really care if they found the truth and have things correct. They will just make up anything (even nonsense), put it out there and hope for the best. It is completely ridiculous

              The one that really gets me is color charge. People actually believe color charge.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Neutron_QCD_Animation.gif/120px-Neutron_QCD_Animation.gif

            • partyboss

              If you want to question mainstream physics, go after the multiverse or string theory, etc. They make that make up like Marvel writes comic books.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

              Multiverse is nonsense but everything actually is made from strings (not the string theory type) . It’s the only shape that can enable everything to work

              Basic explanation here…
              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/08/the-shadow-of-a-black-hole/#comment-2211424393

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              I know it’s a typo but what was this supposed to mean…
              “They make that make up like Marvel writes comic books.”

            • oliver james

              I’m not losing sleep over things that don’t exist. And, I don’t have to prove they don’t exist. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • Jerome Ogden

      The nature of a black hole’s event horizon is far from “settled science.” See the April issue of Scientific American for a fascinating analysis of the “black hole firewall” proposal for solving some the still persistent paradoxes about what happens to information transiting the event horizon. Roughly, the theory postulates that just inside the event horizon is a wall of high-energy quanta that annihilates in-falling matter and prevents further fall toward the conjectured singularity of infinite density at the center.

      It is highly controversial and has triggered heated debate, because like all other theories to resolve the event horizon’s information paradox, the firewall theory apparently also violates one or more bedrock principles of quantum field theory.

    • Billy Horne

      It’s inconceivable that something that big?, NOT the right word, BUT, ALL this would make NO SOUND ! I don’t SEE it, pun…..

    • Edward N Haas

      For thousands of years — and whether among philosophers or scientists or what-have-you — one of the most widely and staunchly defended convictions has been and still is this: Without sense imagery’s GEOMETRICAL model of the Universe — especially of SPACE & locomotion — it is IMPOSSIBLE to think about and describe how objects can be separate from, and move around among, one another. Watch now how that age old, sacrosanct dogma is annihilated by an ALGEBRAIC model of the Universe and of space and locomotion in particular.

      As the logic of the mirror & key to an ALGEBRAIC model of the Universe, Esoptrics (from the Greek for mirror), is the only theory explaining what no GEOMETRTICAL model can, namely: how even space itself as well as its occupants and their every act of locomotion are ultimately (i.e.: at c. 10^-47 cm.) a collection of non-spatial points outside of one another in a septuplex (say “7 fold”, if you prefer,) framework (Say “grid” or “field”, if you prefer.) of REAL RELATIONS instead of space & time. That framework results because each point is a COMPOSITE state of excitation — actual as particles & potential as space’s & locomotion’s ultimate points — logically divisible into 6 COMPONENT states having a unique set of real relations to one another and, thereby, giving to their composite state a unique set of real relations to each and every one of all the other composite states in the Universe. How so?!

      The 6 component states (Their origin is not a topic for here.) are logically divisible into 3 sets each of 2 mirrored images of one another and labeled by Esoptrics as: (A vs. B), (A’ vs. C), and (B’ vs. C’). The Universe’s every ultimate OCCUPANT
      (vs. CONSTITUENT) is called a duo-combo, since each consists of a BALANCED
      composite state of excitation (labeled a piggyback form) forever logically concentric with an UNbalanced composite state (labeled a carrying generator). Every form is a balanced state because, every time it performs a particular composite state, each of its 6 component states has the same one level of intensity out of the currently available 2^256 (1.158×10^77) integral levels of intensity (x, 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. called levels of ontological distance & OD for short).

      For example, a form operating at OD4 may — at a maximum rate of once per 7.2×10^-96 sec. in the terms of sensation dependent minds (This indivisible chunk of time is called an alphakronon & K for short.) — switch back and forth from the 2 phases of a cycle in which: PHASE #1 = for some value of K, its composite state’s 6 component states are: (4A + 4B) + (4A’ + 4C) + (4B’ + 4C’); PHASE #2 = for that same value of K, its component states are: (8A + 8B) + (8A’ + 8C) + (8B’ + 8C’).
      While in Phase #1, it offers 512 (i.e.: the cube of 2×4) potential, unbalanced composite states of excitation (Say “indivisible chunks of space”, if you prefer.) to the carrying generator of any duo-combo whose piggyback form is currently operating at an OD below OD4.

      The way these 512 states are related to one another can, as a teaching aid, be METAPHORICALLY expressed as a large cube composed of 512 smaller cubes equal to one another in size and the 6 sides of the large cube labeled A opposite B, A’ opposite C, and B’ opposite C’. Among those 512, one can select, for example’s sake, 4 logically sequential unbalanced composite states describable so: START: (.25A – 0B) + (.25A’ – 0C) + (.25B’ – 0C’); NEXT: (.5A – .25B) + (.25A’ – 0C) + (.25B’
      – 0C’); NEXT: (.75A – .5B) + (.25A’ – 0C) + (.25B’ – 0C’); NEXT: (A – .75B) +
      (.25A’ – 0C) + (.25B’ – 0C’).

      Locomotion is thus a case of a generator, for some value of K, performing one unbalanced composite state of excitation and then switching instantaneously to performing, for some value of K, a logically sequential unbalanced composite state thereby carrying with its center the center of its own piggyback form and that form’s ultimate “chunks of space”. In other words, by means of its carrying generator, one
      duo-combo’s “space envelope” (i.e.: its piggyback form) is moving around in a
      second duo-combo’s “space envelope”, and a smaller “area of space” is moving
      around within the confines of a larger “area of space”. Were a duo-combo’s form at OD2^55 and its generator using the “chunks of space” provided by a duo-combo’s form at OD2^256, the center of an area of space c. 9 trillion light years in dia. (in the
      language of sensation dependent minds) would be moving away from the center of
      an area c. 18 trillion light years in diameter (i.e.: in dia., 2^257 ultimate points of “space” @ 7.35×10‒47 cm. for Geometry’s addicts).

      Note that, in the above logical sequence, the ontological quantum of change is 1/4. That’s the mirrored image of 4/1 — the current OD of the form providing the 512
      indivisible chunks of so-called “space” but more accurately labeled “unbalanced
      composite states of excitation”. In phase 2 of the cycle, the form offers (2×8)^3 = 42,496 potential composite states of excitation. Here, of course, “potential” does not mean a mere abstraction. For, what underlies the potential unbalanced states is the actuality of the providing form’s balanced composite state of excitation. Each potential state is thus potential only from the standpoint of the 1 or more generators able to transform it.

      Esoptrics, then, is OBSERVABLE, EMPIRICAL, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of the erroneousness of the age old, sacrosanct dogma stated at the start of this. For, Esoptrics, in a set of words and numbers, clearly and unequivocally presents to the world an OBSERVABLE, EMPIRICAL, INCONTROVERTIBLE, MATHEMATICALLY PRECISE & GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION of exactly how an ALGEBRAIC model of the Universe — and particularly an algebraic model of locomotion & so-called “SPACE” — explains the way a SEPtuplex framework of real relations (i.e.: SEXtuplex at 2^256 OD levels) allows both objects, and the
      ultimate parts of their acts of locomotion and the medium thereof, to be separate from, and to move around among, one another. Never was it said that, without a geomet­rical model of space, one cannot think about and describe the Universe IN A WAY MAKING PREDICTIONS POSSIBLE; rather, ever was it said that, without such a model, one cannot think about and describe the Universe TO ANY EXTENT WHATSOEVER. No matter, then, how much Esoptrics fails to predict anything for now, it MOST MANIFESTLY DESTROYS FOREVER the monumentally beloved prejudice dogmatically decreeing ONLY sense imagery’s GEOMETICAL model
      of the cosmos, space, and locomotion can POSSIBLY enables us to think about and describe separation and locomotion.
      EDWARD N. HAAS (79) – HAASWOOD, LA

    • Billy Horne

      By the by, THE most amazing FACT of all this is, when it’s all said and done, it’s going to be so SIMPLE . Even a sixth grader would understand it. IF this sixth grader attended even a half assed school .
      One more thing. IF you’re not, say, 50 years old, you will MORE than likely SEE WHAT IT’s ALL about ! ! ! !

    • Billy Horne

      Huh ?

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Everyone has the wrong idea of what energy, forces and fields are.
      Energy is a particle vibration or movement.
      You cannot have energy without a mass, energy is mass vibrating.
      Energy cannot be out on its own. (a supposed mass-less particle is a particle nonetheless, but there are no mass-less particles, so that’s irrelevant)

      Same thing goes for forces.
      A force is a group of particles arranged in a field pulling each other… and all of the particles absolutely have to be physically connected.

      A force (a group of connected particles) can only push very short distances and in rare circumstances like same pole magnets.

      But the point is… a force has to have particles involved.
      A force cannot be out on its own.

      Most of mainstream physics is a misconception.

      There is no such thing as pure energy.
      Again… Energy is a vibration on a particle (or particle movement).

      Can energy be converted into mass?
      Ummm… no, energy already has mass involved, it is a particle vibration or movement. There is no pure energy and you are not going to convert energy into mass.

      Think of a guitar string. If you pluck it… that is the energy. If you remove the guitar string from the scenario… can you still have the energy? No, of course not.

      Can you convert the guitar string vibration into mass? No… that is ridiculous.

      Look at what everything really is…

      Dimensions and units…
      mass = [M] = kilograms
      length = [L] = meters
      time = [T] = seconds
      frequency = [T^-1] = seconds ^-1
      speed = [L] / [T] …… = m/s
      acceleration = [L] / [T^2] …. = m / s^2
      momentum = [M] [L] / [T] … = kg_m / s
      force = [M] [L] / [T^2] . = kg_m / s^2
      energy = [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = kg_m^2 / s^2
      power = [M] [L^2] / [T^3] = kg_m^2 / s^3

      Notice mass [M] is not equal to energy [M] [L^2] / [T^2] …the vibration is missing

      Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like…

      [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2]

      Energy already is a mass times speed^2.

      If you could just lop-off parts of an equation and claim whatever is left is equal… i.e. “energy equals mass” then you could also say that “power equals mass” and so does momentum and force. It is really stupid to think like that.
      Speed is NOT equal to length. Speed is equal to length divided by time.
      Energy is NOT equal to mass. Energy is equal to mass times speed squared.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      THERE IS NO NEED FOR A BLACK HOLE.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      NOTE: I am not saying there are no Black Holes, this is just an example of how observational evidence is worthless and might be completely wrong.

      This video show stars orbiting around something non visible, what appears to be nothing, so it must be a black hole?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9IZF8Qdno

      You know what else they could be orbiting?

      Nothing!

      Any two objects like planets are connected by a string field with tension.
      (or if you are still living in the past you can say there is a curve or warp)

      There must be some kind of connection from one to the other (warp or space is curved)

      So if you add more objects and they are swirling around a common center. That means there would be a tension stretch coming from every direction concentrated right in the center of the swirl.

      So if there is a star near the common center with the massive concentrated omni-directional tension (call it warp or curve if you like) which way do you think the pull would be? Toward the massive amount of tension or away from it?

      There are supposedly 100 billion stars in the galaxy. So that means there are 100 billion things pulling on a common center.

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1469/146/original.jpg?w=600&h

      There actually doesn’t have to be anything there. Galaxies might have what is referred to as a black hole but they can also hold themselves together.
      The galactic tension pull is actually planar not omni-directional so it is even more concentrated then what you were just thinking.

      And if there were enough tension on the common center to create a tear in the “fabric of space” it would create a void or a null-space-sphere (actually an oblate spheroid ).
      https://graemebird.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/oblate.jpg?w=500

      The edges of the void sphere would have the build-up of the torn / ripped particle field – just like a rip in a fishnet stocking

      https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/762/2760/original.jpg?w=300&h

      – that is now enclosing literally nothing . That instantly disperses the tension from a single point to the surface of a hollow sphere. So if space ever does actually rip… it has a way to seal itself right back off (stop the tear) and eliminate the chance of it happening again in that spot.
      Can light travel through it on the inside? No! Light is only a vibration traveling through the particle field. Inside the void sphere there are no particles.
      Can you travel into the void sphere? Yes, but inside there is no light or heat transmission, no gravity and no particle field — and that is what is transmitting all the vibrations (energies) so, you can’t lose any heat, it has no where to go, it can’t vibrate away anymore.
      Will you collapse because of the loss of field tension? Maybe, maybe not… if you have a highly stretched tennis net and cut a piece out of it… the piece is not going to collapse into nothingness.

      Any light hitting it (from 100 billions stars etc.) would be forced / coerced into traveling around what can be called the event horizon of the sphere — just like an electrons string-mesh-type-cage (that’s the only place it can travel) there of course would be a build up and the only place to release is at the poles as jets (no extreme tension there).
      To sum it up: “Nothing” has all the properties they say a Black Hole does. And sometimes “nothing” can be a real cool hand!

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS “C”
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      There is a high tension string particle field in space (not the string theory type).
      A good 2-D model would be something like a spiders web (individual string lengths are approximately one Ångström).
      Now imagine an infinite 3-D spiders web. If a vibration was set off in it, it would travel forever and the speed the vibrations travel (through the net) is the speed of light (that’s actually what light is, a vibration traveling through a string particle field)
      The speed vibrations travel through the particle field is the speed of light “c”

      The particle field strings have a certain amount of tension, length and mass. That makes ‘c’ the speed it is. If the tension, length or mass changed so would ‘c’

      Here is a regular string tension formula…

      Tension = velocity squared x mass / Length.

      If we plug c in and rearrange we get…
      TL = mc^2

      Both sides of the equation are in joules or energy… equivalent to “E”.
      It means the Tension of the strings in space times their length is equal to their energy.

      This is why the speed of light is involved in Einsteins mass energy equivalence equation…

      E = mc^2

      …and actually why light travels at the speed of light…
      I always wondered why… now I know.
      It had to be something mechanical… tension and string lengths!

      So, you can arrive at Einsteins famous formula from completely different directions.
      You can think energy is contained in mass and released.

      E = mc^2

      Or you can think there is a particle field of strings and mass is inert, the energy is only potential… released (actually pulled) by tension on the strings.

      TL = mc^2

      They are equivalent. Which is correct? You do not know.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BO_hqe_q0 Alone: bad. Friend: good!

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Everyone has the wrong idea of what energy, forces and fields are.
      Energy is a particle vibration or movement.
      You cannot have energy without a mass, energy is mass vibrating.
      Energy cannot be out on its own. (a supposed mass-less particle is a particle nonetheless, but there are no mass-less particles, so that’s irrelevant)

      Same thing goes for forces.
      A force is a group of particles arranged in a field pulling each other… and all of the particles absolutely have to be physically connected.

      A force (a group of connected particles) can only push very short distances and in rare circumstances like same pole magnets.

      But the point is… a force has to have particles involved.
      A force cannot be out on its own.

      Most of mainstream physics is a misconception.

      There is no such thing as pure energy.
      Again… Energy is a vibration on a particle (or particle movement).

      Can energy be converted into mass?
      Ummm… no, energy already has mass involved, it is a particle vibration or movement. There is no pure energy and you are not going to convert energy into mass.

      Think of a guitar string. If you pluck it… that is the energy. If you remove the guitar string from the scenario… can you still have the energy? No, of course not.

      Can you convert the guitar string vibration into mass? No… that is ridiculous.

      Look at what everything really is…

      Dimensions and units…
      mass = [M] = kilograms
      length = [L] = meters
      time = [T] = seconds
      frequency = [T^-1] = seconds ^-1
      speed = [L] / [T] …… = m/s
      acceleration = [L] / [T^2] …. = m / s^2
      momentum = [M] [L] / [T] … = kg_m / s
      force = [M] [L] / [T^2] . = kg_m / s^2
      energy = [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = kg_m^2 / s^2
      power = [M] [L^2] / [T^3] = kg_m^2 / s^3

      Notice mass [M] is not equal to energy [M] [L^2] / [T^2] …the vibration is missing

      Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like…

      [M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2]

      Energy already is a mass times speed^2.

      If you could just lop-off parts of an equation and claim whatever is left is equal… i.e. “energy equals mass” then you could also say that “power equals mass” and so does momentum and force. It is really stupid to think like that.
      Speed is NOT equal to length. Speed is equal to length divided by time.
      Energy is NOT equal to mass. Energy is equal to mass times speed squared.