[Aman pandey]

Are blackholes really what we have found out from our study? Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?

So I thought to myself that the black Holes may just be an entrance towards diffrent universe

.IMPOSSIBLE NO? But I have my own reasons for this consideration. It is that If we place a yellow ball infront of a yellow ball infront of a same coloured wall, we will find out that we cant notice the ball from some distance but if we look it from binoculars, we could see its shade. But on the same place if you make it see to a innocent child, you would find out that he would say what is it? And here we also visualise the black holes in the same way. It could be a enterance to a diffrent universe that has same colour as our universe's. So we cannot see the back hole. But the restriction that comes before us for preventing us from accepting this thing is that our mind wants reasons for everything. But the thing which we have accepted without a reason is god so why we cannot accept this?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Aman pandey

Are blackholes really what we have found out from our study? Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?
[...] But the restriction that comes before us for preventing us from accepting this thing is that our mind wants reasons for everything. But the thing which we have accepted without a reason is god so why we cannot accept this?

It is not quite clear from your post. Do you wich to discuss this: Wormholes or this: God?



CC

[alexander]

Can't it really be that the black holes are something else?

like that thing around the kick area of this emoticon...

All jokes aside now, as cold says, you most likely mean wormwholes, not black wholes. Black whole is a supermassive, super dense, theoretical object, so massive infact, that light fails to escape it's gravitational field. Since the object theoretically exists, we have no clue as to what their dimensions are, not what their structure is like. Assuming that a black whole collapses to a cingularity point doesn't prove that cingularity leads to other universes, nor that wormwholes exist, nor that the black wholes are the gateways into them.

Theoretically a wormwhole is a geodesic in the curved spacetime, it kind of doesn't connect 2 universes.

oh and that wall/ball experiment, you might see shadow, depending on how the light is set up, you might not however see any shadow at all

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Worm holes are nothing more than the jets ejected from black hole.

In actual fact the black holes that we have been observing are white holes.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Worm holes are nothing more than the jets ejected from black hole.

In actual fact the black holes that we have been observing are white holes.

Wow, can you prove this?
Anyway from my understanding, a black hole sending out jets doesn't make it a white hole. See any text on GR where they talk about the Kruskal continuation for example, there you see that a white hole has a bit another definition.

[modest]

and things wouldn't orbit around a white hole as we've observed things doing.

I think Pluto refers to this:

Quasars and active galactic nuclei are observed to spew out jets of matter. This is now believed to be the result of polar jets formed when matter falls into supermassive black holes at the centers of these objects. Prior to this model, white holes emitting matter were one possible solution.

White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and he extrapolates this old idea to "black holes that we have been observing" which is completely unsupportable.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz


Jets are jets and are quite similar regardless of their origin.

Yes some compact matter nucelons are more active than others.

The similarity are bipolar jets.

The black holes that we see in the movies as a vortex going into a black hole is only theoretical.

Modest which black holes have you been observing?

I'm quite awear of the formation of compact matter and the types of jets formed.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Modest which black holes have you been observing?

There are examples on wikipedia's black hole page. The one in the middle of the Milky Way is a good example.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

# A star called S2 (star) follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest) distance of 17 light hours from the central object.
# The first estimates indicated that the central object contains 2.6M (2.6 million) solar masses and has a radius of less than 17 light hours. Only a black hole can contain such a vast mass in such a small volume.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest


I must be reading you out of contex.

Please explain your point.

I'm awear of the info in

wikipedia's black hole page
Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is very limited in it's information.

============================================

Look at the definition of black holes and white holes.

Than you may even go to the extreme and define the known universe as a result of a white hole if the BBT is correct.

Black holes have an inward vector force.
White holes have an outward vector force,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,similar to a jet stream.

So have we been observing whites? Since we cannot observe black holes.


Either way, I do not think that black holes or white holes exist in their true definition. I'd rather think of the objects as ultra compact matter and the formation of jets.

One sec maybe I'm wrong, maybe what I know is limited and so I will read more.

Just incase I'm going to read some more papers:

[0803.2671] Non-isolated dynamic black holes and white holes
Non-isolated dynamic black holes and white holes


[0705.2223] The bang of a white hole in the early universe from a 6D vacuum state: Origin of astrophysical spectrum
The bang of a white hole in the early universe from a 6D vacuum state: Origin of astrophysical spectrum


[physics/0612007] Is the Universe a White-Hole?
Is the Universe a White-Hole?

[gr-qc/9803014] A White Hole Model of the Big Bang
A White Hole Model of the Big Bang

[math/0108201] White Hole, Black Whole, and The Book
White Hole, Black Whole, and The Book

[gr-qc/0405087] The quantum gravitational black hole is neither black nor white

The quantum gravitational black hole is neither black nor white

Authors: T. P. Singh, Cenalo Vaz
(Submitted on 17 May 2004)

Abstract: Understanding the end state of black hole evaporation, the microscopic origin of black hole entropy, the information loss paradox, and the nature of the singularity arising in gravitational collapse - these are outstanding challenges for any candidate quantum theory of gravity. Recently, a midisuperspace model of quantum gravitational collapse has been solved using a lattice regularization scheme. It is shown that the mass of an eternal black hole follows the Bekenstein spectrum, and a related argument provides a fairly accurate estimate of the entropy. The solution also describes a quantized mass-energy distribution around a central black hole, which in the WKB approximation, is precisely Hawking radiation. The leading quantum gravitational correction makes the spectrum non-thermal, thus providing a plausible resolution of the information loss problem.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I must be reading you out of contex.

Please explain your point.

Things can't orbit a white hole. Astronomers observe things orbiting black holes... ergo, observed black holes are not white holes... so my point is that you're wrong about black holes being white holes.

I make 2 assertions and draw one conclusion. Which part don't you get?

~modest