Escaping a black hole

I still maintain that black holes don't exist. It's merely just mathematical fiction. And every single claim by the academic community can be explained away with other natural phenomena that do exist.
 

Creshna1c said:
They suck in gravity
Click to expand...
Wrong …
Gravity sucks everything in because it can escape outside the event horizon … if it couldn’t, then nothing outside the event horizon would feel any gravitational pull from within it. Gravity can not be sucked in by anything because IT IS GRAVITY that sucks in anything that has a mass … and gravity is also something characteristic to anything that has a mass. Gravitational effect of distant black holes can be detected and measured even from here on earth, which means that it already escaped that black hole, since you can detect it here on earth. A more suitable question would be what does NOT escape a black hole.
 
start at edge said:
Wrong …
Gravity sucks everything in because it can escape outside the event horizon … if it couldn’t, then nothing outside the event horizon would feel any gravitational pull from within it. Gravity can not be sucked in by anything because IT IS GRAVITY that sucks in anything that has a mass … and gravity is also something characteristic to anything that has a mass. Gravitational effect of distant black holes can be detected and measured even from here on earth, which means that it already escaped that black hole, since you can detect it here on earth. A more suitable question would be what does NOT escape a black hole.
Click to expand...
That was my original question. Think of gravity as a never ending strand that spiderwebs out everywhere. The black hole sucks in the strand. If I explained that in a way you can understand. I can't prove it of course, but so far only radiation can escape a black hole. So what's the property differences between radiation and gravity? I think along those lines to figure out things in my head.
 
Gravity in the General Relativity model is nothing but bent spacetime caused by local mass.

Nothing escapes from the event horizon of a black hole.

In spacetime, at the quantum level, virtual particles - one matter, one antimatter - are constantly emerge from nothing by "borrowing" energy then annihilating each other and returning the "borrowed" energy. This phenomenon is what creates what's called the "Quantum Foam."
At the edge of an event horizon, statistically speaking, a certain number of these virtual particles are captured by the black hole while their twin (formed just outside the event horizon) escapes it.
If the twin that escapes is antimatter, it is annihilated by matter it comes into contact with, returning the "borrowed" energy.
But some of the twins that escape are matter, not antimatter.
This creates a net surplus of matter virtual particles that escape the event horizon. This is called the "Hawking Radiation,"

No other radiation is emitted by the event horizon itself, and no radiation from inside the event horizon ever escapes.

Harte
 
Some time ago, in some thread here (I don’t remember which one), someone wondered what the speed of gravity is. That was a challenging thought, as I never asked myself that question and I enjoyed thinking about that … it simply felt like a good exercise for the brain. From my own thoughts, I concluded that gravity propagation speed has to be infinite. To cut the story short – if a distant object disappears (explodes, for example), then the lack (disappearance) of gravitational pull can only be detected instantaneously everywhere, no matter how far from that (former) object. If there would be a speed, one would have to consider that gravitational effect can exist now from an object that existed only in the past, the same way that the light from an already extinguished star still reaches the observer’s eye even years after that star does not emit light anymore – gravity does not work the same way, although in calculations and observations it is often associated and assimilated with a “wave” (it is indeed hard to imagine a wave propagating at an infinite speed).
Another thing that I often heard in all sorts of documentaries, is that many scientists scratch their heads about the “missing” mass in our universe, as the calculations having background radiation as a base suggest that there should be a lot more mass than it actually is. Could it be a better approach to have as a base the sum of all the gravitational pull(s) rather than background radiation ?!?! – one may find out that it all adds up and that there is actually no mass missing. I genuinely believe all the mass that is reported “missing” is in fact swallowed in those numerous black holes that are out there and it still acts with gravitational pull, even from within those black holes … which brings me back on the answer to the initial question – gravity DOES escape a black hole … in fact I think it is ONLY gravity that can escape a black hole -–mass can not, space can not, time can not. Every black hole has its own space-time, completely different from ours.
Those were my modest thoughts on this subject, I hope I did not bother anyone by bringing them out.
 
start at edge said:
Some time ago, in some thread here (I don’t remember which one), someone wondered what the speed of gravity is. That was a challenging thought, as I never asked myself that question and I enjoyed thinking about that … it simply felt like a good exercise for the brain. From my own thoughts, I concluded that gravity propagation speed has to be infinite. To cut the story short – if a distant object disappears (explodes, for example), then the lack (disappearance) of gravitational pull can only be detected instantaneously everywhere, no matter how far from that (former) object. If there would be a speed, one would have to consider that gravitational effect can exist now from an object that existed only in the past, the same way that the light from an already extinguished star still reaches the observer’s eye even years after that star does not emit light anymore – gravity does not work the same way, although in calculations and observations it is often associated and assimilated with a “wave” (it is indeed hard to imagine a wave propagating at an infinite speed).
Another thing that I often heard in all sorts of documentaries, is that many scientists scratch their heads about the “missing” mass in our universe, as the calculations having background radiation as a base suggest that there should be a lot more mass than it actually is. Could it be a better approach to have as a base the sum of all the gravitational pull(s) rather than background radiation ?!?! – one may find out that it all adds up and that there is actually no mass missing. I genuinely believe all the mass that is reported “missing” is in fact swallowed in those numerous black holes that are out there and it still acts with gravitational pull, even from within those black holes … which brings me back on the answer to the initial question – gravity DOES escape a black hole … in fact I think it is ONLY gravity that can escape a black hole -–mass can not, space can not, time can not. Every black hole has its own space-time, completely different from ours.
Those were my modest thoughts on this subject, I hope I did not bother anyone by bringing them out.
Click to expand...

I do recall coming across an argument on the speed that gravity propagates. If one uses math, then it readily becomes apparent that any speed other than infinite or instantaneous would result in all the planets falling into the sun. The fact that the planets haven't fallen into the sun is a strong argument for the instantaneous speed of gravity.

As for the matter of missing mass? Yes mass is missing, but not in the way we are being taught. It doesn't exist. It is merely a convenient way for mathematicians to create an equation. No one has ever experimentally isolated out mass from anything.
 

Top