Sorry but there are some things that can only be the subject of speculation and conjecture. They can never be visited or directly oberved or definitively analyzed to determine their true nature. Black holes are of that type.
It’s just a really dense object. It’s not magic. Scientists should have named it RDO (really dense object) instead of black hole. Then, perhaps, people wouldn’t imagine it’s a magic place.
I wonder if scientist will ever admit that ‘Global Warming’ isn’t what they ‘thought it was’???
Except most of those harping about Global Warming aren’t actually ‘scientist’, and the only actual science involved is the mathematics needed to calculate how much tax revenue they can raise in ‘carbon credits’, and how much of it they can steal before everybody figures out that Global Warming is nothing more than pseudoscience bunk.
Ya know what? That’s exactly what I’ve been preaching for years!
Thanks for posting these. It is a good break from politics
True of pretty much anything.
On the other hand, recent approaches, both classical and quantum, have shown that what we call BH could be an object without both horizons and singularities. Objects of this type are also called Extremely Compact Object (ECO), to distinguish them from the “traditional” concept of BH.
—
also sometimes refered to as naked Black Holes.
So does that mean Einstein was mistooken when he predicted black holes, or that the structures astrophysicists now are labeling (and studying) as black holes are not the same structures as “Big E” predicted?
I wonder if Neutrinos interact with extremely dense objects.
Is there any “space” left in a Black Hole? As in, are all atomic and sub-atomic matter "Particles" squished together, neutrons, protons, electrons and anything else, with no distance at all between any “Particles”? Would that be a solid or liquid if true? Perhaps Energy?