Sitav, Be impatient!
I asked the same questions 2/3 of a century ago, of my father, a librarian with an inquiring mind.
Never the less, it has taken almost that long for me to approach a moderately satisfying understanding of my own, and a probable solution to the "apparent singularity problem".

Much of the conflict/confusion is based on most discussions (as helpful as they might be) trying to simplify things by ignoring, or failing to include, the effects of mass on the rate of time (which causes gravity), and which varies at every point in the universe, mostly dependent on time slowing (sometimes to a stop!) because of proximity to enough matter.
Later you should also consider the effects of speed, the other important influence on the rate of time, and why photons don't age.
I hope you enjoy your journey as much as I have.
JB

On Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 4:07:34 PM UTC-5, Sitav wrote:
> OK. AGNs are hard enough to understand but just the basic idea of a
> black hole is so confusing. A black hole is formed when a star falls in
> on itself. What does that mean?And even on my previous article about
> AGN the answers i got were completely incomprehensible for me (i am
> only 12! give me a break!). As that star "falls" does it rip a hole in
> space and time forming the "hole"? And after all that what is a white
> hole?

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:44 AM UTC+1, J Birch wrote:
> Sitav, Be impatient!
> I asked the same questions 2/3 of a century ago, of my father, a librarian with an inquiring mind.
> Never the less, it has taken almost that long for me to approach a moderately satisfying understanding of my own, and a probable solution to the "apparent singularity problem".
>

There is no apparent singularity problem other than this is what happens when theorists attempt to deal with infinities so that a singularity is a non-starter. Infinite Density/ Zero Volume has the same meaning as Infinite Volume/Zero Density as an elaborate way to describe nothing and a complete distraction from the genuine consideration of stellar, galactic evolution, and whatever comes after that.

This is not an exercise in throwing good information after bad. Four years before the hourglass structure of SN197a was imaged by Hubble, I reproduced that geometry as a means to represent the struggle between volume and density in a pre-supernova star, not just because it was useful but because the pattern of this structure exists in those stars like Eta Carinae

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Eta_Carinae.jpg

( I genuinely marvel that I can now reproduce imaging with a few clicks when that was not possible back in 1990.)

Theorists are occupied with trying to combine the very large and very small in their own way, however, I do the same with visible geometry at large and small scales particularly the tendency of non-periodic tiling to seek an optimal condition that it can never reach, in this case the thread on non-periodic tiling contains the details.

Contributors can call me whatever they want and although unpleasant and always was, the only insult is slow research and silence.

On 16/09/2023 00:11, J Birch wrote:
> Sitav, Be impatient!
> I asked the same questions 2/3 of a century ago, of my father, a librarian with an inquiring mind.
> Never the less, it has taken almost that long for me to approach a moderately satisfying understanding of my own, and a probable solution to the "apparent singularity problem".

Have you seen the date on the post that Sitav made? He was 12 back in
2007 so by now he is about 28 which means if his interest lasted and he
was any good at mathematics he will be a tenure track professor by now!

> Much of the conflict/confusion is based on most discussions (as helpful as they might be) trying to simplify things by ignoring, or failing to include, the effects of mass on the rate of time (which causes gravity), and which varies at every point in the universe, mostly dependent on time slowing (sometimes to a stop!) because of proximity to enough matter.
> Later you should also consider the effects of speed, the other important influence on the rate of time, and why photons don't age.
> I hope you enjoy your journey as much as I have.
> JB
>
> On Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 4:07:34 PM UTC-5, Sitav wrote:
>> OK. AGNs are hard enough to understand but just the basic idea of a
>> black hole is so confusing. A black hole is formed when a star falls in
>> on itself. What does that mean?And even on my previous article about
>> AGN the answers i got were completely incomprehensible for me (i am
>> only 12! give me a break!). As that star "falls" does it rip a hole in
>> space and time forming the "hole"? And after all that what is a white
>> hole?

The only vaguely interesting question here is whether or not Orifice36
was a previous sock puppet of Gerald Kelleher or just another Usenet
nutter with similar delusions.

--
Martin Brown

On 16/09/2023 16:41, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:18:26 PM UTC+1, Martin Brown
> wrote:
>> On 16/09/2023 00:11, J Birch wrote:
>>> Sitav, Be impatient! I asked the same questions 2/3 of a century
>>> ago, of my father, a librarian with an inquiring mind. Never the
>>> less, it has taken almost that long for me to approach a
>>> moderately satisfying understanding of my own, and a probable
>>> solution to the "apparent singularity problem".

>> Have you seen the date on the post that Sitav made? He was 12 back
>> in 2007 so by now he is about 28 which means if his interest lasted
>> and he was any good at mathematics he will be a tenure track
>> professor by now!
>
>
> Mathematicians, as the mathematician Pascal once noted, are hopeless
> in perceptive matters and that forms a large part of astronomical
> observations, interpretations and conclusions-
>
> " These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate
> and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly
> and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being
> able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the
> principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would
> be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once,
> at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a
> certain degree. Thus it is rare that mathematicians are perceptive
> and that men of perception are mathematicians, because mathematicians
> wish to treat matters of perception mathematically and make
> themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then
> with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of
> reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly,
> naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is
> beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal, Pensees
>
> When Pascal uses the term " only a few can feel it", he means it as
> the balance between geometry and perception of motions is central to
> conclusions of any structure or series of events.
>
> With 21st-century imaging, genuine observers would begin to find the
> wordplay and voodoo to be uninteresting and those who practice the
> bluffing are best left to themselves and those who know no better.

So you have been looking into a mirror recently then...

Random word salad simply doesn't cut it in science.

--
Martin Brown