Re: How can gravity itself escape a black hole?

On 11/01/2024 06:23 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:41:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 10/31/2024 06:58 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:35:07 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
Perhaps there are other reasons than that.  There is some
dithering about WHERE all the matter is.  As matter approaches
a BH, we, far away, see time slowing down for it and time stops
at the event horizon ... so it never makes it inside the BH:
it all piles up there just outside the surface.
>
The surface isn't stable due to quantum mechanics, it's
changing, moving back and forth, so some of the matter inside
that formed the BH in the first place is sometimes outside
the surface.
>
Of course, the physicists wave their arms and say spacetime is
curved, as if that explains everything.
>
Actually, this is an interesting question because just think
about matter falling into, say, the core of a neutron star.
It gets compressed more and more, quantum pressure fighting
against compression until, finally, the event horizon is
outside a sufficiently-compressed core radius.  After that,
no more can get in and it piles up in an accretion disk.
>
Another thought: the ekpyrotic theory says that the Big Bank
was initiated by a quantum interaction with an adjacent
brane, and such interactions would have a gaussian distribution.
Perhaps the peak of the distribution was able to form a BH
instantaneously.  How big would that be?  And would only ONE
peak be formed?  I think not.  Maybe most of the galaxies
were formed by multitudes of gaussian distributions and that's
why most galaxies have a supermassive BH at their centers.

>
Galaxies don't need super-massive black-holes at their
center, though it makes sense if they do, as with regards
to that a galaxy is basically a free-rotating frame and
doesn't have the centrifugal/centripetal as with regards
to why it holds itself together by not falling apart.

>
I'd have to consider your answer not relevant since BHs with
billions times the solar mass are insufficient to hold together
the galaxy they're in.
>

It's not much accelerating/decelerating any more, ....
>
>
Eka-mercury, eka-lead, ....

>
Off topic, I would say, since the lifetimes of the longest-lived
isotopes are only a few seconds.  Possibly, they would be more
stable with higher neutron count, or maybe not.

You mentioned the normal or bell or gaussian distribution,
and one thing about probability theory and statistics is
that people only know Central Limit Theorem with regards
to the asymptotics and infinite limits and continuum limits
of the theory, yet, there may as well be other law(s) of
large numbers and variously Uniform and Polar Limit Theorems,
as with regards to that it's not necessarily so at all that
statistics the theory is correct enough when in the asymptotics,
or the infinite limit or continuum limit, that it's not a thing.
Galaxies as independent rotating frames, basically has
the universe wheels about them not them about their center,
thusly, the otherwise spiral-looking distribution usually,
is from initial conditions, not so much evolution. That
is to say, equipping the theory with that naturally enough
at galaxy scales, that once distant others, it's as of
a sort of Steady-State, not so much expanding.
Of course James Webb Space Telescope has roundly paint-canned
inflationary cosmology, and since 2MASS found about 51/49 red-shift,
not 99/1.
Lots of analysts only know Central Limit Theorem, which is great,
yet it simply doesn't always apply, and the mathematics with
more than one law of large numbers, law(s) of large numbers,
is often enough these days yet called "non-standard analysis",
though you can ignore "hyper-reals" as useless, yet there
really is "non-standard probability theory" where these kinds
of things are more present in the academic literature.
It's all subject the completeness of mathematics, of course.
"Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity."