> In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity,

>>8241156
>implying anyone, let alone /sci/, knows what happens at the point of singularity

>>8241156
It means it's a singularity, and there's nothing you can say, mathematically, about a singularity, save, "Yup, that's a singularity."

There's limits to verbal and mathematical descriptions.

Though you can still say all sorts of things about the consequences of its existence to things around the singularity - including predicting its eventual evaporation.

>>8241156
>one-dimensional point
zero-dimensional point*

Get your facts right, breh

>>8241163
I can explain it, but 4chin says the comment is too long.

>>8241168
there are no limits
you just have to invent new words for it

>>8241156
Did you really think physics was supposed to explain things in a reasonable manner? It's just a hobby for stoners

File: poetry.png (34KB, 482x317px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 482x317px

>The laws of physics apply no longer.

Once upon a time .. before physics became a closed system

>>8241209
>It's just a hobby for stoners
You say that as though it's a bad thing.

>>8241168
But math is just a model for reality, it doesn't abide by any perfectly identified rules.

>>8241156
The physics dont really break, nor is it a glitch. It is just intrinsically unknowable and barely even a part of our universe

A 'singularity' is a portal, a dimensional window connecting to the environment that contains the 3D universe. 4D game change. All stars and planets have this connection. Infinities are absurdities, nothing is infinite, how could it.

>>8241185
>he typed it out

>>8241213
this, everyone thinks that the laws of physics are some powerfuls rules that the universe is running on, they're not, they are models which describe reality.

No one can give you an explanation of what going on inside a black hole. There only guesses so no one on /sci/ will tell you because they don't know. But you'll get some asshole who think he knows.

>>8242538
I'm pretty sure we have a solid idea on whats going on in there

>>8241156
This is speculative bullcrap the fact black holes can evaporate means this is pure nonsense, sure they create high time dilation but breaking down spacetime is absurd.

>>8241156
I think the reason why that assumption even exists is that if you put infinite mass into any of the calculations you just start getting weird results where stuff start to approach infinity or 0 or 1 or any of the classical limits. It's not really that space time breaks, it's more that our models of space can't take that input and they output nonsense at that point. It's our human physics that breaks, not the universe

>>8241181
>zero-dimensional point*
>2 dimensional point projected as a 3d hologram
fix'd

It's even possible the surface is an entire 2d universe. (flatland style) If it's this proves true then our universe 3d universe likely exists on the surface of a 4th dimensional black hole.

>>8241156
It's behind an event horizon. Doesn't bother me.

Any mass with a volume of 0 will have an infinite density and infinitely large gravitational pull. The fact that everything didnt get sucked into the first black hole to appear disproves ops claims.

File: 1451683234022.jpg (43KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x332px

Just a thought from someone with almost no knowledge about this stuff but

The universe keeps expanding, and creating more mass and space at the edges of the universe right? Don't black holes do the opposite? They suck in everything. What if black holes are tubes to the outermost parts of the universe where there is a lack of time and matter and all that stuff, creating a sort of vacuum that sucks matter from other parts of the universe using these black holes?

Just a thought, you can hate idgaf, just thowing it out there

>>8243913
>talking on /sci/ about black holes
>not understanding what an event horizon is
Thank god we're all basement dwelling neckbeards

File: image.jpg (320KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 960x1440px

>>8243930
Fucking millennials amirite?

>>8243928
When the universe expands it doesn't create more mass and black holes don't destroy mass.

Try reading about this stuff, like a pop sci book or something.

>>8241156
>How is this even possible?

I'm gonna get this tattooed. The greatest thing anyone can do is ask how something works imo.

File: 20160803_103925.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px)

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>8243930
Ive read this whole book. We describe it as having 0 volume, but it does not behave like it has 0 volume, it behaves as if it does have a tiny volume. Thats why we cant say we even know whats beyond an event horizon.

Because the universe contains itself. Like a crystal ball

>>8241168
>there's nothing you can say, mathematically, about a singularity
sure there is
the fact that it isn't a regular point with a general, easy description doesn't mean you can't say things about it

>>8243023
>He thinks that there is difference between model and reality

And what if math IS reality and it actually breaks?

>>8241185
Then make it into two or more parts dumbass.

>>8241185
>t. Fermat

File: image.jpg (22KB, 236x324px)

22KB, 236x324px

>>8241156
>> In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space,
[citation needed]
The next time, before you "quote" that website (physicsoftheuniverse.com) without citation, send them feedback and explain to them that they are wrong.
A point has zero dimensions.

One more case of unreliable sources.
Wiki would have been better.

>>8245621
Math tends to throw out variables and consider situations "ideal." Op is poorly describing an "ideal" blackhole. We cant say for sure because we can not observe a real black hole beyond the event horizon.