I have to admit I agree with the fellow. The commonly accepted idea of a black hole with a singularity at its center just doesn't make sense. A singularity is supposed to be a highly compressed mass measuring 0 in every dimension, so as to be infinitely dense. How can this notion make any sense? If 0 windows boxes exist in the universe, then there are no windows boxes. Likewise, if there is an object which has 0 length, width and height, then it is an object which doesn't exist. That means singularities are massless and black holes, under that idea, do not exist.
Several years back, I read an idea which was far more to my liking. It was based on a theory by Roger Penrose(1), which states that the fabric space-time, as we know it, is comprised of much smaller, multi-dimensional space-times. These building block space-times are incredibly small; in fact, they exist on the order of the planck length(1.6161x10^-35 m). The idea proposed was that collapsing stars would get "stuck" in this fabric and would never possess any measurement smaller than that of the planck length. In essence, they become *really* tiny ECOs.
(1)This is a bit ironic, given that Penrose gave the first "proof" that singularities *must* exist.
If I understood his question correctly, RedLaggedTeut asked if the space-time curvature around a black hole would make it impossible to view.
The nature of a black hole is such that it cannot be viewed. It is an absence, not a presence, so there is nothing to view, hence it is black. I cannot provide any information regarding curvature rate, but if I had to conjecture, I would say that space-time does not bend more quickly in the presence of increased gravity. If I remember correctly, two supermassive stars, but of different masses, will collapse at the same rate. This would indicate to me that collapse is regulated by the structure of space-time. However, someone from http://www.physlink.com may be able to provide a more accurate and far more knowledgable answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Several years back, I read an idea which was far more to my liking. It was based on a theory by Roger Penrose(1), which states that the fabric space-time, as we know it, is comprised of much smaller, multi-dimensional space-times. These building block space-times are incredibly small; in fact, they exist on the order of the planck length(1.6161x10^-35 m). The idea proposed was that collapsing stars would get "stuck" in this fabric and would never possess any measurement smaller than that of the planck length. In essence, they become *really* tiny ECOs.
(1)This is a bit ironic, given that Penrose gave the first "proof" that singularities *must* exist.
If I understood his question correctly, RedLaggedTeut asked if the space-time curvature around a black hole would make it impossible to view.
The nature of a black hole is such that it cannot be viewed. It is an absence, not a presence, so there is nothing to view, hence it is black. I cannot provide any information regarding curvature rate, but if I had to conjecture, I would say that space-time does not bend more quickly in the presence of increased gravity. If I remember correctly, two supermassive stars, but of different masses, will collapse at the same rate. This would indicate to me that collapse is regulated by the structure of space-time. However, someone from
http://www.physlink.com may be able to provide a more accurate and far more knowledgable answer.