Never say Never?

Many times in science we hear the phrase..."Never say Never". Generally, this is a retort to someone making a statement about something which will never be accomplished, or never be discovered. Well, there's one 'Never' I can think of which I challenge science to argue...

No man, no instrument made by man, no thing, effect nor field, nor particle will ever factually report back the inner characteristics (no measurement, no direct experiment) of a black hole from below the event horizon. Many might theorize what it's like, many may characterize the properties with approximations, but no one will ever "know" for certain.

So...I'm saying "Never".

Prove me wrong! LOL!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Create a mini black hole and a mini white hole side by side and throw something in the black hole?

I didn’t come up with that in my own.

My guess is that even if something or someone were able to measure exact characteristics of a black hole, it would not matter as I would assume that no black holes are identical.

Just as with tornados or hurricanes, we know how they form but no two are going to act the exact same.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well, true, but I was referring to a much broader fundamental understanding. And that we have for things like tornadoes and hurricanes.

E=mc2

The speed of light . According to Einstein the speed of Light cannot be physically broken . It is the pinnacle of Physical speed.

And yet nothing can escape a Black Hole including Light .

Which in theory means the Black Hole is exceeding the Speed and Power of Light .

E=mc2 is not just the theory of relativity , it is the equation that proves the point between the Physical Dimension and the Non-Physical Dimension . It is the breaking point .

The human mind has to expand literally into the next Dimension before we can truly prove a Black Hole.

a reply to: Myhandle

I don't personally believe white holes exist. They're really more of a mathematical exercise. The Big Bang maybe, but beyond that, doubtful.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Indeed, it has been theorized that even to prove something fundamental like the precise location of the event horizon of a black whole would require a complete understanding of the history of the Universe since its beginnings AND a complete knowledge of the entire future of the Universe...out to its end.

So yeah, I'd say we're gonna' need to do some spring cleaning upstairs in the grey matter department to make enough room to digest all that!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don’t pretend to be smart enough to know, but there’s a game made by people smarter than me where you throw a drone thru a black hole and the same drone comes out the white hole milliseconds before it entered the black hole.
The implications are more profound than my monkey mind can comprehend. I could still be convinced that stars are white holes.

E=mc2

The speed of light . According to Einstein the speed of Light cannot be physically broken . It is the pinnacle of Physical speed.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Eric Weinstein has challenged some of Einstein's theories. Einsteins's theories have been the bedrock for modern day theoretical physicists, imagine if they were to be proven wrong or not exactly acurate? Well, it is possible and Eric Weistein has a lot of work out there to look into. Interesting topic.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Physicists for the past 50 years have been trying to prove Einstein was wrong about a whole variety of things. In fact, countless physicists have defined their entire careers by challenging Einstein...otherwise they would be irrelevant. It's the only thing which puts them on the map. They're mostly wrong. Not all, but most.

Einstein's theories have prevailed far more often than been proven wrong. My money is on Einstein.

(that last part was a joke, BTW)

a reply to: Myhandle

Well, that's a bit dated, but there was a time when a white hole was thought to be the inverse of a black hole, essentially a mirror image in reverse. And, the two were then connected via a 'worm hole'. This theory has been largely discarded today. Modern theory has white holes, in theory, as wholly separate entities...if they even exist at all (which I doubt).

The theoretical problem would be aligning the two, because in essence they are the same singularity. Plus, there would need to be a 1 for 1 relationship between white and black holes, which has not even been close to being observed. Only black holes have been proven.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think you’re saying if a white hole existed in the form proposed it would only be observed in a mirror universe which would need mirror versions of everything and ourselves?

a reply to: Myhandle

No, not really. It's just the mathematical opposite of a black hole. Doesn't really have anything to do with temporal position.

Einstein's theories have prevailed far more often than been proven wrong. My money is on Einstein.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Weinstein goes into the way current funding is predicated on "not rocking the boat" among theoretical physicists. I am just going by what I have read and watched coming from Eric, he seems to be a top player. Also, it is hard to believe that Einstein got it all right decades ago. Einstein no doubt was the leader among theoretical physicists but to think he got it all right is a bit far fetched in my opinion. Eric has said as much-I have been mildly interested in how Eric has challenged the orthodoxy in this field. I find the topic fascinating. Great topic.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

empirical statements. They ALWAYS fail. LOL, I remember telling my now 30 year old son that he needed to get his ass outside and do things with people, because nobody will ever pay you to play video games.

That one aged poorly.

But I have been assured by many experts and physics gurus that Hydrogen as a fuel will never be used. So while those statements often fail, you can take that one to the bank.