Black Hole Spins At Almost The Speed Of Light

[tashja]

Lookie here, KJ. Someone asked the same question:

Question:
Can a black hole rotate faster than light?


If angular momentum is conserved and a large (10+solar mass)collapses into a black hole will it's spin exceed the speed of light if its rotation is equal or greater than our suns?
Answer:

Strictly speaking, it does not quite make sense to compare the "speed of rotation" of a black hole (BH) with c, the speed of light, because a BH, unlike a planet or a star, has no physical surface that can have a velocity. Even at the event horizon (the one-way surface, from which neither light nor matter can escape, and which shrouds the central singularity), an observer -- if one could somehow manage to survive the tidal stresses there -- would find nothing but empty space. Of course, almost the most basic principle of Special Relativity is that no velocity can be attached to space itself.

Yet a BH may have angular momentum, and thus may be considered to rotate in somewhat the same sense that an elementary particle's spin is an intrinsic rotation. A rotating (uncharged) BH is described by the Kerr (1963) solution to Einstein's equations for the gravitational field. (Einstein's equations are a set of partial differential equations defining the curvature of spacetime in terms of the distribution of mass and energy; they play much the same role in the theory of gravitation as Maxwell's equations play in electromagnetic theory.) Such Kerr BHs are characterized by mass M and angular momentum J. It turns out that, for a given M, there is a maximum allowed J:

Jmax < M2G/c.

So in this somewhat loose sense, there actually is a maximum "rotation speed" for a BH.

Whether a particular star has J over or under the limit depends on its mass, rotation speed, and spatial extent. Since real stars tend to have most of their mass concentrated near their centers, the internal distribution of mass, rather than just the optical diameter, is important. The Sun, due to its rather slow (25-day) rotation, has an angular momentum of about 1.63x1048 gm-cm-2-s-1 (assuming uniform rotation throughout, and standard models for the interior mass distribution; Allen 1970), which is only 0.185 of the maximum value allowed were it to somehow collapse to become a BH. But a rapidly rotating massive star will typically have an angular momentum exceeding its Jmax, and such stars must shed angular momentum and some mass before they could form BHs.

Exactly how this might be accomplished remains incompletely understood in detail, despite substantial theoretical interest and investigation in recent years. Observationally, as techniques have improved, more and more candidate BHs have been seen to be associated with narrow jets or beams, in which matter is ejected at relativistic speeds. Such jets may well be related to the need for compact systems to shed angular momentum as matter is accreted by the central object.

Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973) exhaustively discuss the General Relativity background needed to fill in all the details of this rather sketchy discussion, and also treat black holes particularly thoroughly.

REFERENCES:

Allen, C. W. 1970 "Astrophysical Quantities", Althione Press.

Kerr, R. P. 1963 Phys Rev Lett 11, 237.

Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, "Gravitation", Freeman.

Shapiro and Teukolsky 1983, "Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars" (New York: Wiley).

 

[KilljoyKlown]

tashja

Good find, however the example the author was working with was a small solar sized BH. I can believe the polar jets might shed angular momentum as matter is accreted by the central object, and that might work to prevent a rotational speed greater than the speed of light.

But I still have a problem with a supermassive BH of about 2 million solar masses with a rated spin very close to the speed of light being slowed down enough to be noticed, because of the polar jets. There is just to much mass and not enough energy being shed. But I do agree there must be something that causes the angular momentum to be conserved without the spin exceeding the speed of light.

I do remember something about mass increasing as it approaches the speed of light, and that it would become infinite at the speed of light. Not enough energy in the universe to make that happen. Just can't see how that might apply to this problem.

 

[tashja]

Freakin' good questions, KJ!

I wish I knew the answers... darn this ignorance!

I bet AlphaN knows lol.

 

[pywakit]

Lookie here, KJ. Someone asked the same question:

Question:
Can a black hole rotate faster than light?


If angular momentum is conserved and a large (10+solar mass)collapses into a black hole will it's spin exceed the speed of light if its rotation is equal or greater than our suns?
Answer:

Strictly speaking, it does not quite make sense to compare the "speed of rotation" of a black hole (BH) with c, the speed of light, because a BH, unlike a planet or a star, has no physical surface that can have a velocity. Even at the event horizon (the one-way surface, from which neither light nor matter can escape, and which shrouds the central singularity), an observer -- if one could somehow manage to survive the tidal stresses there -- would find nothing but empty space. Of course, almost the most basic principle of Special Relativity is that no velocity can be attached to space itself.

Yet a BH may have angular momentum, and thus may be considered to rotate in somewhat the same sense that an elementary particle's spin is an intrinsic rotation. A rotating (uncharged) BH is described by the Kerr (1963) solution to Einstein's equations for the gravitational field. (Einstein's equations are a set of partial differential equations defining the curvature of spacetime in terms of the distribution of mass and energy; they play much the same role in the theory of gravitation as Maxwell's equations play in electromagnetic theory.) Such Kerr BHs are characterized by mass M and angular momentum J. It turns out that, for a given M, there is a maximum allowed J:

Jmax < M2G/c.

So in this somewhat loose sense, there actually is a maximum "rotation speed" for a BH.

Whether a particular star has J over or under the limit depends on its mass, rotation speed, and spatial extent. Since real stars tend to have most of their mass concentrated near their centers, the internal distribution of mass, rather than just the optical diameter, is important. The Sun, due to its rather slow (25-day) rotation, has an angular momentum of about 1.63x1048 gm-cm-2-s-1 (assuming uniform rotation throughout, and standard models for the interior mass distribution; Allen 1970), which is only 0.185 of the maximum value allowed were it to somehow collapse to become a BH. But a rapidly rotating massive star will typically have an angular momentum exceeding its Jmax, and such stars must shed angular momentum and some mass before they could form BHs.

Exactly how this might be accomplished remains incompletely understood in detail, despite substantial theoretical interest and investigation in recent years. Observationally, as techniques have improved, more and more candidate BHs have been seen to be associated with narrow jets or beams, in which matter is ejected at relativistic speeds. Such jets may well be related to the need for compact systems to shed angular momentum as matter is accreted by the central object.

Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973) exhaustively discuss the General Relativity background needed to fill in all the details of this rather sketchy discussion, and also treat black holes particularly thoroughly.

REFERENCES:

Allen, C. W. 1970 "Astrophysical Quantities", Althione Press.

Kerr, R. P. 1963 Phys Rev Lett 11, 237.

Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, "Gravitation", Freeman.

Shapiro and Teukolsky 1983, "Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars" (New York: Wiley).

*sigh

While I can apreciate deferring to people such as Einstein, or any number of brilliant physicists/mathematicians (living or dead) these guys tend (or tended) to speak of mathematical constructs as 'givens'.

" ... because a BH, unlike a planet or a star, has no physical surface that can have a velocity."

This is not a given. It is math. Where is the physical evidence to support the math? To my knowledge there isn't any. None. Zip. Zero. I have had this 'conversation' with several scientists over the last few years. All have (eventually, in many cases grudgingly) conceded we have no direct observational or experimental evidence to support the math on this issue. Yet they (most of mainstream science, science writers, etc) continue to speak of 'infinitely small/infinitely dense' as a given feature of our universe.

There may be a maximum density for mass allowed by space. The core of a black hole may indeed have 'volume' and by extension a physical surface. There just isn't any data on this ... yet. And it's certainly possible, if not a certainty, there will never be any direct evidence. But that doesn't mean there will never be indirect evidence.

I wanted to post this on my cosmological thread, btw, because several issues have been raised that are germane to my silly, non-scientific, implausible, amateuristic theories, but this is as good as any place to address them.

Tashja, I believe it is in error for us (and science) to assume that matter behaves within the EH as it does outside. Case in point: The laws of conservation would seem to dictate that an accreting rotating body would shed angular momentum. We could (presumably) add to that the gravitational 'drag' caused by a BH's host galaxy, or any other matter/energy within the gravitational influence of the BH. Again, I'm no scientist, and it's obvious people like you and so many others here have vastly more knowledge in this subject than I do. I'm not ashamed to admit wrapping my brain around these concepts has always been rather difficult (if not impossible) for me.

That said, I am reminded of an (email) argument I had with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on black hole spin a few years ago. As you may know, a critical feature of my 'model' is black hole spin (BHS). My theory was/is ... contrary to mainstream beliefs ... infinitely small/infinitely dense singularities are not allowed in our universe. If I am correct, BHs have volume and a physical diameter ... and by extension a surface area. The more massive the BH, the larger it's diameter/surface area.

As I described it to Tyson, if a BH with the physical diameter of Earth was spinning at a mere 1,000 RPS, it's equatorial surface would be rotating past a fixed point in space at 133 times the speed of light.

He of course argued against BHs having volume, but even if I was correct on this, the 'meager' evidence I presented of BHS was not supported by pretty much everything we knew about physical laws. He said the measurements research teams were coming up with were 'unreliable', and in fact, contrary to my assertion that larger BHs might spin much faster than smaller oners, he said the evidence suggested the opposite: The more massive the black hole, the slower it's spin ...

So now we have some (apparently) strong evidence that a supermassive BH (2 million sols) is rotating at 'near the speed of light' ... just 'short of Einstein's limit'. Beyond that limit, of course, it would fly apart ... which was Einstein's basis for determining black holes could not exist in nature, as (he incorrectly believed) any body massive enough to collapse into a BH would fly apart from spin before the BH could form.

This new observation would seem to contradict conventional (Tyson's) wisdom, wouldn't it?

Can't wait to see more NuSTAR data on the spin of billion+ sol BHs.

So Tashja, is the BH referenced in the paper 'new'? It would appear not. So if accretion (and galactic drag) would invariably slow down it's rotational velocity, then how fast was it spinning a billion years ago? 2 billion years ago?

Perhaps it is irrelevant, but I couldn't help but notice the references you site are 27 years old at the most recent. I could be in error (again) but I believe more recent studies of ergospheres (frame-dragging) contradict the belief no 'velocity' can be "attached to space". As always, I admit I am woefully ignorant on these matters, so correct me if I am wrong ...

In any case, I was pleased to see the new data on spin. Feel somewhat vindicated.

Out of time. More to say on this later ...

Still laugh when I recall your little outburst Tashja. You probably don't remember.

To those I have failed to respond to, my apologies. Been very busy over the last several months.

 

[Lady Elizabeth]

As I described it to Tyson, if a BH with the physical diameter of Earth was spinning at a mere 1,000 RPS, it's equatorial surface would be rotating past a fixed point in space at 133 times the speed of light.

Nonsense ... the salad is strong in this imbecile.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

pywakit

I can see some of your BH ideas are similar to mine. There is no way I believe that singularities exist in nature.

Nice write up by the way.

 

[pywakit]

I can see some of your BH ideas are similar to mine. There is no way I believe that singularities exist in nature.

Nice write up by the way.

Thank you.

 

[pywakit]

Nonsense ... the salad is strong in this imbecile.

Thank you, too. Lol.

Let's see ...

Earth is roughly 40,000 kilometers in circumference at the equator.

1,000 revolutions per second X 40,000 kilometers = 40,000,000 kilometers.

40,000,000 kilometers divided by 300,000 kilometers per second (c) = 133.33333

Isn't the surface at the equator rotating past a fixed point in space at 133 times the speed of light?

Perhaps you are right. My math skills are rudimentary at best. Not to mention my conceptual abilities.

 

[Boris2]

There is no way I believe that singularities exist in nature.

seeing this is the name we give to a region where our current theories are not applicable then this statement is probably true. of course the flip side is that there is this region and we presently call it a "singularity" and so it does exist. when we get the proper description, if we ever do, then the name singularity will change to one that fits better.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

seeing this is the name we give to a region where our current theories are not applicable then this statement is probably true. of course the flip side is that there is this region and we presently call it a "singularity" and so it does exist. when we get the proper description, if we ever do, then the name singularity will change to one that fits better.

There are lots of mathematical expressions that don't really exist in nature. I believe the concept of a singularity is one of them. However whatever happens on the other side of an event horizon stays on the other side of the event horizon. At this point I don't see humans as ever gaining enough control over gravity to find out.

 

[Boris2]

all physics is models so all we have is mathematics. hopefully some is backed up by observation. i see the term singularity as a paceholder until we get a better theory. as to whether we we ever "know" whats on the other side of the event horizon is moot as we will "never know" what is inside the sun. but would you say our theories as to how stars work is wrong because of this? we extrapolate what we know in, hopefully, consistent manner. as such we are pretty sure of what happens on the other side of the EH using current theories. we stop at the point where quantum effects take over.

 

[Dinosaur]

This remark by KillJoyKlown seems correct:

I can believe the polar jets might shed angular momentum as matter is accreted by the central object, and that might work to prevent a rotational speed greater than the speed of light.

The angular momentum of a sphere is proportional to Radius[sup]2[/sup]. Since angular momentum is conserved, the rotation rate increases inversely with Radius[sup]2[/sup].

Hence speed at the surface decreases linearly with the decrease in radius.

It is my guess that some effect would prevent a surface speed greater than c: Either some angular momentum traded for energy or resistance to increase in angular velocity as surface speed approaches c.

BTW: When it is said that there is a singularity at the center of a Black Hole, it is likely implied that the pertinent equations cease to be applicable. Either there is some minimum volume or some quantum theory equations need to be discovered & applied to the situation.

 

[Boris2]

i'll go with KJ polar jets adding "resistance" to a SoL rotation. also the accretion disk adding resistance. the accretion disk is matter so to accelerate it to the same rate as the BH is spinning requires energy. the closer to c the more energy. and as it can't go at c then it must, might, prevent the BH spinning at c.

but i'm not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Lady Elizabeth]

Let's see ...

Earth is roughly 40,000 kilometers in circumference at the equator.

1,000 revolutions per second X 40,000 kilometers = 40,000,000 kilometers.

40,000,000 kilometers divided by 300,000 kilometers per second (c) = 133.33333

Isn't the surface at the equator rotating past a fixed point in space at 133 times the speed of light?

Perhaps you are right. My math skills are rudimentary at best. Not to mention my conceptual abilities.

A Black Hole has no actual physical surface to rotate, it's merely a volume of space surrounding a singularity; there'd likely be de Sitter/Lense–Thirring affects depending on whether aforementioned singularity was stationary or spinning; that aside, your calculations totally lack relativistic considerations, making them ill-educated balderdash @ best.

 

[wellwisher]

Since the black hole has contracted local space-time, then it should appear to rotate slowly in our reference. If its distance (size) has contracted to a point in our reference, then its connected time element (space-time) should have slowed to almost the maximum; no spin or frequency in our reference. Something is not adding up.

Say we have two twins, each on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round of the twin moving near C, will appear slow to almost no rotation, from the POV reference of the stationary twin, who is aging faster.

Since the earth is in our reference, the black hole should see us appear to spin close to the speed of light since our time reference is so fast (fast frequency). Do we see the reflection?

 

[pywakit]

A Black Hole has no actual physical surface to rotate, it's merely a volume of space surrounding a singularity; there'd likely be de Sitter/Lense–Thirring affects depending on whether aforementioned singularity was stationary or spinning; that aside, your calculations totally lack relativistic considerations, making them ill-educated balderdash @ best.

Ill-educated? Lol. I suppose so. But not so poorly that I can't make some simple (and factual) observations.

Your first claim (no physical surface) has no actual basis in fact. Certainly GR is extremely well-supported, yet any 'real' physicist will admit it breaks down at the quantum level ... if not before. Clearly the area within the diameter of 'observed' event horizons is larger than quantum.

The next part of your assertion (merely a volume of space surrounding a singularity) relies on the same math. Math that produces 'infinite' solutions which many mainstream scientists (past and present) find more than troublesome. To this day there is no observational or experimental evidence to support 'infinitely small/infinitely dense' in our universe.

Next, there have been no confirmed modern observations of a Schwarzschild (non-rotating) black hole. His equations merely described a 'classic' black hole; the total collapse of a compact body. As you probably know, at that time black holes were still purely theoretical. As you also must know, his peer Einstein argued rather strenuously against their existence.

Eventually, over half a century later, most of mainstream presumed the existence of non-rotating black holes. It's only been in the last decade or so that it has become painfully obvious that all black holes likely rotate. As our ability to observe and measure has vastly improved, we have discovered that not only do they rotate, they tend to rotate at hyper velocities, as this latest data supports.

It appears both Schwarzschild and Einstein were a bit off the mark.

Scientists bandy about terms like 'singularity' ... which have become popular in scientific and non-scientific circles alike ... but at the moment what one is remains a mystery, a mathematical 'guess'. As one prominent scientist (Kaku) stated not so long ago ... "We don't really know what a singularity is."

And neither do you.

 

[Lady Elizabeth]

Once all degeneracy pressure is overcome by gravity nothing can stop the inevitable collapse to singularity - as there's simply no evidence of such a force, I'll beg to differ rather than believe in a fanciful baseless assertion.

 

[pywakit]

supposed to be infinite density.

Again, no evidence. And doesn't QM contradict this? If I am not in error, QM states (among other things) all mass has volume.

Volume means a physical diameter, even if the volume is hidden from our view.

How did we ever come to accept such a theory? How did we come to accept the idea that if a body became massive enough it could trigger a collapse that would go on 'forever'?

How could all the mass of 50 billion suns (the theorists latest attempts to set a mass limit on black holes) occupy an ever-smaller space?

There's another problem here.

Einstein proved long ago that a collapsing body spins. The more it collapses the faster it spins. This was the basis for his rejection of black holes. According to his calculations, at some point in the collapse, centrifugal forces would overcome gravitational forces and the body would fly apart.

Obviously he was wrong on this. At least, insofar as centrifugal forces overcoming gravity. He was certainly correct about collapsing bodies spinning.

So it logically follows that any given black hole in a (theorized) state of infinite collapse, it's rotational velocity must also increase ... infinitely. Right?

Well, so far this does not appear to be happening. There is no evidence black holes are rotating at 'infinite' velocities. So what's holding them back?

Polar jets? Accretion? Galactic drag? Why not consider the possibility matter has a maximum density? That would set a rotational limit.

In a previous post, I pointed out that for all the ways we can attempt to limit the rotational velocity of a black hole the fact is the observed black hole is (or more accurately, was) rotating at near light speed. Or again, more accurately, the atoms orbiting in close proximity to the EH have been accelerated to near light speed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

For this to happen, unless the infalling matter/energy is already tidally 'locked', the black hole would need to be rotating faster than the orbiting material. Am I missing something here?

So why is everyone concerned about rotation exceeding c?

For one, if we have a true singularity (infinitely small, infinitely dense, collapsing forever) then it's rotational velocity ... as I just stated ... should also be (to all intents and purposes) infinite. But this clearly isn't the case. I suppose if we could observe a 'naked' black hole ... one not feeding, and not within the gravitational influence of a host galaxy ... which we currently lack the technology to do ... we might find it is rotating on orders of magnitude of c ... and accelerating. But I doubt this will ever happen, because I don't think infinite collapse is allowed in this universe. Or any other, for that matter.

For another, Einstein said space is 'something' and space collapses if the gravitational force is strong enough. He (ironically) predicted black holes ... if they existed ... would collapse space, and this has been observationally supported in many ways. So if a black hole has collapsed space inside the EH, then why would you (or anyone) think the speed limit of 'normal' space would still apply?

I would think (just like Einstein did) the only known physical law limiting the rotational velocity of such a massive compact body (and unaffected by collapsed space) is centrifugal force.

Related to this issue, it's fascinating that mainstream feels continually compelled to limit the mass of black holes. Of course, they are still stuck (for the most part) on the 'fade to black' end to our universe. Can't have these pesky black holes hanging around for eternity if the universe is going to decay to zero. So ... once it was established that black holes were not (as previously believed) an extremely rare artifact of the universe ... over the last 30 - 40 years scientists have tried to figure out ways to get rid of them. They theorized (for example) black holes might shunt their mass to alternate dimensions/universes. Of course, there were several obvious problems with this theory. For one, there was no evidence of either alternate dimensions or universes. Lol. And black holes didn't seem to be losing any of their mass, as increasingly evidenced by their gravitational effects.

At the end of the day, so to speak, Hawking radiation was the only tool left in their belt, and mainstream treats it now as another one of those 'givens'. Of course, like singularities, Hawking radiation has yet to be verified through observation or experiment. In my communications with Neil Tyson, he told me he is rooting for Hawking on this, hoping it is proven while Hawking still lives, as he would (in Tyson's opinion) receive a Nobel for it. It's understandable that Tyson is hoping for proof black holes evaporate since he is very much on board with the theorized heat death universe. Can't say I blame him for taking this stance. The (apparent) accelerating rate of recession of superclusters is certainly compelling evidence that our universe is a one-way affair despite some very real unresolved issues ... such as no evidence protons decay.

In any case, Hawking radiation (if it exists) is interminably slow at best. In fact, we know a lot more about black holes now than when Hawking came up with his theory over 30 years ago. Little (rather problematic) issues such as black holes very likely accreting matter/energy at a much faster rate than they could evaporate. And a new, far more serious problem has arisen. 30 years ago we still had no 'hard' evidence black holes existed at all. It was believed that if they did, they were very rare. Certainly they could not be very massive. In keeping with mainstream theories regarding the hierarchical evolution of galaxies and black holes it was inconceivable to research scientists that a black hole could exceed 500,000 sols by now. This was important as Hawking had 'shown' the more massive the black hole, the slower the rate of evaporation.

Well anyway, the last thing mainstream wanted was a black hole in the millions or even billions of solar masses. Lurking in the back of their minds was the realization that unless they could limit their growth, they could ... in theory ... grow 'forever'. This would be a serious problem for the 'fade to nothing' universe.

Consequently, over the last several decades, brilliant research teams have established 'absolute' mass limits for black holes. First it was, as I just mentioned, 500,000 sols, then 1 million, then 10 million, then 50 million. All were wrong.

Not so long ago they set the absolutely positively 'final' limit at 10 billion. This mass limit was (naturally) endorsed by mainstream scientists around the world.

Well, then it seemed we might have uncovered one weighing in at about 18 billion sols. Although it was not confirmed (yet) the theorists could see the writing on the wall and went back to work. A year or so ago, a team came up with 'strong, compelling evidence' that black holes 'regulate' themselves at 50 billion sols. That's it. They can't get any bigger, they said. Every popular science periodical trumpeted the (good) news. Numerous researchers concurred with the team's findings and mainstream breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Perhaps that was (once again) a bit premature.

Biggest in the universe: Scientists discover black holes weighing 40 billion suns

http://rt.com/news/biggest-black-holes-ultramassive-882/

Excerpts:

It turns out that the largest black holes may be even bigger than scientists previously thought. New research from NASA shows there are some real monsters out there, weighing the equivalent masses of 10 to 40 billion suns.

*Scientists refer to them as ‘ultramassive’ black holes, not to confuse them with ‘supermassive’ holes, with only a few confirmed examples.

These giants, all located in far-off galaxies about 1.3 billion light years from Earth, are more common than scientists originally thought.

A survey, conducted by author Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo of Stanford University and her team, showed that at least ten out of 18 galaxies they studied had black holes that may weigh up to 40 billion times the mass of the sun.

“I wouldn't be surprised if I end up finding a 100 billion solar mass black hole!” the scientist wrote.

True, this has yet to be verified, and Julie might be overly exuberant, but these ongoing discoveries, and others such as finding black holes comprising as much as 14% of a galaxy's mass (as opposed to the more typical .01%) are forcing theorists (and mainstream) to rethink what they thought they knew about the relationships between galaxies and black holes ... and by extension the evolution of our universe.

In any case, researchers better come up with a solid limit on the size of black holes or the decaying, one-way universe is going to become just another obselete theory. Probably worth noting that the total mass of our local group of galaxies is in the neighborhood of 3-4 trillion suns. Unless a limit is established once and for all, there will be a 3-4 trillion sol black hole where the galaxies once stood.

Just a few years ago, one astrophysicist at a very prestigious university in Great Britain responded rather angrily to my unsolicted email (of my cosmological model) with this: "Everyone knows black holes don't merge. Thanks for wasting my time. Idiot!"

Idiot indeed. Lol.

 

[pywakit]

Once all degeneracy pressure is overcome by gravity nothing can stop the inevitable collapse to singularity - as there's simply no evidence of such a force, I'll beg to differ rather than believe in a fanciful baseless assertion.

Nothing can stop it ... except perhaps hard limits set by natural laws of our universe.

In any case, I must beg to differ with you. It wouldn't collapse TO anything, even if you were correct. The collapse would (by definition) never stop. If you are going to be so unsufferably rude and disrespectful, at least try to be accurate. Lol.

We know now that black holes in the billions of solar masses exist. All that mass clearly remains in this universe, as evidenced by the gravitational influence.

Your 'evidence' that billions of solar masses can occupy zero volume is mathematics. Yet it is commonly understood that GR breaks down at the quantum level as I just stated in my previous observations. If you have uncovered further evidence of the existence of infinitely small, infinitely dense singularities, you might want to share it with the rest of the world.

Contrary to your (presumably educated) characterizations, I don't think it unreasonable, fanciful, or otherwise strains credulity to hypothesize that all matter has a compressional limit.

 

[wellwisher]

Since the space-time reference of the black hole is highly contracted via GR, due to its extreme mass occupying only a point of space, then its time reference should also be extremely dilated. We (earth) should see little if any spin. If you were standing on the black hole and were looking at the rotation of the earth, since space-time is so expanded on the earth, relative to the black hole, the earth would appear to be spinning very fast, close to the speed of light.

One interesting implication has to do with our universal energy balance. From the black hole, since the earth appears to be rotating so fast, the energy within the earth's angular momentum would appear extreme to the black hole. If we add up all the planets and suns in just our galaxy, the black hole sees much more inertial energy within the universe than we see. Which is right?

If you notice the highest energy potential of the universe is relative to the black hole reference. This reference, closest to C, sees the most potential energy within the universe.