• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Our current black hole formula

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepekley23

Kepekley23

VS Battles
Retired
15,332
7,559
Where does this formula:

  • Solar Mass * GBE = GBE of the Black Hole
Come from? This seems laughably iffy, if you excuse me, and plenty of people agree with me on this one.

We should use the radius formula, invert that to find mass, and then put it through a mass-energy conversion instead.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Calc group members, former calc group members, and soon to be calc group members only.
 
I have no idea where it comes from tbh. I personally use a Hawking radiation calculator that gives me mass from radius (easier than inverting using our own math).

But yeah I don't know where that came from.
 
I've been in one of the discussions about this in the past. It was the DT who suggested using it for me, it happens here.

I agree that Mass-Energy is the best way to find the energy to create a Black Hole. The problem with using this is not even with black holes, but our page of Mass-Energy Feats in Fiction that sets the need for a direct mention of E = MC^2 for the use of this formula.
 
I noticed that too some time ago, suggested DT to use the conventional GBE formula, but he said that we shouldn't do that cuz in theory the energy is infinite. So we don't use (or shouldn't stop) GBE in black holes.
 
While we're here, maybe someone can answer a couple of black hole questions I have.

A. If a black hole is a single, 1-D point, how does it effect 3-D space (4-D space-time given time dilation) and 3-D matter at all? Geometrically this seems impossible.

B. How does a black hole logically have infinite GBE (I say logically because it is proven mathematically)? Seems like with infinite gravity it should instantly pull any and all matter in the universe to itself at infinite speed. Why does it have a standard effect on matter (orbiting is commonplace) when it should just be an infinite pit in space-time (theory of relativity shows everything pushes down on and bends space-time, so it seems like a black hole should be a literal bottomless pit that encompasses the whole universe)?

C. How can it have infinite density with finite matter? If a black hole can grow in apparent size (event horizon gets bigger) and mass by eating matter, it seems like it would not be infinite in density or gravity.

D. If it has infinite GBE, shouldn't it have infinite escape velocity? If so, how can Hawking Radiation ever escape it? Shouldn't this be impossible given our current understanding?
 
Black holes run based on physic, not geometry. They can affect 3-D stuff the same way I can distort space-time with my presence. Dimensions work differently in physic.

It has infinite GBE because the radius is 0, but the mass is still finite so no infinite gravity

It's a sphere with radius 0, therefore volume 0 therefore infinite density

The singularity does have infinite escape velocity, but before that it's finite

Sorry for the intrusion, I know that it's for calc group members
 
A. If a black hole is a single, 1-D point, how does it effect 3-D space (4-D space-time given time dilation) and 3-D matter at all? Geometrically this seems impossible.

Because they aren't one-dimensional dots. The singularity is, but the Schwartzschild radius and the event horizon most definitely aren't.
 
@Kaltias

Actually, two scientific theories can't contradict each other, or else they wouldn't be scientific theories. Nothing "different" about physics and geometry in this sense.
 
@Kep

But the matter of the black hole most certainly lies in a singularity according to what I have read. Considering that, why does adding more matter to a black hole's singularity increase the event horizon? It is already a singular point, why does the event horizon expand outward since it is already at infinite density?

@Kal

It's fine, you're answering black hole questions. Unfortunately I am not really satisfied.

A. Ok, then our High 3-A shouldn't exist on the 4-D level.

B. If it has a radius of 0 it isn't a sphere it all. It doesn't have width or height, and isn't applicable for volume at all, given my current understanding. Also how is mass held in a 1-D point anyway? Mass has volume.

C. If any part of the black hole has infinite escape velocity, it should effect the entire universe, since it is currently finite, and subsequently pull all matter to itself at infinite speed.
 
If I remember correctly, what you're saying right now is pretty much the reason why general relativity was deemed incomplete at first, since such a thing is very unlikely.
 
1) I don't think i understood what you mean

2) Well, technically you can imagine it as an infinitesimaly small sphere.

3) It does, technically. Saggitarius A* affect the Earth with its gravity, it's just that the effect is negligible while compared to any relevant celestial bodies near us due to the extreme distance
 
Well if it was only "at first" certainly someone came up with a solution. Or maybe they are wrong about an impossible to test object many light years away. Sorry if I sound skeptical but I always have problems with black holes.
 
@Kal

A. If everything has an influence on 4-D space-time then having "limited 4-D power" is inconsequential.

B. If it is infinitesimal, it is absolutely tiny, but not 1-D. 1-D lacks two dimensions that make up 3-D space, making the existence of shapes and objects impossible.

C. I know it effects everything, if negligibly, but if it truly has infinite escape velocity and GBE at any point, it wouldn't be negligible, it would instantly pull us in at infinite speed instantly.

A black hole, given my current understanding, would instantly destroy the universe.
 
Should this be highlighted (and made staff only in that case)? It's pretty important I think.

Of course people like Ex would still be allowed to comment.

For the record I don't have problems with using mass-energy, but i'd like to hear other opinions too
 
Antvasima says it's better if this is "staff only".

Btw can someone ask DontTalkDT? I somehow failed to post a message on his wall (probably a bug, that happens always)
 
@Kaltias

You can become a calc group member whenever you wish, so you can reply here as well.
 
The answer to that is simply that it is a fit for quantifying a feat that is otherwise impossible. Destroying a black hole is as quantifiable through physics as is reality warping a planet from existence. In other words not at all.

For planets we would use GBE for such cases, but due to the fact that black holes lack GBE we just needed some other quantification and that was what it came down to.


In regards to mass-energy: Makes really no sense to use that, because it is not like converting mass into energy is what happens (wouldn't even destroy the black hole if it did happen) and results in a high end usually (not always). For creating black holes, similarly to all other creation feats, assuming that it was done through converting energy into mass is just mostly outlandish and unintended.


Essentially creating/destroying black holes is to be treated like reality warping feats or other feats that break physics. But since we don't have GBE available as a measure, we just approximate using mass.


Assaltwaffle said:
While we're here, maybe someone can answer a couple of black hole questions I have.
A.

B.

C.

D.
Click to expand...
A. IIRC in the standard model of particle physics you can even assume all quants to be 0 dimensional points. Thing is that is not problem at all, because you never really touch anything. Basically all interactions in the world come down to interactions between the 3-D fields that that the particles produce.

Same for black hole: their sigularity might be a point of infinite density, but like for everything else what really matters are the 3-D fields it produces. There is nothing strange about that.

B. The definition of GBE is the energy necessary to move all the matter of the object an infinite distance away from its center of mass (to say it simply). So let me ask you: how much energy do you need to pull something out of a black hole? Right, black holes are unescapable in physics, meaning it is impossible.

So you can either say GBE is just undefined for black holes, because the defining scenario is not possible for any energy, or cheat a bit and say it is infinite, because any finite amount of energy will not be able to produce the result.

C. For the infinite density in the center you really only need a tiny tiny bit of matter. All other matter that you later on throw in will not be in the same infinitely dense point. However, newly added matter still adds to the gravitational pull of the black hole.

An aircraft is for example also not directly on earth, but on the great scale its gravitational fields also adds the earths gravitational field.

Or one could roughly say that what matters isn't where the matter is, but where the center of mass of the entire thing is.

D. It has lightspeed escape velocity at the event horizon, which in physics can not be overcome even if you use infinite energy.

Hawking radiation also doesn't escape black holes. It works by pairs of virtual particles being created just outside or exactly at the event horizon (spontanously), with one of the particles escaping away from the black hole without ever going past the event horizon and one dropping in it.

Due to conservation of energy one can already see that if a particle is simply created like that the other particle must have negative energy, to make it so that no energy is created from nothing.

Since the negative energy particle falls into the black hole, its energy aka mass will decrease by adding it, making the black hole shrink.


So hawking radiation doesn't escape out of the black hole, it just throws stuff with negative energy inside.
 
@DontTalk

Is there any source for this formula? Do we know it has foundations in papers or the scientific community?
 
@DontTalkDT

Thank you very much for the clarifications. You are a rock to lean on as always.
 
Well, I think there's a misunderstanding here. The truth is that this formula is not a scientific formula and you will not find a scientific source for it.

As DT explained there are things that we can not explain with physics or we can explain with physics, but the results are absurd to be accepted (That is why after a certain speed we do not normally accept Kinetic Energy calculations with speed very close to the lightspeed) .

This is the case, for example, with the creation of planets. In case a character uses his own energy to create a planet we could use Mass-Energy Conversion, but this has the same problems as any other Mass-Energy calculation which is: Because the square of the speed of light is very large, the result is it becomes very inflated getting to be completely beyond the expectations of what a feat of creation should have (As the case of creating a dress results in energy at City level). So we have a separate page for Mass-Energy Conversion regulations and we only use this in very specific cases.

But as we all know creation of celestial bodies is something common in fiction and so we had to find a solution to qualify this type of feat. Therefore it was established that the creation of Celestial Bodies as stars, planets and moons would equal the GBE of that celestial body. It's not something that has some law of physics explaining, it's just a convention that was chosen not to generate inflated results.

Clearly it would have to be done the same with Black Hole, the problem is that there is no way to qualify the GBE of a Black Hole. Then another convention had to be used: Solar Mass * Sun GBE. There is no law of physics explaining that this is the energy needed to create a Black Hole of a given mass, it is just a convention not to get inflated results.

To use Mass-Energy to explain the creation of Black Holes we would have to change our already established regulations about this type of calculation. I do not see a problem in this, but since there are people against this type of calculation I do not intend to suggest this.

But that's simply it, there is no explanation for the energy of creating a black hole being Solar Mass * Sun GBE, it's just a convention not to generate inflated results (and does not really generate, calculations performed through Mass-Energy Conversion almost always resulted in values of the Large Star or higher. Currently most of the calculations result in a level that varies from Large Planet to Small Star).
 
That's the way we do?

From what I've seen, looks like most of the Black Holes calculations I've seen ends up High 4-C. Guilty Gear one, Mario one and the (joke) Gardevoir one when a Black Hole 30 meters across barely reaches Low 4-C. This would seem to indicate that those calcs used Mass-To-Energy.
 
Mario uses another technique. In this case it is an object that becomes Black Hole, in which case we can use the Black Hole mass and transfer to the mass of the object and discover the GBE of that object. In the case the Power Star are very small, but they had a very large mass and therefore the result was very high. The same applies for example to the Chaos Dark Spirits of Etemon, an object that turns into black hole so by conservation of mass the result becomes very high.
 
I can eventually ask Lina Shield where the current formula comes from, which she often uses here, I often speak with her in NF
 
Lina is a he, as far as I am aware, but feel free to ask him, if you wish.
 
That's what she told me about Black hole problem:

Just go with DontTalk's thoughts on this, although technically a black hole can't even be busted no matter how much energy you dump on to it. It only gets bigger if you do.
Basically, that thing is a giant ball of space time hax'
~ Lina Shield's answer​
 
Going with DT's suggestion, better to consider creating/summoning black holes as a Reality Warping abilitiy. An as Lina said, theorically is impossible to bust a black hole, if it it happen is fiction is for: the black hole isn't a real black hole, Reality Warping was used, or some kind of space-time attack.
 
Does somebody need to add a clarification footnote to the page that explains the reasons for using the formula?
 
I think it'd be the best course of action, but you can ask the other calc group members if you want.
 
A minor correction:

"Avoid arguing about what formula to use for the gravitational binding energy of a black hole. The current formula has been discussed by several calculation group members, and, despite its lack of following in the scientific community, has been deemed the most accurate way to approach these types of feats."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

YueNoMoral
about black hole formula
Replies
2
Views
1K
Kudekuba
ElajRuengies
  • Locked
Impossibly Massive Celestial Body Destruction Calcs are just Faster Than Light Kinetic Energy Calcs
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Bringing back DBS Pretty Black Hole Legitimacy
2 3 4
Replies
144
Views
8K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Is the mass-energy conversion unique to the creation of matter?
Replies
1
Views
516
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Rau
Mordecai and Rigby 3.A/3.B Upgrade
2 3
Replies
94
Views
5K
James_Plays_4_Games
James_Plays_4_Games
Back
Top