# how can black holes spin at almost the speed of light?

Author: linate

## Posts

Total: 20
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
0
1
1

this article says they have found ways to measure how fast black holes spin.

some of them spin at 99% the speed of light. but physics says for an object to go the speed of light, it has to have infinite mass. so how can these obviously not even close to infinite mass clusters spin at almost the speed of light? does that last percent really matter that much?
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
2
2
4
-->
@linate
Yes, the last percentage matters. In fact, the last fraction of a percent matters hugely.

You can find the equation that relates mass to speed here: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae388.cfm.

We can use the equation to easily determine the mass multiplier for traveling at various percentages of the speed of light by setting an object's rest mass to 1. Here are a few numbers..

Percentage of C     Mass Mutiplier
25                        1.03
50                        1.15
75                        1.51
90                        2.29
95                        3.20
99                        7.09
99.5                    10.01
99.9                    22.37
99.99                  70.71
99.999               223.61
99.9999             707.11
99.99999          2236.07

At 99 percent of the speed of light, our mass has increased by just over 7 times. But it still heads to infinite as we get incrementally close to C.
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
8
10
11
-->
@Stronn
excellent post

Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
0
1
1
thanks for the info
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
3
3
3
-->
@linate
There are no black holes. That is mythology.
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3
-->
@janesix
There are no black holes. That is mythology.
You need to educate youself. It is clear there is powerful something at all of the galaxeys that a team of scientist studied and the powerful something fits the bill for being a black hole were nothing else does.

This conclusion I read about a few years back.  I think you need to do some research and arrive at a more rational, logical common sense conclusion based on what is observed.

I dunno what new info has come about since I read that. Probably only more info leading to same conclusion.

Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
There is no proof of black holes. It is a complete fabrication, like dark matter and dark energy.
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
Oh awesome, you’ll be happy to provide your alternative explanations for the x ray output Vs size of Cygnus-x, and provide a new theory that supersedes relativity that explains the orbital dynamics around Sagittarius B?
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3
-->
@janesix
There is no proof of black holes. It is a complete fabrication, like dark matter and dark energy.
Obviously you do not believe what I told you and refuse to find that data to better inform yourself of what much learned scientists believe, based on the facts.

You have no facts. You have no observations. You not much of anything except an empty oppinnion.

Who else do we know with these same aspects?

Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
2
2
4
-->
@janesix
@Ramshutu
You will also need to explain what happens when the density of a star becomes so great that not even the nuclear strong force is enough to stave off gravitational collapse. What prevents the star from collapsing to a black hole?

7 days later

Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
0
1
2
All fundamental particles spin at the speed of light. This speed is generated at the galactic centre where galactic jets shoot out at the speed of light which creates the spin energy that generates the universe.
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
Physics is based on math. Could you share the math behind your theory?

Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
All fundamental particles spin at the speed of light.
How have you experimentally verified this? What observations have you made that indicates this is true?

This speed is generated at the galactic centre
How have you experimentally verified this? What observations have you made that indicates this is true? How have you modeled the method of energy transfer?

where galactic jets shoot out at the speed of light
Which observations have you made of this galaxy that indicates:
a.) there are “galactic jets”
b.) they move at the speed of light.

which creates the spin energy that generates the universe.
How does your “idea” explain how the transfer of energy occurs? How do you account for observed energy/mass changes due to relativistic speeds? How have you resolved issues with conservation of energy? What do you even mean by “generates the universe”, and how can you verify this is true. What experimental evidence do you have to support this claim?  What observations have you made that indicates this is true?

At this time, your wild assertions appear to be what is colloquially referred to as “pulled out of your a**”

Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
All fundamental particles spin at the speed of light.
How have you experimentally verified this? What observations have you made that indicates this is true?

Reply - The equation E=MC squared tells us that  2 fundamental particles spinning at the speed of light are mass and energy equivalents. I call it the the logic of inevitable consequences. The observation is the energy that the sun produces which has to come from some small particle source. The sun's gravity squeezes the aether particles together giving C squared energy.

The universe is like a jigsaw puzzle which has only one correct solution. If you make one small error the whole concept falls apart. The standard or accepted model is totally wrong because it can't unify matter, gravity, space, light and energy. Whereas, my theory has no missing pieces and everything is accountable. My theory is 100% logical and doesn't rely on magical fields and action at a distance nonsense. My theory is 100% mechanical with no bullshite airy fairy magic.
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
E=MC squared.The difference is that I understand what this equation really means.
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
The equation E=MC squared tells us that  2 fundamental particles spinning at the speed of light are mass and energy equivalents.
No it doesn’t, as E=mc^2 doesn’t have any applicability to speed. Indeed, the equations that account for mass and energy of a fast moving object show that its impossible for an object to move or spin at the speed of light. Because of this, your sentence appears to be meaningless word salad.

I call it the the logic of inevitable consequences.
So you are making things up?

The observation is the energy that the sun produces which has to come from some small particle source.
Like... say Fusion? A well evidenced and experimentally verified process that agrees with all the observation evidence of the Sun, theories of subatomic physics and gravity.

The sun's gravity squeezes the aether particles together giving C squared energy.
Aether particles? So they exist? How do you know? What is your observational evidence? What is your experimental evidence.

Please provide a scientific explanation and justification for why you believe the particles you can’t show exist convert mass to energy when squeezed. By what process does this operate,

The universe is like a jigsaw puzzle which has only one correct solution. If you make one small error the whole concept falls apart.
Jigsaws don’t fall apart when you make one small error....

This a perfect metaphor actually. Scientific theories produce a big picture, like a jigsaw: just because some parts are missing doesn’t mean the entire constructed picture so far is completely wrong and needs to be torn up.

The standard or accepted model is totally wrong because it can't unify matter, gravity, space, light and energy. Whereas, my theory has no missing pieces and everything is accountable.
You don’t have a theory. A theory must have an explanation, and must have supporting evidence. It’s not even a hypothesis - as hypothesis must be logical and potentially testable. What you have - is a series of assertions that don’t really make any sense, and seem barely even tangentially related to the things your trying to explain.

Now, what you are confused about, is that the standard and accepted model is not “totally wrong” - it doesn’t explain all parts of the universe in all ways - but it does explain particular parts exceptionally well.

in that respect no science here is “totally wrong”, because it fully explains much of the universe and the observations. It is merely incomplete.

My theory is 100% logical and doesn't rely on magical fields and action at a distance nonsense. My theory is 100% mechanical with no bullshite airy fairy magic.
You have literally pulled the whole thing out of your ass without any plausible justification, or evidence. Your theory makes no logical sense, is devoid of any supporting evidence, and appears to be the construct of an irrational bumbling idiot.
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
E=MC squared.The difference is that I understand what this equation really means.
You have not demonstrated that you do. Einstein derived relativity, including that equation, by assuming only two postulates, 1) the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, and 2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. Anyone with a moderate understanding of math, if they care to, can follow his reasoning step-by-step.

Your "theory", on the other hand, contains no logical steps, only bald assertions. If you think you have a valid theory, then you need to present your reasoning in a step-by=step fashion. Something like "if we assume A, then B must be true, and B implies C, and C means that D must be true, which implies that E must be true." Each step must follow logically from the previous one, so that anyone with an understanding of math and logic can follow it. In contrast to this, you are jumping directly from A to E, with no logical steps in between. As such, I would not expect anyone to give any credence to your theory.

26 days later

Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
2
2
2
bump
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
10
11
11
They don't, it's NASA's way of laughing hysterically at what idiots believe the blatantly false crap they throw at us.
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
2
2
3
-->
@Stronn
At 99 percent of the speed of light, our mass has increased by just over 7 times. But it still heads to infinite as we get incrementally close to C.
"heads to infinite" is inherently a macro or micro direction and not resolute{ ending } conclusion.

Around is an eternal direction, and not associated with finite or infinite.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"....A Einstein

Black holes evaporate. Or so i've heard/read.

An infinite occupied space, and if it ever did, it could not ever evaporate.

Macro infinite non-occupied space exists outside of our finite,eternally existent and integral, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.