# Born to Do Math 194 – Leaky Black Hole Deets

In-Sight Publishing

November 15, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ok, so, some new research.

Rick Rosner: This evening, an article on information in black holes.

Jacobsen: Here, this has been a confirmation of the finding or the calculation of Hawking. That information is not destroyed by black holes. It’s preserved. But obviously, the structure was so…

Rosner: Well, I mean, when you say, “Structure,” you mean how all the atoms have stuck together. Yes, anything that falls into a black hole will be ripped to pieces, is what you’re saying.

Jacobsen: Yes, so, intuitively it doesn’t make sense, however, if it’s true…

Rosner: Actually, hold on, because we’re talking about traditional black holes, we’re not talking about IC black holes. So now, I may be wrong, but it might be. No, I guess not. I think I’ve seen the math on this. I don’t think there are stable orbits within the event horizon of a black hole. The event horizon is the point where if you get so close to the black hole that you go beyond the event horizon, which is a sphere. An abstract sphere around the black hole, that’s the point beyond which you can’t get back out of the black hole. Now, you may not be in the black hole, yet, because the black hole is smaller than the event horizon. So there is a period in which you fall down. You’re still falling in and haven’t yet crashed into the black hole itself. You just are in a position where you can’t get out no matter what you do in a traditional black hole. It’s also known as the Schwartzchild radius. This is how if you’re this far away from a black hole, then you’re fucked. But I mean, you could probably design something small enough and strong enough that it would at least last for a little while or be torn apart by the tidal forces near the black hole. So, there are situations in which the structure is at least momentarily preserved. But you’re right, over any reasonable time period. Anything that falls in will be torn to bits. I don’t think either of us knows enough about the black hole theory to know exactly what they’re talking about when they talk about the information that is preserved.

Jacobsen: I would make a prediction – I know it’s dangerous because early in the game – that if you change the structure internal to the universe but can preserve the information, then the structure can disappear while preserving the information as external, which would match an IC structure of the universe and is consistent with the dynamics of the internal universe.

Rosner: We should talk a little bit more about, what this article talked about, which is that the article said that there’s some mathematical indication that information is preserved, but nobody knows how to present a complete picture of how that might work. It just suggests that as black holes get older and older, that they get no more forgiving, maybe, that you don’t get the information out immediately. But as black holes get older, I don’t know. I’m guessing here that they become more leaky of information. They leak more information. Is that pretty much what you get out of the article? But nobody really knows how that would work in. There are equations that indicate that something like that is going on now to us. We get happy, I think, because the black holes, and I see, are less severe.

Jacobsen: They are leaky.

Rosner: When they are leaky, and they don’t crush everything into oblivion because, we argue, that black holes create their own space and a space in which the gravitational force, which was created in conjunction with the world, the block is attenuated around the black hole. So normal business can be done in the vicinity of a black hole. You can have entire little mini universes within a black hole and that they’re not perfectly black. They’re much less perfectly black than a regular Stephen Hawking black hole, which is very, very close to perfectly black. The amount of energy is able to trickle out of Hawking black hole is minuscule one part ten to the – probably something like – twenty-fifth or something per year. But can I see a black hole super league, especially under certain conditions where sufficiently durable objects can get reasonably close? There’s no Schwarzschild radius there. A black hole is pretty fucking black, but never so black, in the sense, that you know what makes stuff unable to get out of a traditional black hole, which is that it would need to travel faster than the speed of light to get out of it. I see the speed you need to travel to get out of a black hole. You can never reach the speed of light. It can get really close. But the light itself and, a powerful enough rocket, I guess, could get out. Even under certain conditions, other matter besides the light, but, even I see black holes, given our current technology; unless, we were right up on it on a black hole, which would be bad because the black holes fucked things up. We would be able to see much radiation escaping from them. Even if you did see, I could get close enough to see a fairly leaky black hole. It would be easy enough to mistake a leaky black hole for something else, like maybe neutron stars, or neutron star is just a collapsed star that has just that last step away from collapsing into a black hole.

And it just doesn’t have mass enough to do it. It’s a neutron star. I think is stopped short of totally collapsing by Fermi pressure where the pressure that the particles have is insufficient. Two particles can’t occupy the same quantum state. I think that’s the only thing. It’s the last step before a full-on black hole of it. I see there’s never enough pressure to collapse anything beyond that last step of Fermi pressure. Maybe, you can have a fully collapsed. But generally, I see black holes are closer to the composition of neutron stars than they are to the totally collapsed shit in a black hole. Though, I may be wrong. Then you run into the problems of what I see black holes look like from the outside versus what they look like on the inside. Close to them, you’ve got a whole lot of extra space. Now, I haven’t thought about this. There’s all this extra space, so nothing can ever be collapse into the black hole. Anyway, that’s enough of that.

Jacobsen: The end.

Rosner: Yes.

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

www.rickrosner.org

(Updated July 25, 2019)

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*

According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing hereRick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher HardingJason BettsPaul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.

He has written for Remote ControlCrank YankersThe Man ShowThe EmmysThe Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercialDomino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.

Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los AngelesCalifornia with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Founder, In-Sight Publishing

Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com

In-Sight Publishing

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN 2369-6885). Jacobsen works for science and human rights, especially women’s and children’s rights. He considers the modern scientific and technological world the foundation for the provision of the basics of human life throughout the world and the advancement of human rights as the universal movement among peoples everywhere.