I was thinking what if we are in a black hole and black holes form within black holes and new universes are born within black holes and the matter is infinitely iterated? If that was the case though it would stop at one point but maybe matter is infinite. If matter is infinite then its just a infinite iteration but each iteration hits a end. If we are in a black hole though how could we find the opening to the black hole that we are in? Would we see the light from the other side? These are my internal ramblings on a potential theory of black holes. If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

But what if the black hole is only like a garbage disposer and just annihilates everything into nothing sized particles and traps them inside until it gets to full then it explodes as a ultra nova?

We're not in a black hole. Anything in a black hole must move constantly towards the singularity. Time and space inside black holes do all sorts of funny things.

We're not in a black hole. Anything in a black hole must move constantly towards the singularity. Time and space inside black holes do all sorts of funny things.

Not to mention, life would never evolve. In a black hole you only have sub-atomic particles that MIGHT survive the most extreme gravity. No life-no humans.
In the black hole area there are the most extreme conditions in entire universe, where none and nothing can survive.

Actually Sean Carroll (famous for his GR textbook) has been promoting such ideas, I've seen him talking about it in person. Many like-minded cosmologists believe it may indeed be possible for infinitely large universes to be born inside black holes, and black holes inside such universes could give birth to more universes still. I imagine it requires modifications to General Relativity such as attempts to account for quantum effects, and perhaps it goes even deeper than that. It's all purely speculative though, and I think cosmologists are waiting for someone to discover a working unified field theory before they put a serious effort into addressing these kinds of questions.

Then why do black hole go ultra nova destroying themselves and everything within 1000 light years? :shrug:

Then why do black hole go ultra nova destroying themselves and everything within 1000 light years? :shrug:

Who says they do? If you're talking about the birth of a new universe, the theory is that the new universe would be contained inside a possibly infinite pocket of newly-created spacetime which itself would be contained inside the black hole's event horizon.

Who says they do? If you're talking about the birth of a new universe, the theory is that the new universe would be contained inside a possibly infinite pocket of newly-created spacetime which itself would be contained inside the black hole's event horizon.


This leads to a runaway process and to a final, gigantic flash of energy in which the black hole evaporates." Not sure how much energy would be released in the final moments, but I know one theory about gamma-ray bursts that are sometimes detected is that they are the signatures of small "primordial black holes" created in the big bang which are just evaporating now.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fshowthrea d.php%3Ft%3D84564&v=1&libid=1326722228113&out=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fnph-bib_query%3Fbibcode%3D1996APh.....5..175C%26amp%3B db_key%3DAST%26amp%3Bdata_type%3DHTML%26amp%3Bform at%3D&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26r ct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26frm%3D1%26source%3Dweb% 26cd%3D8%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFgQFjAH%26url%3Dhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.physicsforums.com%252Fshowthread .php%253Ft%253D84564%26ei%3DaCwUT6KqCOrh0QGt__XHAw %26usg%3DAFQjCNFjtMQzdHl2ePJGJGC-Qgq2zecaZA%26sig2%3DyvStUSA0-MJKGWa28Ht_lA&title=Do%20black%20holes%20%22evaporate%22%20or%20 go%20%22bang%22%3F&txt=this%20paper&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13267223501434

This leads to a runaway process and to a final, gigantic flash of energy in which the black hole evaporates." Not sure how much energy would be released in the final moments, but I know one theory about gamma-ray bursts that are sometimes detected is that they are the signatures of small "primordial black holes" created in the big bang which are just evaporating now.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fshowthrea d.php%3Ft%3D84564&v=1&libid=1326722228113&out=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fnph-bib_query%3Fbibcode%3D1996APh.....5..175C%26amp%3B db_key%3DAST%26amp%3Bdata_type%3DHTML%26amp%3Bform at%3D&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26r ct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26frm%3D1%26source%3Dweb% 26cd%3D8%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFgQFjAH%26url%3Dhttp% 253A%252F%252Fwww.physicsforums.com%252Fshowthread .php%253Ft%253D84564%26ei%3DaCwUT6KqCOrh0QGt__XHAw %26usg%3DAFQjCNFjtMQzdHl2ePJGJGC-Qgq2zecaZA%26sig2%3DyvStUSA0-MJKGWa28Ht_lA&title=Do%20black%20holes%20%22evaporate%22%20or%20 go%20%22bang%22%3F&txt=this%20paper&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13267223501434

How can you say for certain? How do you define the energy of a baby universe created inside a black hole, if we're not even sure whether negative energy does or doesn't exist? How do we know that a finite lifetime as seen by an external observer couldn't correspond to an infinite lifetime as seen on the inside? It's all speculation at this point, the only theories we can rule out are those which contradict themselves in some fashion.

Actually Sean Carroll (famous for his GR textbook) has been promoting such ideas, I've seen him talking about it in person. Many like-minded cosmologists believe it may indeed be possible for infinitely large universes to be born inside black holes, and black holes inside such universes could give birth to more universes still. I imagine it requires modifications to General Relativity such as attempts to account for quantum effects, and perhaps it goes even deeper than that. It's all purely speculative though, and I think cosmologists are waiting for someone to discover a working unified field theory before they put a serious effort into addressing these kinds of questions.

Even scientists, including physists, are allowed to have fertile imaginations.

How can you say for certain? How do you define the energy of a baby universe created inside a black hole, if we're not even sure whether negative energy does or doesn't exist? How do we know that a finite lifetime as seen by an external observer couldn't correspond to an infinite lifetime as seen on the inside? It's all speculation at this point, the only theories we can rule out are those which contradict themselves in some fashion.


When you're inside there are only sub-atomic particles that can exist (perhaps), maybe not even that, there are simply no conditions in which life could evolve. No known laws of physics can "survive" inside the black hole-they are totally different from the rest of the universe, and we do know, that the laws of physics in our universe enabled to create conditions for life to evolve, in a black hole there are not such laws of physics compatible to our own universe.

No known laws of physics can "survive" inside the black hole-they are totally different from the rest of the universe, and we do know, that the laws of physics in our universe enabled to create conditions for life to evolve, in a black hole there are not such laws of physics compatible to our own universe.

we have relativity to explain what happens inside a blackhole all the way down until quantum effects take over.

I was thinking what if we are in a black hole and black holes form within black holes and new universes are born within black holes and the matter is infinitely iterated? If that was the case though it would stop at one point but maybe matter is infinite. If matter is infinite then its just a infinite iteration but each iteration hits a end. If we are in a black hole though how could we find the opening to the black hole that we are in? Would we see the light from the other side? These are my internal ramblings on a potential theory of black holes. If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

General relativity predicts the existence of singularities at the heart of a gravitationally collapsed object like a black hole. A complete theory of quantum gravity may predict something else though. My own assumption is that singularities of space-time cannot actually exist, but instead, space-time and mass-energy are condensed into a highly symmetric unified state, or condition, much like the pre-bang universe was before the symmetry was broken and the universe rapidly inflated.

I was thinking what if we are in a black hole and black holes form within black holes and new universes are born within black holes and the matter is infinitely iterated? If that was the case though it would stop at one point but maybe matter is infinite. If matter is infinite then its just a infinite iteration but each iteration hits a end. If we are in a black hole though how could we find the opening to the black hole that we are in? Would we see the light from the other side? These are my internal ramblings on a potential theory of black holes. If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

assuming that black-holes are physically possible in the first place , their not

in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid

and you can only compress a fluid to a certain point where it can't be compressed any further , three dimensionally

think hydraulics

Living in a blackhole? (BH). . . . not too far-fetched IMO . . . there have been much wierder ideas presented on Sciforums. I seem to recall in one of my posts a few months ago - somewhere - I speculated that if we 'lived' in a blackhole everything outside of our BH environ would 'appear' to be receding (expanding) away from us - funny, I guess - . . . .that 'appearances' can be so deceiving . . .

Living in a blackhole? (BH). . . . not too far-fetched IMO . . . there have been much wierder ideas presented on Sciforums. I seem to recall in one of my posts a few months ago - somewhere - I speculated that if we 'lived' in a blackhole everything outside of our BH environ would 'appear' to be receding (expanding) away from us - funny, I guess - . . . .that 'appearances' can be so deceiving . . .

whatever

anyway to reiterate

in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid

and you can only compress a fluid to a certain point where it can't be compressed any further , three dimensionally

think hydraulics

When you're inside there are only sub-atomic particles that can exist (perhaps), maybe not even that, there are simply no conditions in which life could evolve. No known laws of physics can "survive" inside the black hole-they are totally different from the rest of the universe, and we do know, that the laws of physics in our universe enabled to create conditions for life to evolve, in a black hole there are not such laws of physics compatible to our own universe.This is not what general relativity says.

For sufficiently large black holes the forces you experience just inside the black hole's event horizon would be the same as you're feeling now. Normal size black holes have extreme gravitational effects within the event horizon but it gets weaker as the black hole gets larger. This is because the event horizon radius goes like M while the surface gravity goes like 1/M. Inside sufficiently large black holes the space-time can be very close to flat.

in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid



The central parsec around Sagittarius A (the galactic center) contains thousands of stars as well as a supermassive BH of about 4 million solar masses. We're talking of orbital dynamics and astrophysics, not fluid dynamics.

http://i.space.com/images/i/10977/i02/galaxy_spacewarp.jpg

Imagine on the other side of the event horizon are particles completely stripped apart and a new universe expands like a expanding balloon.

http://donsnotes.com/science/astronomy/images/wmap-timeline.jpg

Mod note: Massive picture replaced with a smaller one.

You're getting confused by the pictures. Black holes are generally static, that is they don't change with time (much). The explansion of the universe on the other hand is a very dynamical space. Just because the pictures have similar shape doesn't mean the two are related. It's like saying an ice cream cone must be a musical instrument because it has the same shape as a trumpet.

“ in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid


The central parsec around Sagittarius A (the galactic center) contains thousands of stars as well as a supermassive BH of about 4 million solar masses. We're talking of orbital dynamics and astrophysics, not fluid dynamics.

your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

And you've got a supermassive BH.

You seem to have an odd idea what the core of the galaxy consists of.

My Theory of Black Holes:

The universe contains information; information is physical. In fact everything physical including the abstraction we call "energy" is really just information. Then the universe is a channel in which information flows from a sender to a receiver.

Black holes are like a delay function, which hide information from the receiver, all black holes look the same except for the differences in mass. So this mass difference is the information we receive, as if each BH is an unknown message whose only data we can glean is the size or "length" of.

The second picture in post #21 illustrates this theory--the sender is the BB "event", the receiver is us (or the WMAP satellite, or in fact any measuring device). The universe has a maximum efficiency as a data channel, or, data is being sent at a maximum rate--the channel is at maximum information capacity. Black holes store the maximum amount of information that can be contained in any "region" of the channel, and delay its arrival for a greatest possible interval of time.

You're getting confused by the pictures. Black holes are generally static, that is they don't change with time (much). The explansion of the universe on the other hand is a very dynamical space. Just because the pictures have similar shape doesn't mean the two are related. It's like saying an ice cream cone must be a musical instrument because it has the same shape as a trumpet.

Static or not it wouldn't matter the hole shape of the black hole would not change in time and the shape would remain the same. I believe the fabric of space are the bounds and its just space warping in on itself from a large amount of matter hence the vast amount of gravity. The big bang is just seeing the expansion of the matter which was torn apart from the immense gravity to fundamental particles within a black holes tube. Do you understand what i mean now?

Looks like im a little behind in physics. But its a great feeling to make the connections in your brain yourself as if you discovered the concept yourself.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/we-might-be-living-black-hole-scientist-says

“ Originally Posted by river
your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy



And you've got a supermassive BH.

no you don't

think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repels


You seem to have an odd idea what the core of the galaxy consists of.

different , not really odd , just different

and it makes sense

You seem to have a certain deficiency regarding physics, astronomy, cosmology, and the physical sciences in general.

Perhaps you should do some reading.

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxyIt's still not a fluid in the sense that water is. It's a plasma which gets increasingly dense as you get further in but it doesn't get that dense. We search for black holes often by looking for the X-ray emissions from the hot cloud of gas swirling down into them. Many fluid mechanics like principles apply to plasma and gases (a gas is a fluid) but it don't get like water or the like.


think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repelsThere's no evidence for black holes behaving like that and something tells me you haven't got a formal model of any of this, you're just giving concepts you like the sound of.

The modelling of accretion disks experiencing strong magnetic fields and behaving relativistically is a serious area of research in astrophysics. However, it doesn't support the view you have, that things get compressed into a fluid and becomes incompressible akin to water. Other effects, like heating, relativistic dynamics, tidal forces etc become vastly more important.

Astrophysical plasmas can be very dense (the Sun's many times denser than lead) but those are not black hole situations. Even if an accretion disk compressed to the densities you're talking about (which I don't think it does if memory serves) it isn't stable to collapse like the Sun is, it'll just fall into the event horizon and then its form is irrelevant.


and it makes senseIt makes superficial 'sense' if you don't know much or any of the physical properties black holes have, astrophysical observations or the need to provide quantitative models rather than "I like the sound of this concept". If all you have is superficial concepts it isn't science, it's pseudo nonsense.

river


in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid

Er...no. Even at the very center of our galaxy(a medium sized one)the distance between the stars circulating around the central Supermassive black hole are still measured in light weeks, months and years. Much like an atom our galaxy is mostly empty space. The Central SMBH has an event horizon about the size of the orbit of Jupiter, on a galactic scale that is a pin prick and the closet orbiting star never comes within a tenth of a light year to it. The rest is empty space with scattered dust and gas clouds. Orbital dynamics are the operative conditions, not fluid dynamics. This is why when galaxies collide they usually pass right through each other, collisions between stars almost never happen. The scattering and distortions are the result of gravity, not pressure or physical interactions.

Grumpy:cool:

cosmictraveller


Then why do black hole go ultra nova destroying themselves and everything within 1000 light years?

BHs don't really explode so much as they evaporate. Hawking says that virtual pairs of particles created just outside of the event horizon are split, one particle going into the BH, the other escaping. This is called Hawking Radiation. For any BH larger than an atom this is all right, it takes millions of years(or billions)to get down to the size where the radiation becomes a flash of particles, for bigger(solar size and above)ones there hasn't been enough time in the Universe for them to appreciably shrink. The subatomic sized ones don't have that much energy, so the final moments can't be called an explosion, more like a pop.

Grumpy:cool:

“ Originally Posted by river
into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy ”


It's still not a fluid in the sense that water is. It's a plasma which gets increasingly dense as you get further in but it doesn't get that dense.

yet to get a black-hole at the center of a galaxy , a plasma would get that dense



We search for black holes often by looking for the X-ray emissions from the hot cloud of gas swirling down into them.

or , as I'm thinking these X-rays are because of centrifugal force


Many fluid mechanics like principles apply to plasma and gases (a gas is a fluid) but it don't get like water or the like.

in the galactic core the protons and ions become a fluid

“ Originally Posted by river
think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repels ”


There's no evidence for black holes behaving like that and something tells me you haven't got a formal model of any of this, you're just giving concepts you like the sound of.

galactic jets





The modelling of accretion disks experiencing strong magnetic fields and behaving relativistically is a serious area of research in astrophysics. However, it doesn't support the view you have, that things get compressed into a fluid and becomes incompressible akin to water. Other effects, like heating, relativistic dynamics, tidal forces etc become vastly more important.

Cosmic Plasmas


Astrophysical plasmas can be very dense (the Sun's many times denser than lead) but those are not black hole situations. Even if an accretion disk compressed to the densities you're talking about (which I don't think it does if memory serves) it isn't stable to collapse like the Sun is, it'll just fall into the event horizon and then its form is irrelevant.

above

I was thinking what if we are in a black hole and black holes form within black holes and new universes are born within black holes and the matter is infinitely iterated? If that was the case though it would stop at one point but maybe matter is infinite. If matter is infinite then its just a infinite iteration but each iteration hits a end. If we are in a black hole though how could we find the opening to the black hole that we are in? Would we see the light from the other side? These are my internal ramblings on a potential theory of black holes. If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

Surprisingly enough, there's a theory out there that has become popular about just that. It's pretty well accepted that all galaxies have black holes and most have a super-black hole near the galacic core. The problem with all of that is there is still controversy over whether or not black holes actually exist as they are defined by Penrose and Hawking, meaning with finite or infinite singularities respectively. Are you familiar with the concept of Einstein 4 dimensional box?

I'll post this to bring the thread back up, then do a little cyberfishin' ;)

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

When a smaller box s is situated, relativity at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same "space," which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other...
Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around. But it must be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other...
The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought.

The above is from Einstein's own work. I don't remember whether it is "The Theory of Relativity" or another work, but it is his.


How this relates to you black hole within a black hole (Potentially further and further nested) it would depend on the geometry of the entry point. Using AE's references, if s is within S its bounding is what makes the difference concerning its quantum gravitation. Gravitation itself is still controversial in definition, but if s is a condensed packet of S, it will retain its properties. If s is independent of S, it may be crushed or exploded, so essentially broken where chemical bonds especially are concerned. In either case, it would likely be irrecoverable on the other side.

The Wilkenson's Microwave Anistropic Probe brought up above, depicts this to a great degree, but also depicts a closed system where nothing escapes. Still if we look at the event horizon and consider the detectability of pulsars and "black holes" at all, particles must escape to cause enough radiation to allow detection, or we would simply never receive any signals back in that area. Radiation does escape, but information intact is doubtful.

I am wondering if science has got this black-hole thing right. I was watching Horizon yesterday entitled...'Whose Afraid of a Big Black Hole' and it would appear that many scientists are unsure about them. They appear to be at the centre of all galaxies and have a sliding scale relationship with the amount of mass within each galaxy. Also...what would you expect to find at the centre of a galaxy after a huge, electric storm whipping up a hurrican force that spewed out stars en masse from a cauldron full of dark matter...perhaps a collapsed hurricane in the form of a black-hole???

No takers then...You can hardly expound a new idea unless someone is prepared to take you to task...rip your logic to bits...show wonderful equations that disprove...what to me ...is an indisputable truth. That dark matter, though in its purest form is invisible and undetectable...is the main thrust behind black-holes and the birth of stars.

Can't really have a debate since i don't have a physics degree. I just go by light bulb moments when i feel like my head exploded. I wonder if we are in a black hole how do we get to the other side? Also where would the other side of the black hole be?

Living in a blackhole? (BH). . . . not too far-fetched IMO . . . there have been much wierder ideas presented on Sciforums. I seem to recall in one of my posts a few months ago - somewhere - I speculated that if we 'lived' in a blackhole everything outside of our BH environ would 'appear' to be receding (expanding) away from us - funny, I guess - . . . .that 'appearances' can be so deceiving . . .
why would it appear as if everything is moving away? i'd rather think it would appear as if everything is static.

i feel that particles, stars, "television sets" or whatever you throw into a black hole will never reach its surface. According to Relativity, as we move faster, our speed in time slows down.
Moreover, escape velocity of black holes is greater than the speed of light and, since relativity rules out the possibility of anything traveling at the speed of light, the particle can never reach the surface (unless it reaches a terminal velocity somehow...i wonder how that will take place!)
So, as the particles move closer to the surface, they will slow down and never reach the surface. Again, that is what i think will happen. Plz do tell if you have reasons to think otherwise.

rohIT:

There's no need for something to travel at the speed of light in order to fall into a black hole. It's only getting out of a black hole that requires an escape velocity faster than light.

What actually happens is this:

A distant observer watching a TV set fall into a black hole will see the TV falling. As it falls, the light from the set becomes more and more red-shifted. The set also appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon. In fact, it never quite reaches the event horizon before it "fades to black".

A person riding on the same TV set sees something quite different. They see the outside universe behind them becoming more blue-shifted as they fall towards the event horizon. As they cross the horizon, they don't notice anything special. Then, a while after that, they start to feel immense tidal forces which gradually pull them apart (spaghettification!). The person and TV set then are ripped apart into constituent atoms and sub-atomic particles. When they reach the singularity, we don't know what happens, exactly.

i feel that ...
Why do so many people insist on trying physics with their feelings? This is never valid.

...particles, stars, "television sets" or whatever you throw into a black hole will never reach its surface...
As long as the stuff dropped in can be treated as a test mass, that is as long as you can neglect the effect on spacetime of whats infalling then what you have is a static state Kerr solution really but most people will answer this in reference to the Schwarzschild solution and then yes it would take forever according to a remote observer for anything to cross the event horizon. Thats the typical answer you'll get, but in reality the metric won't actually be one of those solutions, but will be dynamic including the effects on spacetime of both the mass of the black hole and whatever is falling into it. The real answer is that its a nonlinear problem where the event horizon does grow to consume the matter around the hole as the stuff is infalling and this does happen in finite remote time.

@James R
What i am saying is that when the particles "land" on the surface of a black-hole (need not and, can't acc to String Theory, be a singularity), they must have velocity greater than the speed of light. Consider an object being thrown up from the surface of the earth. In absence of any fluid friction from atmosphere, the object must reach the surface of the earth with the same velocity it was thrown up in order to conserve energy. Now, the same thing must apply for BHs. If an object from outside is falling into a balk hole, its velocity on its surface needs to be equal to the escape velocity unless a terminal velocity is reached by the body. Moreover, as the object speeds up, its time slows down. So, for the object, it can as well "feel" as though it is stationary in time and thus does not move at all.

I understand the difficulty in trying to bring feelings into what fact should say, but, you cant predict anything inside the black hole. All you have are a set of equations, and this set, you cant verify to be true inside a black hole as you cannot observe what is happening to things as they fall inside. I think, in situations like this, intuition could be given a chance and then whether it is correct or not, can be verified theoretically.
Again, what i suggested, wasn't baseless :)
A black hole cannot have an atmosphere and so, there is very little probability of viscous forces making the particles to reach a terminal velocity. Basically, what i typed previously :)

..., you cant predict anything inside the black hole. All you have are a set of equations, and this set, you cant verify to be true inside a black hole as you cannot observe what is happening to things as they fall inside...

A black hole cannot have an atmosphere and so, there is very little probability of viscous forces making the particles to reach a terminal velocity. Basically,...

You begin here by saying that what occurs within a black hole is essentially limited to theory, this much is true...

The problem then seems to be that though you have defined a black hole as theoretical you add an absolute statement that a black hole cannot have an atmosphere.

The question to you then becomes why can't a black hole have an atmosphere? And what other than theory, your own in this case, dictates it to be so?

If we follow the logic of experience and observation, any gravitating object of sufficient mass should have an atmosphere. A black hole certainly seems to have sufficient mass. And you have already established that most of what goes on in a black hole is theoretical and unconfirmed.

@OnlyMe
The reason why i wrote that is a black hole's immense gravity. It will pull to its surface anything that is near. But, that's only when the black hole is formed (Neutron stars are said to have few centimeters of atmosphere). Now, when a particle enters the event horizon with any velocity, its potential energy loss as it falls inside is compensated by increase in kinetic energy. So, if a particle entered the event horizon with 0 velocity, it will reach with as much velocity on its surface as is required for it to escape from the black hole with 0 velocity if it is projected from the same point. It implies that a particle has to reach a velocity greater than speed of light, which relativity rules out. So, maybe, these particles are suspended above the surface (this is only a speculation) and when sufficient particles are suspended, probably those can provide enough resistance to slow down the falling particles.
So, if this secondarily acquired (if at all it is) atmosphere is what you are talking about, it could (theoretical and unconfirmed) but, it cannot have an atmosphere right from its birth.