| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/12/2007 9:52:17 AM | | A Black Hole is the singular absence of all matter and energy. The absense of all matter is called a Vacuum, and it will immedaitely draw in all matter it possibly can to rebalance itself. The same thing applies to Black Holes, the black hole draws in any source of energy that it can - including light - until it can rebalance itself. Then it, adn the energy simply disapeers, there energy is not there, it never was. The black hole is a disagreement to the laws of physics. Anything pulled into the black hole ceases to exist and never existed at all. A parodox was created, so the law of physics changes iteself thereby meaning that the enrgy that caused the laws of physics to change, get this, it never existed, so it never changed at all. I dont know if anybody else can understand this paradox, but i can. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/12/2007 1:56:15 PM | X-rays can escape from black holes, but I can't.
If I was sucked into a black hole would I still be able to use my x-ray vision to see what I was missing out on back here? | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/13/2007 12:42:53 AM | To give you an idea of the scale of our universe, Imagine our solar system is 10 inches from the sun to pluto, at this scale the nearest star is 660 yards away , nearly 7 football fields. This has nothing to do with blackholes . | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/13/2007 12:45:19 AM |
The same thing applies to Black Holes, the black hole draws in any source of energy that it can - including light - until it can rebalance itself. Then it, adn the energy simply disapeers, there energy is not there, it never was. The black hole is a disagreement to the laws of physics. Anything pulled into the black hole ceases to exist and never existed at all. A parodox was created, so the law of physics changes iteself thereby meaning that the enrgy that caused the laws of physics to change, get this, it never existed, so it never changed at all. I dont know if anybody else can understand this paradox, but i can.
what | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/13/2007 9:03:04 PM | From what I understand a black hole isn't a hole, a point, or a sphere, it is a ring/disk that is spinning at an extremely rapid speed (1million miles an hour).
1 theory states that if you (or anything else, matter /energy) passes through the ring it would enter hyperspace and would be spit out someplace else in the universe, or another universe altogether.
This information is from an interview of Michio Kaku on Coast to Coast AM. Please correct me if any of this is wrong, I know the info I am using is about 10 years old.
http://www.mkaku.org/
his myspace has a few blog entries about black holes | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 31 | |
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/14/2007 8:17:33 AM |
X-rays can escape from black holes
if they could they wouldn't be called black holes because you could see them via the x-ray spectrum of light... | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/14/2007 8:28:26 AM | | Exactly, X-rays are radiation. Radiation is Nuclear energy. They will get pulled in aswell. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/14/2007 9:06:25 AM | X-rays are one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for proving the existence of black holes. X-ray binaries (stars that emit large amounts of X-rays) spew out X-rays that are drawn in and captured by black holes.
Exactly, X-rays are radiation. Radiation is Nuclear energy. They will get pulled in aswell.
Black holes are believed to emit a thermal radiation (call Hawking radiation) due to quantum effects. Black holes that emit more matter this way than they gain through other means will actually shrink. However, the existence of Hawking radiation is controversial. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/14/2007 10:29:54 AM | | Even if it is controversial, it is still an interesting topic of discussion. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/15/2007 1:45:30 PM | | All these questions have been answered already in Disneys "The Black Hole" , it was really a documentary. Love that cowboy robot. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/15/2007 8:04:20 PM | "hole" is not a shape.
M-W's first definition of "hole": an opening through something : perforation b: an area where something is missing
It's called a hole because things go into it and not out ("enter the hole") and it's called black because no light comes from it.
A Black Hole is the singular absence of all matter and energy. Quite the opposite. A Black Hole is an of matter-energy so massive and so concentrated that it deforms space-time to the extent that not even light can escape.
The absense of all matter is called a Vacuum, and it will immedaitely draw in all matter it possibly can to rebalance itself. No. Vacuums do absolutely nothing. Pressure *pushes* material, and vacuums (remember, they do nothing) don't resist.
But the issue with a black hole isn't about pressure; it's about gravity.
The same thing applies to Black Holes, the black hole draws in any source of energy that it can - including light - until it can rebalance itself. A black hole is a concentration of matter-energy. As it draws in more, it becoms bigger and more powerful.
Then it, adn the energy simply disapeers, there energy is not there, it never was. Energy cannot disappear. It's the first law of thermodynamics.
The black hole is a disagreement to the laws of physics. Anything pulled into the black hole ceases to exist and never existed at all. A parodox was created, so the law of physics changes iteself thereby meaning that the enrgy that caused the laws of physics to change, get this, it never existed, so it never changed at all. I dont know if anybody else can understand this paradox, but i can. You were high when you wrote this weren't you? | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/16/2007 1:13:50 AM |
black hole is a concentration of matter-energy. As it draws in more, it becoms bigger and more powerful.
Thats my understading of it.
Black holes takes different forms, there are stellar black holes, supermassive black holes , perhapes inter-mediary black holes and some others perhapes.
There is alot of evidence of the first two. | |
|
| help!
Posted: 3/20/2007 9:00:12 PM | | You should go check out some of the info on supermassive black holes which are basically black holes containing millions to billions of solar masses. One is suspected to be right in the middles of our galaxy. Its amazing how much we have learned about these in the last 40 years. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 12:07:58 AM |
I don;t get the collapsing in on itself. Once it collapses in on itself, what is on the other side of all that sucking, where is the matter that is getting sucked going after it gets sucked?
At the other side is the center of the black hole, which is the entire mass collapsed to zero size.
Michael | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 12:14:13 AM |
Black holes were 'discovered' as a theoretical object in the late 1700's or early 1800's as an exercise to find out if the Newtonian Theory would be able to calculate at what mass and volume would not allow light to escape.
Newtonian theory predicted a different behavior for black holes than what we know how they act under general relativity.
A Newtonian black hole would not necessarily have mass concentrated into a single point. Under general relativity, a black hole will inevitably have a mass concentrated into a single point.
The most important difference is that under Newton's laws of motion, there is no limit to the speed of an object, so objects on the surface of a black hole would be able to escape if it was fast enough (faster than light emitted from the surface.) General relativity predicts that nothing can exceed the speed of light, so nothing can escape a black hole.
Michael | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 8:21:21 AM |
A Newtonian black hole would not necessarily have mass concentrated into a single point. Under general relativity, a black hole will inevitably have a mass concentrated into a single point.
So which theory do you personally agree with more? ....the "Newtonian Black Hole" or the "General relativity Black Hole"
I don't know personally, which one is the right view, I don't know what can be faster then light that can escape a black hole. Actually there is something that is faster then light and that is the "speed of SIGHT".....meaning as you know, when we look up into the stars, it takes our vision or siight to reach those stars for us to receive the feedback, it takes it about 100th of a second, or under one second either way.
I was taught this theory about the speed of site and I agree that is faster then light.
But back on topic, I'm sure there are other theories of black holes too. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 10:23:10 AM |
Actually there is something that is faster then light and that is the "speed of SIGHT".....meaning as you know, when we look up into the stars, it takes our vision or siight to reach those stars for us to receive the feedback, it takes it about 100th of a second, or under one second either way.
Unless I'm misinterpreting something, you make it sound like our eyeballs are exuding something that reaches those stars.
When we see something, its because light is entering our eyeballs (at light speed, with minor speed variations depending on the medium - air, water, etc.), not because our eyeballs are radiating sight rays that extend outward.
So when we see something that is 100 light years away, our sight isn't travelling that far to observe that phenomena, that phenoma radiated light that travelled 100 years to reach us. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 10:36:31 AM |
So which theory do you personally agree with more? ....the "Newtonian Black Hole" or the "General relativity Black Hole" Newton was clearly wrong. Einstein gets us far closer to reality, though whether he gets us all the way there is yet to be determined.
Actually there is something that is faster then light and that is the "speed of SIGHT".....meaning as you know, when we look up into the stars, it takes our vision or siight to reach those stars for us to receive the feedback, it takes it about 100th of a second, or under one second either way You don't see stars. You see light that they had emitted. If a star 1,000ly away blew up 500 years ago and was now completely gone, and you looked up in the sky at it, you would still see it; and you will for another 500 years. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 8:41:36 PM |
So which theory do you personally agree with more? ....the "Newtonian Black Hole" or the "General relativity Black Hole"
General relativity is a more accurate description of reality than Newtonian mechanics. I would have to believe that the general relativity description for a black hole is correct.
Michael | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/22/2007 10:57:16 PM | | Let me try an oversimplification, although what I say about them is too brief to be all there is about them. They are what is left of stars that are so heavy they collapse under their own weight. Nothing can escape from them and this includes light. | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:27:59 AM | 2FindU...
"No one has visited one." Yes, that was funny. I have been reading your posts and want to thank you for your elegant explanation of an important part of what one day be The Unified Theory.
I do not like Hawking. I don't consider him a true physicist - more like a mathematician with a bad attitude...
And, yes...I do have my own personal unified theory. Don't we all...LOL
Regards from New York... | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:32:47 AM | Isn't that what Hawking backed down on...?
That light could not escape...
When you say escape...do you mean light somehow got in there and now cannot get out..?
Jane | |
|
| help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:36:12 AM | There is a Black Hole in the middle of every galaxy....
You are right - something new all the time...
Hurray for the Hubble Telescope<3
Jane | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:39:24 AM | General Relativity (or at least a portion of it) will be kicked to the curb, if not in our lifetime, but soon enough...
And of course something can exceed the speed of light. We just don't know what it is yet...
Jane | |
|
| Black holes...help!
Posted: 3/23/2007 9:58:09 AM | Ok I just want to mention about the "spead of sight" thing that I heard.
I was thinking about this yesterday in a scenario. Lets say I was about to (God forbid it would ever happen offcourse) .....but lets say I was about to get sucked into a black hole and I was facing the other way ....that is away from the Black hole. When I look the other way in that last final milla second I would still see other space objects and stars light years away, the very possibility that a person would probably still be able to see an object hundreds and thousands of light years away, doesn't that that prove that:
a) something CAN escape the black holes gravitational influence whether it's light or sight
b) If light cannot escape the gravitational influence of the black hole, then (again according and based on this scenario) since something could have escaped from the black hole based on the fact that this person would and probably would see distant objects away, i am confident that the vary fact that he or she would see stars light years away in his/her final moments before being sucked in....tells me that something DID escape (IF such a scenario could be true) which I beleive it could be.
I think especially for the Super Massive Black Holes this scenario can be true, because it would take much longer for a person to get sucked into it and the tidal forces are not as powerful as a stellar Black holes are and there that person would have SOME time to witness the stars around them in space and therefore the fact that the vision can reach those stars OR the fact that the light registered means either that light can escape OR that there may be a force (sight?) that did escape by virtue of the person being able to see distantr objects around him/her thousands of light years away. | |
|
Home
login 
