A question of Black holes.

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">alokmohan's</font>previous post was a snip from this article. (And BTW <font color="yellow">alokmohan</font> please remember to provide the links.)<br /><br />Check his profile - English is not his first language. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Thanks you bail me out.I should have given the link.

 

[daniko]

A-and after the break - back to our tonight's topic <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> :<br /><br /><b>!!! Coliding Black Holes !!!</b><br /><br />Here are some new brain-buster ideas <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="orange"><b>BBI No1: There *aren't* any Black Hole - celestial objects in our current universe</b></font><br />So why be so sure? Folowing the ideas of my previou posts here - we can reach the idea that in our real current time we could not observe a *real* Black Hole. The shrinking of the candidate Black Hole under the diameter of the Event Horisont will be stretched in time infinitely and will not happen in *our* universe. <br />Thatway what we could observe would be only <b><font color="red">LAMNEST</font>/b> (LAst Minute NEutron STar). It will appear just like the Black Hole, but won't be so violent in nature.<br /><br /><font color="orange"><b>BBI No2: All the Matter will gather in One Big <b><font color="red">LAMNEST</font>/b> before dive under the Event Horisont</b></b></font><br />So why be so sure? Why all the candidate Black Holes will wait for one other before the Big-Dive?<br />If we look at the Universe from the surface of a <b>LAMNEST</b> we well *see* that all starts went crazy. They dash through the sky in a great hurry. That's because millions of years pass in the *real* Universe just in one second of <b>LAMNEST</b>'s time.<br />If another <b>LAMNEST</b> is headed toward the observer's one - it will appear firstly that it approaches in flashing speed - superluminal! Then after the distance becomes small the motion of the incoming star will become *normal* because it will enter the observer's star time-frame. But this will happen not before the two stars are a few seconds away.<br /><br />So in the last minute of the Neutron Star - that we observe from - it will appear that all the things in the Universe happen at once and all the matter - drop onto the <b>LAMNEST</b>'s surface at once.<b></b></b>

 

[ecitonburchelli]

I don't believe in "Black Holes," not as they are thought of. I do think something is there, but it is beyond our understanding. First, "black holes" were rare- then everytime a solution to something was needed, a "black hole" was plugged in - and now they seem to everywhere. I find that very suspect. Hawking says nothing can escape, then when there are "holes" in his theory, he's like "Oh, yes, there's Hawking radiation." I don't buy any of it- not yet.

 

[alokmohan]

General theory of relativity supports existence of a black hole.It is Einsteins legacy.

 

[daniko]

I think we have no conflict with mr. Einstein <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Hi said that there could be theoretically Black Holes, but he didn't said - right here and right now !<br /><br />What I say is that the process of formation of the Black Hole drives it away in the future so we will always be in the past of all the Black Holes !

 

[alokmohan]

Black hole is a dying star having mass of more than three suns.By process of degenaration it collapses on itself.Schwarschild was first to work out how a black hole should be.Black hole initially had name schwarschild singularity.John Wheeler named it black hole in 1967.

 

[alokmohan]

Black holes are solar size and massive.

 

[thamior]

A singularity is infinitely dense correct? So in the fabric of space-time it would create an infinitely deep dent, which is like a hole, hence the name Black Hole?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--What is the truth but a wisp of truly un-attainable information.  There is no absolute truth anyways, only false perceptions and misgivings.--     </p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

A singularity is a point in space-time at which the density of matter and the gravitational field are infinite (forming a black hole). Singularities are points at which the mathematical solution to the space-time equations are <b><font color="yellow">undefined.</font>In fact, it must be noted almost all aspects of the definition reflect an inability to define the exact nature of a singularity and borrows from the trait <i>infinite</i> to define the undefinable.</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Wheeler says we can know by quantum gravity,fierry marriage of quantum mechanics and Einsteins gravity theory.

 

[alokmohan]

Read Wheeler.

 

[enigma10]

Reading Wheeler and agreeing with Wheeler can be two different things. Calm down on the Wheeler thing. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> Besides. This last post was only in refference to the definition of a singularity, which really sees a diverse interpretation. Something i find disturbing when used to define other effects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

You are compelled to obey Wheeler.Wheeler ordered so and schwarzchid singularies was named black hole.No more frozen star,only black hole.All these happened in 1967.You were not there probably.

 

[enigma10]

<i>Wheeler, by combining the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity in a tentative and crude way, deduced that in a region the size of the Planck-Wheeler Length, 1.62*10^-33 centimeter or smaller, the vacuum fluctuations are so huge that space as we know it 'boils' and becomes a froth of quantum foam--the same sort of quantum foam as makes up the core of a spacetime singularity" (Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, 494).</i><br /><br /> There. I read some of his work. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[nexium]

I'm skeptical about the info in the past twenty posts. Main stream astronomers believe blackholes start out as stars of 6? solar mass or more. Lesser stars become neutron stars, which produce only minor time dialation.<br />From about 0.2 to 1.4 solar mass, stars become white dwarfs which are about the volume of Earth, and produce barely detectable time dilation. While the main stream opinions are little supported by observation, the preceeding 20 posts are supported by nothing other than a vivid imagination. Rebutals will be appreciated. Neil

 

[enigma10]

Unsure if you're comment is directed to me, but the majority of my last 20 posts did not introduce anything new or not already known. Please specify if you feel i had. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[thamior]

Well anyways, I think i get the idea of what a singularity is now, Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--What is the truth but a wisp of truly un-attainable information.  There is no absolute truth anyways, only false perceptions and misgivings.--     </p> </div>

 

[daniko]

O.k. <b><font color="blue">nexium</font>/b> - I see - it's a chalenge to me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Let's pick it appart and see what will come out.<br />If I correctly understood the source of your skepticism - you think that Space-Time distortion effects predicted by Einstein's Relativity Theory - are not so significant to be taken into account.<br />As mentioned by <b><font color="blue">Enigma10</font>/b> and <b><font color="blue">alokmohan</font>/b> - Black Holes first emerged on the scientifical scene as a mathematical abstraction. It was predicted that in case of unlimited gravitational colapse of the matter - when extreme matter desities appear - the modest Time-Space distortion jumps sky-high toward infinity.<br />In the begining it was considere much sciencefictional. Things change when through observations astronomers locate regions of space where ruther extreme effects could be observed. These effects are belived to result from extreme gravitational distortion and since no masive star could be observed to produce it - a non emmiting star is suspected (i.e. Black Hole Star).<br />But as no direct observation of non emmiting star could be performed - the only thing that could be inferred is:<br /><br /><b>(1) Very Strong Gravity Effects + (2) No Observable Star<br />== /> (3) Situation Is Well Explained Through Black Hole Star Model</b><br /><br />So in this context:<br />(1) Sky-High Space-Time distortion - means<br />(1.1) Extreme (toward infinity) Time-Dillation<br />(1.2) Extreme (toward infinity) Redshift of emmited Light = Practically undetedtable<br /><br />As a result a Hung-Out ToBe BlackHole could form the same observational situation, so won't conflict with the observations.<br /><br />At this point I think my assumptions are based on scientifical facts (as far as I know) and are fed by a good dosage of logic.<br />If there are any other reasons for your skepticism I'll be glad to read them.</b></b></b>

 

[R1]

I think blackholes are divided into 2 categories.<br /><br /><br /><br />1) Stellar black holes <br /><br />2) and Supermassive black holes<br /><br />stellars are small and can be almost anywhere ,<br />supermassives are thought to be in glactic centers<br /><br />Reading today's articles on black holes on Science.com was exciting!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I think soon we will be able to observe space time distortion near the black holes<br /><br />Personally my opinion is that the time distortion effect that the supermassives would have is far greater<br />than most people realize. If I had a vote on deciding what to call spacetime I would probably call<br />it time-space. It just seems that time was originally added on to space and little understood or as if only<br />being a negligible cause or effect.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

The Milky Way isn't quite so milky in the center; it's black. All those beautiful twinkling stars in the night sky are circling a massive black hole. <br />University of California-Los Angeles professor Andrea Ghez will be at the University of Arizona on Feb. 23 to give a lecture titled "Unveiling a Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy." <br />The free, 7:30 p.m. event will be in Room N-210 of the Steward Observatory, 933 N. Cherry Ave., as part of UA's Marc Aaronson Memorial Lecture. <br />Ghez, who has led a team of astronomers taking photos of stars near the galaxy's center, will talk about the research and how the black hole was discovered.http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/42616.php <br />

 

[thamior]

Haven't we known about the black hole at the center of our galaxy for years now? I remember first reading about it in an article about a year ago. Do you know what exactly he will be unveilling in his lecture? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--What is the truth but a wisp of truly un-attainable information.  There is no absolute truth anyways, only false perceptions and misgivings.--     </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

I was wondering myself.We have to see what says.

 

[onesimple]

Did you see that videoclips?<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM9uYv1XQzg<br /><br />Savor<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[alokmohan]

They say black hole is concentrated energy.I doubt if that is the right explanation or definition.When neutron star implodes on itself by its own gravity ,we get black hole.It is frozen star.