Black Holes (yes I know, a cliche group of questions)

franklinbr · Sep 28, 2005

Ok I know what black holes are, but how they exist in certain concepts I am confused about (please forgive as I am a true layman at this, my degrees are in education and theology, not astrophysics...at least until the next decision to go back to grad school!). First of all, I have heard, I don’t know where, the term galaxy sized black holes...are these quasars? Or are these actual galaxy sized black holes that have formed through galaxies crashing into one another? If they are from galaxies that have crashed together, do these (on a universe sized consideration of time) grow less hectic and violent over time? Or do they grow in violence due to the time it takes a galaxy to ram into another galaxy? How would a galaxy sized black hole, if I got it right that there are such beasts out there in the universe, affect other galaxies even at a distance from one to another (galaxies that would pass by one another but not ram into one another). Second of all, there are some who say that the universe itself exists in a black hole, not sure what those of you who may read this may say, but how is this related to the consideration of the Big Bang? How is this related to the concept of singularities found (I believe I read) in the largest of black holes (or at least a greater formed singularities in the largest of black holes)? Is the idea that mass and energy flows within a black hole and that feeds this universe? Does that mean that there was, for a quantum moment, a white hole that exploded into the Big Bang? Please realize these are serious questions, and I hope to God that you don’t think I’ve been reading way too many Doctor Who novels, these are just terms I’ve seen or heard before and I am trying to get clarification upon them. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

jatslo · Sep 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Ok I know what black holes are, but how they exist in certain concepts I am confused about (please forgive as I am a true layman at this, my degrees are in education and theology, not astrophysics...at least until the next decision to go back to grad school!). <hr /></blockquote>Okay.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />First of all, I have heard, I don’t know where, the term galaxy sized black holes...are these quasars? Or are these actual galaxy sized black holes that have formed through galaxies crashing into one another? If they are from galaxies that have crashed together, do these (on a universe sized consideration of time) grow less hectic and violent over time? Or do they grow in violence due to the time it takes a galaxy to ram into another galaxy? How would a galaxy sized black hole, if I got it right that there are such beasts out there in the universe, affect other galaxies even at a distance from one to another (galaxies that would pass by one another but not ram into one another). <hr /></blockquote>Quasars, black holes, dark stars, etc.; same animal; however, there are others with different views. Black Holes can merge, and the combined mass is greater than when they were separate. Black holes will dissipate, or decay over time, if they are starved. This is similar to stars, except gravity is a denominator in behavior. Galaxies can be locked gravitationally to one another like planets in a solar system.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Second of all, there are some who say that the universe itself exists in a black hole, not sure what those of you who may read this may say, but how is this related to the consideration of the Big Bang? How is this related to the concept of singularities found (I believe I read) in the largest of black holes (or at least a greater formed singular</blockquote>

newtonian · Sep 28, 2005

Jatslo - expansion is constant? Well, in our universe while expansion is evidently eternal, it is not necessarily constant - many astronomers believe it is accelerating. Sorry to pink on one phrase - your response was excellent - I probably misunderstood you on the above detail.

newtonian · Sep 28, 2005

FranklinBR - Interesting questions. On expansion into a black hole, were you aware of this verse (I am more of a Bible student than a student of theology): (Jude 13) . . .stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever. I am not sure of the correct scientific interpretion of this illustration, though other illustrations in the context are also true literally. These dark stars are an illustration of evil people with characteristics like Jesus stated: (Matthew 6:23) 23 but if your eye is wicked, your whole body will be dark. If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is! Black holes would be the literal application of these illustrations, as the light in black holes does become darkness - and that darkness is great indeed Getting back to Jude 13 - note that these dark stars have no set course and will be in darkness forever. Compare Job 38:31, which may illustrate how gravitational bonds between stars and groups of stars can either be held fast or be loosended. To have no set course at all, howerver, the dark stars in the illustration at Jude 13 would have to escape all gravitational bonds, not merely have these bonds loosened. I suspect this applies to black holes which have achieved escape velocity from the graviational influence of our universe and have expanded into a black void. That is not exactly espanding into a black hole - but the similarity in models in noteworthy. It is more likely that these dark stars have not merely expanded beyond our light cone or visibility horizon, but have actually permanently and eternally escaped the light and gravity of our universe!!!! As to what our universe is expanding into - I am not sure, but note this Scriptural hint or clue: (1 Kings 8:27) . . .“But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of th

franklinbr · Sep 28, 2005

Well in terms of parallel universe, I have this in mind, and please realize I don’t have the math in front of me...not that I would have understood the math problems, I have trouble doing my bank account! Anyway. I believe that there are possible other universes, but I do not believe, say, two universes away, I’m eating a ham sandwich instead of a chicken sandwich. I realize that when you go into particle physics, you see situations like the good ol’ Shrodinger Cat theory... particles existing simultaneously on different (paralleling) possibilities. However, finding myself in Scripture, I would say that we live one life and then we die and then we are judged (I wont go into theology as I am trying to gain an astrophysicist p.o.v. on the matter of which brought the original questions in mind). That being said, and I’ll just use this example, I do not believe there is one Universe where Abraham did sacrifice Isaac while in our universe Abraham didn’t sacrifice Isaac. I believe once the main and specific action is taken, then the parallels drop and the action ferments and becomes what we see as reality. On that matter, and sorry this will have a bit of theology in it after all (dreadfully sorry), I believe that God (at least how I view God through my Scriptural studies and theological studies) would both be on the outside of the Cat’s box and on the inside of the Cat’s box...thus seeing omnipotently the possibilities... however, due to free will of each of us, once that specific choice is made (will I eat a chicken sandwich or a ham sandwich is made on to will I cheat on my spouse or will I not cheat on my spouse)...God knowing the outcome but not fiddling with that outcome (since He already set in motion one of two choices being made due to the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus)...that universe becomes the prime material universe and the “main” one at that when that action becomes a concrete reality. At least what we as humans with our limited eye

newtonian · Sep 29, 2005

FranklinBR - Most posters here are civil - with few exceptions - I like this forum for that reason - also the moderators are moderate - they do an excellent job. Many prefer to treat science as separate from the Bible - however, I sure don't mind your bringing out exactly how you feel and how you are thinking - and why. Newton and Galileo, among many other excellent scientists, believed in both the Bible and science and saw no conflict between the two. Believing in the Bible surely did not hinder their scientific accomplishments - far from it! Now, more on science - specifically parallel universes. While I believe in many universes (scientifically - I just feel it is mathemastically unlikely our universe is the only universe) - I reject the parallel universe idea - I see only philosophical support for those models - no observational evidence. I am aware that the prestigious scientific journal, Scientific American, did recently run an article on parallel universes showing why some scientists believe in them - but I am far from convinced. Note, on the theoligical point you brought out about God knowing outcomes, that my religion does not teach that God knows whether we will choose to love Him or not. There are many Scriptural reasons for this - here is just one: (Genesis 6:5-6) 5 Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. . . Now, if God knew the outcome, why did He feel regrets and feel hurt at his heart? To us, the type of love God created cannot be programmed or forced - the outcome simply is not sealed - this makes this form of love a much higher achievement of creation - far beyond what human creators can incorporate into artificial intelligence (AI). However, this

jatslo · Sep 29, 2005

Leave at accelerating and were good <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Or were good on "accelerating ", I mean. Starting to get sleepy.

franklinbr · Sep 29, 2005

Thank you, Newtonian, for your reply, you have given me much to think about. I think that, though, the point of Genesis that you have read is not so much point by point blank historical study, but a series of historical events placed together through the writings of Moses and those around the time he died (probably his brother or someone to that affect). They were using conventional writing styles that were used at that time period. God felt hurt, yes, He knew they would do what they did, but He still felt pain at how far the human race fell into its own evil. There is free will, yes, but man at his most free will, will often choose evil over good (or at least what gives him the best possible solution or gratification over the next fellow). I myself believe in a literal view toward the Bible, but under different types of literal points of views—literal history (such as the events in Exodus and the virgin birth, life, death, resurrection of Jesus); literal symbolism (such as saying Jesus is the “Lamb” of God); literal ministry (such as the Sermon on the Mount); literal prophecy (such as what you read in Daniel or Revelation); and literal analogy (such as “the kingdom of God is like…”). I would agree that there are probably an infinite amount of other universes, but they do not follow the parallel theory as we have both seen in the articles. Other universes most likely, instead of having me but with different choices, most likely do not support life (as the % chance of life in any given universe is pretty slim, and most likely most of those other universes have low chance of life). Of course this brings to mind the fascinating picture I once saw in a book (or it could have been an article in a journal), showing multitudes of spheres with both wormholes and black holes attaching one sphere (universes) to another, thereby sending energy and mass and matter back and forth (depending upon the situation of course). Still I don’t think many of those universes have a

franklinbr · Sep 29, 2005

Please realize that while I am delving in the nature of black holes and parallel universes, I'm not here trying to convert, I just wish to gain some perspective on these subjects, and then with those answering me, bounce off some ideas that juggle through my brain. These ideas are of course based upon what I am learning in astrophysics and theoretical physics (both based upon reading laymen books on the physic subjects). I am fascinated by the possibilities of what these subjects have to say about the One I worship, the God that I know of the Bible. Dont worry, though, I do not plan to have everyone hold hands and sing Kumbayah around a campfire.

newtonian · Sep 30, 2005

FranklinBR - Your welcome. That is why it is good to discuss things with those who think along different lines, including outside the box so to speak. I will respond better later, as I am busy with Katrina relief. However, note that those of my faith do not believe the standard doctrines or traditional beliefs on the matters being discussed on this thread - but derive our religious beliefs solely from the Bible - discarding sometimes cherished pre-conceived ideas and interpretations. Also note that I personally am quite independent, albeit loyal, when it comes to scientific research on relevant tangents. Specifically and briefly, we believe in God's selective foreknowledge - that he controls his abilites in a loving way so as to allow us full freedom of choice. In other words, futute time does not yet exist for anyone, including God, to see. Yet, Isaiah 55:10,11 does show God can cause a specific phophecy to be fulfilled - this does not require that future time already existed for God to see - God has other ways to determine outcomes or seal results. This is very important scientifically, btw. Whether future time already exists and therefore whether patterns are already sealed in future time has immense scientific and theological ramifications. As God created our universe's space time [Note: primordial time, the time during which our universe's space time was created by cause and effect, may have always existed], he had the ability either to seal a future patten or to let future patterns be literally unpredictable by anyone, including Himself. To deny that God would have the ability to create our universe, and also the quality of higher love (Greek: agape] involving choice, with these properties is actually lessening God's qualities. In short, God has self-control over his powers and abilities. And the result is that humans are truly created

rodrunner79 · Oct 6, 2005

Hi all, I know this thread has been dead for over a week now, but I didn't want to create another thread just to ask a question pertaining to blackholes. So my question is, if somehow man have a developed an anti-gravity device. Do you guys think it's possible to use this to get inside the event horizon without feeling any tidal forces or gravitation? Just a thought.

CalliArcale · Oct 6, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Please realize these are serious questions, and I hope to God that you don’t think I’ve been reading way too many Doctor Who novels, these are just terms I’ve seen or heard before and I am trying to get clarification upon them. Any help would be greatly appreciated!<hr /></blockquote> There is no such thing as too many Doctor Who novels. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> At least I hope not; I've got a box full of them in my basement! As far as the early seconds of the universe, classical physics is not much help. Classical physics, even with Einstein's corrections, breaks down in the extreme environment of the early universe. Describing it as a black or white hole is probably not accurate; those terms are probably meaningless in the early universe. A black hole is something so dense that there exists an orbital altitude above it where escape velocity is the speed of light or greater -- which, by modern physics, means that spacetime is curving back on itself and there is no escape. They do not have to be huge. You may have heard of black holes created in labs? These are extremely tiny, and because they are so tiny, they are no danger. The event horizon (the altitude at which orbital velocity is precisely c, the speed of light) is so small that such a black hole can pass through solid matter completely unimpeded -- it can fit between electrons. It also evaporates almost instantaneously. (Black holes evaporate via Hawking Radiation, so they are not immortal, and in fact have a very clear finite lifespan if they are not being fed more mass to replace what they are radiating away.) The biggest black holes are not the diameter of a galaxy like the Milky Way. They are much smaller. But they form the hearts of many galaxies, and possibly all of them. These are gargantuan black holes, technically called supermassive black holes. They were either created in the Dark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nexium · Oct 6, 2005

Calli gave an excelent description of the life of stars, up to and including black holes. Hi rodrunner: Anti gravity has proved very elusive, so we are not likely to overcome a trillion g of gravity near the event horizon of small black holes. Super massive black holes are thought to be only about one million g at the event horizon, but may reach a google g close to the singularity. Very advanced anti grav, if there ever is such a thing, may allow passing though the event horizon of super massive black holes, repeatedly, but beware of the singularity at the center. The accreation disk likely extends almost to the singualarity, and it is also very dangerous both inside and outside the event horizon, except where there is very little matter in the accreation disk. Neil

nexium · Oct 6, 2005

We think we have observed black holes the size of our solar system. Much larger is theoretically possible, but the only possible observation is quasars, which may have little to do with black holes. Someone calculated the mass of a black hole with a radius of 15 billion light years and it came out about the same as the theoroized mass of our visable universe (including the dark matter) so we may live inside a black hole, but most theorist think no. I see little connection to the big bang theory. In my opinion black holes can merge, but it is very rare. Typically a sling shot manuver occurs when they miss by a small amount assuring that the next close approach of these two black holes is billions of years in the future, perhaps much longer. Tiny black holes evaporate in less than a second, solar mass black holes last billions of years, if not trillions of years. Super massive black hole last much longer, partly because they recapture most of the mass they evaporated. Neil

kmarinas86 · Oct 6, 2005

Mass-Radius Relationshp of a Black hole Radius = Mass * ~10^-27 meters / kg where 2G/c² = R/M Mass sun ~10^30 kg Mass Milkyway ~10^41 kg Mass of 100 billion Milkyways ~10^52 kg Light year ~10^16 m Radius of a black hole the mass of 100 billion Milkyways ~10^(52-27) or ~10^25 m or ~10^9 light years or ~1 billion light years

nexium · Oct 7, 2005

Hi kmarinas: You figured the mass visable with a telescope. If there is ~11 times that much dark matter the radius is 13.7 light-years. That is not proof that we live in a black hole as the dark matter may be more and the visable matter is likely less as there are lots more class m stars than class g and more massive stars. I edited my previous post to include the dark matter in the Visable Universe. Neil

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

CRAZYEDDIE: "On the contrary, quasars have everything to do with black holes, since they are thought to be the active centers of very distant galaxies, and the only power source that could produce such tiny, energetic objects are accretion disks for supermassive black holes." Well, I would be careful about stating the only power source. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

Velocity

Saiph · Oct 7, 2005

velocity of what? We know it's an incredible output of energy, that's very stable, occuring in a region only light minutes across. Sure, velocity is part of kinetic energy, but it can't be the sole driving mechanism, as something has to make these things move to keep the effect from dissipating over time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

I don't know, everything is moving faster in that relative direction for some reason. We know that things appear smaller at faster velocieties, so the center of the our galaxy could be much larger than what it appears to be. Maybe our galaxy is a universe.

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

They don't have a clue what is at the heart of our galaxy, and neither do you.

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

Velocity -(v) is a change in displacement with respect to time -(t), or a quickness of motion. Speed is a time rate of linear motion in a given direction, and this rate of occurrence or action is rapidity, in which rapidity is the quality or state of being rapid. Rapid is marked by a fast rate of motion, activity, succession, or occurrence. For instance, a part of a river where the current is fast and broken is referred to as rapid(s), as in whitewater rapids. [1] -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second, which is approximately the max speed that visible light can travel regardless of what color shade the wave is projecting, e.g., (blue shifted, red shifted, etc.): Speed of Light. [2] -( c i ) is something new I created to help explain my logic, so that you all know that I have math to back up my words. As I stated above, -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second; however, I attached -( i ) so that I can talk about light as if it can be invisible, whereas -( c i ) is invisible light, as in -( c i ) > 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Tachyon", because I think a tachyon is something different. [3] -( c v ) is another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated twice already; however, I attached -( v ) so that I can differentiate between visible and invisible light, whereas -( c v ) is visible light, as in -( c v ) less than or equal to 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Anti-Light", because I think Anti-Light is something different. [4] -( c L ) is yet another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated three times already; however, I attached -( L ) so that I can have a constant length to work with regardless of length contraction brought about by the affects of velocity -(v). -

Black Holes (yes I know, a cliche group of questions)

franklinbr

Guest

jatslo

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

franklinbr

Guest

newtonian

Guest

jatslo

Guest

franklinbr

Guest

franklinbr

Guest

newtonian

Guest

rodrunner79

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

nexium

Guest

nexium

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

nexium

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page